What's in the Freedom to Vote Act, and why do Republicans think it's bad?

[Beefhammer]

A lot of the measures make sense and many states have passed them. In fact, if my state didn't have a couple, I'd want the legislature to pass them.

The only one I think makes sense and makes sense federally is making election day a federal holiday. Make that the bill, and I'd want my senator and representative to vote for it.

For states, I favor no-excuse absentee voting. I like bans on ballot harvesting. I like voter ID, freely provided by the state with budgets devoted to paying workers to sign up and courier IDs to anyone that wishes to vote but has trouble obtaining one. I'd be willing to relax voter ID requirement if less concerning activities in a Democracy, like flying on a plane, no longer required it. And, thankfully, voter ID has broad public support and for good reason.

Partisan gerrymandering sucks, but then again, I prefer the partisanship among elected officials, and not wondering about the ideological leanings of programmers or "independent" councils.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/statu...62940278677508
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ticians-hands/
(I'll have to find a link to oral arguments/a good supreme court justice debate on the efficacy of supposedly academic and non-partisan means of deciding district boundaries. I can't recall the case right now, but it was in the last fifteen years)

Purging voter roles is fine, so long as it isn't too aggressive for midterms and off-year elections. Notify the voter beforehand, naturally, and make it as easy as mailing back their desires in a preaddressed envelope. The state has an interest in applying their election law to a very current roster of eligible voters, and naturally, voters are not required to notify their state if they're moving.

Joining in a group to try to convince fellow citizens to change their vote, and soliciting and donating money for that effect, is a core part of political speech and speech rights. Certain funders or donors should not be exposed to activist groups with lists of who donated what. I've seen the results of that in Brendan Eich and campaigns against certain advertisers. I oppose most of the legislation, including this one, that tries to change the rules on funding. I do support state agencies and law enforcement tracking foreign donors to political campaigns.

The federal government should not be helping candidates raise money in any direct fashion. If a state wants to do it, go for it and see if any good comes from it, but I'd still oppose for my state.

I'll have to check if the absurd change to statute of limitations for certain crimes is still in this current version. I'll also have to check if it shakes up the bipartisan regime of FEC actions. The same goes for changes in the appeal process to the FEC. The bill as debated several months ago contained objectionable changes on those three.

You don't seem to understand that one person falsely boarding a plane or entering a government build can cause far more harm than a person falsely voting? Your ID is already verified when you register to vote. You are asked to prove who you are when going to the ballot. If you cannot provide you voter registration you sign an affidavit and fill out a provisional ballot, which is not counted until identification is verified.

There are many failsafes in place already voter ID isn't need and no fucking red state that wants to force these will not pay for brown people to get them or for people to bring it to them. The fact that you support voter ID rules just proves you have no clue or are racist. Probably both given your stances and posting history.

[Endus]

I saw a clip of a recent Ben Shapiro video where he equated it to "tyranny of the majority" and, you know, basically came out as anti-Democracy.

I mean, obviously it's because they need every unfair advantage they can get to squeeze out wins. Republican presidential candidates have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years.

It's just the standard Fascism gameplan.

Support democracy if it will lead to you gaining power.
Oppose democracy if it will not lead to you gaining power.

All the positions of a fascist are mutable, around the desired outcome of gaining more power. You can't shame them by pointing this out, because they know they'll do anything to gain power; they're not making a mistake.

[tehdang]

You don't seem to understand that one person falsely boarding a plane or entering a government build can cause far more harm than a person falsely voting? Your ID is already verified when you register to vote. You are asked to prove who you are when going to the ballot. If you cannot provide you voter registration you sign an affidavit and fill out a provisional ballot, which is not counted until identification is verified.

There are many failsafes in place already voter ID isn't need and no fucking red state that wants to force these will not pay for brown people to get them or for people to bring it to them. The fact that you support voter ID rules just proves you have no clue or are racist. Probably both given your stances and posting history.

I'd strip every photo ID provision before I'd do the same for voting simply because the damage to loss of trust in Democracy is worse than any possible damage to planes or government buildings. It's the most important act in civics, so by all means, shut down airlines and conduct all government business without photo ID prior to that. I rate the harms much differently than you.

You're also touching on existing voter ID laws. The provisional ballot and identification verification is a means of it. The cast in person with no ID shown is not.

I'm not here to psychically read the malintentions and inanity of every red state politician. "no fucking red state that wants to force these will not pay for brown people to get them or for people to bring it to them" is casting aspersions that are untrue of my views of the subject. And, lest I remind you, voter ID is very popular in the list of measures taken on voting, and it's not because majorities across the country hate brown and black people. I'm risking stating the obvious by even saying it.

Accusing red states of bad intentions is one thing, but also "given your stances and posting history" is the kind of blatant accusations of bad faith that will limit my further interactions. You can hold whatever prejudices in that head of yours you want, without need for me wasting time and attention in whatever curiosity project this is for you. I'm not here to argue people out of whatever ideological baggage is weighing them down with right-of-center posters, I'm just a busy person that spends more time on people where principals and reasoning matter more than "eww hes a bad person that believes bad things for bad reasons" vibe.

[Endus]

Accusing red states of bad intentions is one thing, but also "given your stances and posting history" is the kind of blatant accusations of bad faith that will limit my further interactions. You can hold whatever prejudices in that head of yours you want, without need for me wasting time and attention in whatever curiosity project this is for you.

People judging you, as an individual, for the actual content of your prior posts here on these forums, is the literal opposite of "prejudice". It's just normal judgement, based on the available evidence.

[bladeXcrasher]

This gets a wee bit too far off topic. I gave my perspective on lobbying and government philosophy because the bill, or the bill's supporters, see this as a partial remedy. Asking for the basic pro-con of conservative philosophy regarding the growth of government over two centuries is better suited for a book, or reading over several articles from legacy conservative publications or think tanks.

My original post in this thread gives my perspective on why I oppose the law that recently died for failure to find enough Democratic votes in their majority to sidestep the Senate rules for the bill. If you have further questions pertaining to what I said and why I said it, direct it there.

Kinda funny you bring something up, then dodge when asked for clarification. One can only assume it's because you are against voting, civil, and workers rights.

[Mekh]

the damage to loss of trust in Democracy is worse than any possible damage to planes or government buildings.

Should maybe make spreading lies about election fraud punishable then.

[Egomaniac]

Some republicans might honestly believe there's widespread fraud that gives dems wins. There's no proof of that, of course, but I'm sure some believe it.

That is the thing. I actually do believe that Trump believes there must have been fraud....because he's a narcissist thats incapable of conceiving the thought that he lost fair and square. He claimed there was fraud in 2016 when he lost the popular vote. He rationalized that the only reason his approval ratings were so low was because the "Fake News" was whipping the American People against him. Even in the primaries for the Republican nomination... he claimed that every one he lost was because the "establishment" was blocking him. As far as Trump is concerned...every bad thing that has ever happened to him is someone else's fault.

[unfilteredJW]

I'd strip every photo ID provision before I'd do the same for voting simply because the damage to loss of trust in Democracy is worse than any possible damage to planes or government buildings. It's the most important act in civics, so by all means, shut down airlines and conduct all government business without photo ID prior to that. I rate the harms much differently than you.

You're also touching on existing voter ID laws. The provisional ballot and identification verification is a means of it. The cast in person with no ID shown is not.

I'm not here to psychically read the malintentions and inanity of every red state politician. "no fucking red state that wants to force these will not pay for brown people to get them or for people to bring it to them" is casting aspersions that are untrue of my views of the subject. And, lest I remind you, voter ID is very popular in the list of measures taken on voting, and it's not because majorities across the country hate brown and black people. I'm risking stating the obvious by even saying it.

Accusing red states of bad intentions is one thing, but also "given your stances and posting history" is the kind of blatant accusations of bad faith that will limit my further interactions. You can hold whatever prejudices in that head of yours you want, without need for me wasting time and attention in whatever curiosity project this is for you. I'm not here to argue people out of whatever ideological baggage is weighing them down with right-of-center posters, I'm just a busy person that spends more time on people where principals and reasoning matter more than "eww hes a bad person that believes bad things for bad reasons" vibe.

"Don't judge me based on my actions, words, and stances."

You can't make this shit up.

[Machismo]

I'd strip every photo ID provision before I'd do the same for voting simply because the damage to loss of trust in Democracy is worse than any possible damage to planes or government buildings. It's the most important act in civics, so by all means, shut down airlines and conduct all government business without photo ID prior to that. I rate the harms much differently than you.

You're also touching on existing voter ID laws. The provisional ballot and identification verification is a means of it. The cast in person with no ID shown is not.

I'm not here to psychically read the malintentions and inanity of every red state politician. "no fucking red state that wants to force these will not pay for brown people to get them or for people to bring it to them" is casting aspersions that are untrue of my views of the subject. And, lest I remind you, voter ID is very popular in the list of measures taken on voting, and it's not because majorities across the country hate brown and black people. I'm risking stating the obvious by even saying it.

Accusing red states of bad intentions is one thing, but also "given your stances and posting history" is the kind of blatant accusations of bad faith that will limit my further interactions. You can hold whatever prejudices in that head of yours you want, without need for me wasting time and attention in whatever curiosity project this is for you. I'm not here to argue people out of whatever ideological baggage is weighing them down with right-of-center posters, I'm just a busy person that spends more time on people where principals and reasoning matter more than "eww hes a bad person that believes bad things for bad reasons" vibe.

You're literally complaining that people judge you by your words and actions.

[tehdang]

Should maybe make spreading lies about election fraud punishable then.

I don't like it in regards to First Amendment concerns, but in discussions to compromise on voter ID, let's negotiate.

"Don't judge me based on my actions, words, and stances."

You can't make this shit up.

You're literally complaining that people judge you by your words and actions.

By all means, judge, but endless repetition in threads is dumb. Shorter form is: "Answer me this, and by the way this post, your stances, and your posting history means you're clueless or racist." Can we just assume the current state of American Politics means we think each other are dumb and/or evil for not already agreeing with us?

[Endus]

By all means, judge, but endless repetition in threads is dumb. Shorter form is: "Answer me this, and by the way this post, your stances, and your posting history means you're clueless or racist." Can we just assume the current state of American Politics means we think each other are dumb and/or evil for not already agreeing with us?

This is aggressive anti-intellectualism incarnate.

No, we can't just refuse to engage in analysis of your words and content and what that means about you as a person. If you want that kind of privacy, you're free to keep your opinions to yourself. You put them out in public, like this, and you invite that scrutiny and analysis.

You also implicitly admit that you, personally, just mindlessly presume those you disagree with are "dumb and/or evil". And then you project that, as if it's what everyone is doing.

It is not. It's you. You can't connect those dots with others posting, and your only argument in that has been to suggest they're engaging in "prejudice", when three of us have now pointed out that it isn't prejudice at all, just judgement. No "pre-". You're being judged for things you say and why you say them. As any reasonable person does with anyone they engage with. This is how discussion works.

Further; "the current state of American politics" is, again, projection of your own personal issues. I'm not even American; nothing I argue has anything to do with any "side" in American politics, because I do not have any piece in that game, in the first place. My perspective is that of an outsider.

[unfilteredJW]

I don't like it in regards to First Amendment concerns, but in discussions to compromise on voter ID, let's negotiate.

By all means, judge, but endless repetition in threads is dumb. Shorter form is: "Answer me this, and by the way this post, your stances, and your posting history means you're clueless or racist." Can we just assume the current state of American Politics means we think each other are dumb and/or evil for not already agreeing with us?

No we can't.

Because that last bit there? That's projection. You being an awful person is a you issue, and you don't get to assume everyone else is as awful as you to justify your awfulness. And we know this based on your views, expressed in this and other threads.

[Beefhammer]

I'd strip every photo ID provision before I'd do the same for voting simply because the damage to loss of trust in Democracy is worse than any possible damage to planes or government buildings. It's the most important act in civics, so by all means, shut down airlines and conduct all government business without photo ID prior to that. I rate the harms much differently than you.

You're also touching on existing voter ID laws. The provisional ballot and identification verification is a means of it. The cast in person with no ID shown is not.

I'm not here to psychically read the malintentions and inanity of every red state politician. "no fucking red state that wants to force these will not pay for brown people to get them or for people to bring it to them" is casting aspersions that are untrue of my views of the subject. And, lest I remind you, voter ID is very popular in the list of measures taken on voting, and it's not because majorities across the country hate brown and black people. I'm risking stating the obvious by even saying it.

Accusing red states of bad intentions is one thing, but also "given your stances and posting history" is the kind of blatant accusations of bad faith that will limit my further interactions. You can hold whatever prejudices in that head of yours you want, without need for me wasting time and attention in whatever curiosity project this is for you. I'm not here to argue people out of whatever ideological baggage is weighing them down with right-of-center posters, I'm just a busy person that spends more time on people where principals and reasoning matter more than "eww hes a bad person that believes bad things for bad reasons" vibe.

Your first point is wrong. Republican lies and desires for a facist state is what's eroding trust in Democracy not the fact that people don't need Voter IDs to vote

Your second point is the reason why we don't need voter ID laws because votes from voters that are incapable of proving who they are are set aside until they are verified. And guess what? That is how they catch almost every fraudulent vote cast, you know like all 1 dozen. Which wouldn't have made a difference. Proving once again, voter fraud isn't an issue and the laws in place already do their job to weed it out when it happens.

You third point is tou just not wanting to admit to what is actually happening. We have had republicans for decades caught on tape saying things like this and evidence about what their goals are for gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.

Lastly, you said thos things, I merely mad an observation about you based on your public statements. If you can't stand the fire stay out of the kitchen. Youd be best to shut up if you cannot refrain from framing yourself as an anti democratic racist. That's on you, we all see it.

[Machismo]

I don't like it in regards to First Amendment concerns, but in discussions to compromise on voter ID, let's negotiate.

By all means, judge, but endless repetition in threads is dumb. Shorter form is: "Answer me this, and by the way this post, your stances, and your posting history means you're clueless or racist." Can we just assume the current state of American Politics means we think each other are dumb and/or evil for not already agreeing with us?

What's dumb is having those stances and beliefs, then trying to hide from them, and getting upset that people are holding you to account. "Can we move past all my terrible stances, and let me keep pushing my terrible stances without being called out on them?"

Sorry, bro... that's not how it works.

You are begging for appeasement, and demanding you not be scrutinized for your attempts to push this bullshit.

[D3thray]

Haven’t seen it mentioned in a quick skim of the thread but this is all down to a quibble over the elections clause of the US constitution. Should states have control over their elections (Republican position) or the federal government (Democrat position)? The content of the bill is immaterial to that debate and as such of course it’s being used as a political cudgel by the intellectually dishonest.

Many of the measures proposed in the bill are already in place in many states (including those darn dirty ‘racist’ red states). I lean toward the states maintaining the regulatory responsibility for their own elections. It’s not like the populace doesn’t already vote in their local elections and would prefer to maintain the importance of local elections as those have the most direct impact on the day to day life of citizens.

[Edge-]

Haven’t seen it mentioned in a quick skim of the thread but this is all down to a quibble over the elections clause of the US constitution. Should states have control over their elections (Republican position) or the federal government (Democrat position)? The content of the bill is immaterial to that debate and as such of course it’s being used as a political cudgel by the intellectually dishonest.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The position you posit is a false dichotomy and a misrepresentation of the Democratic position. There are more than just, "States control things." and "Feds control things", Feds set minimum standards and some limits, states continue to have fairly broad authority in how they execute their elections.

Democrats are not proposing that the federal government have control over the elections, they will still be operated and controlled by the state. It's just setting some minimum standards, you know, like the Voting Rights Act which had to be put in place because some states weren't holding up their end of the law.

It’s not like the populace doesn’t already vote in their local elections and would prefer to maintain the importance of local elections as those have the most direct impact on the day to day life of citizens.

What do local elections have anything to do with the proposed bill?

[D3thray]

The position you posit is a false dichotomy and a misrepresentation of the Democratic position. There are more than just, "States control things." and "Feds control things", Feds set minimum standards and some limits, states continue to have fairly broad authority in how they execute their elections.

Democrats are not proposing that the federal government have control over the elections, they will still be operated and controlled by the state. It's just setting some minimum standards, you know, like the Voting Rights Act which had to be put in place because some states weren't holding up their end of the law.

There’s no false dichotomy here, that’s literally the heart of the debate. It’s the Republican position asked about in the OP. You realize this yes?

What do local elections have anything to do with the proposed bill?

Because to the Republican point of view, the people living in the states vote on representatives who then legislate election law in their own state, not other people’s states. Makes a not insignificant portion of the proposed bill redundant. Heck it’s already redundant with some existing federal law (the ADA for example).

Mind I’m just trying to better represent the Republican argument beyond ‘they raaaaaacist’.

[unfilteredJW]

There’s no false dichotomy here, that’s literally the heart of the debate. It’s the Republican position asked about in the OP. You realize this yes?



Because to the Republican point of view, the people living in the states vote on representatives who then legislate election law in their own state, not other people’s states. Makes a not insignificant portion of the proposed bill redundant. Heck it’s already redundant with some existing federal law (the ADA for example).

Mind I’m just trying to better represent the Republican argument beyond ‘they raaaaaacist’.

Well yeah it’s not JUST racist.

It’s also about power, selfishness, greed, and causing harm.

Don’t sell them short.

[Endus]

There’s no false dichotomy here, that’s literally the heart of the debate. It’s the Republican position asked about in the OP. You realize this yes?

It's a false dichotomy, because it isn't the Republican position. The Republican position is about States manipulating their election procedures unethically so that the Republicans in control of that State can maintain power, by disenfranchising voters opposed to them.

Nor is the Democratic position about Federal control, it's simply about making basic ethical principles like "don't use malicious prejudice to disenfranchise voters" or "elections should be fair and all citizens should have an equitable opportunity to vote without restriction" into actual legal principles underlying the election process, making acts that are currently only unethical and malicious into acts that are actually unlawful.

You're pushing propaganda, not clarifying positions.

Because to the Republican point of view, the people living in the states vote on representatives who then legislate election law in their own state, not other people’s states. Makes a not insignificant portion of the proposed bill redundant. Heck it’s already redundant with some existing federal law (the ADA for example).

Anyone holding this point of view, frankly, is an idiot who doesn't have a grade-schooler's grasp of how the US federal and state governments work.

If you're voting in the federal elections, you're voting for representatives who will legislate laws on the national level. State elections are a completely separate process.

"Why are these federal representatives passing laws that apply to the States" is just such an egregiously willfully ignorant position I find it hard to believe anyone legitimately holds it to be true. Not "legitimately", before you post a link to some poll, since I really don't care what lies people choose to push for political convenience.

[Edge-]

There’s no false dichotomy here, that’s literally the heart of the debate. It’s the Republican position asked about in the OP. You realize this yes?

It's not. It's a lie to argue that Democrats want federal control over elections. They want some minimums/limits to protect voting rights yes, but they are not proposing federal control over elections.

Because to the Republican point of view, the people living in the states vote on representatives who then legislate election law in their own state, not other people’s states.

Then that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is quite explicit in the Constitution. States have control over running their elections and broad control over how they operate, but there is a specific carveout for Congress to legislate around elections.

Their point of view literally requires that they ignore the Constitution, and pretends that we haven't had legislation like the Voting Rights Act specifically because many states - coincidentally enough Republican run states - were not actually running elections fairly and required federal oversight to ensure that people could vote as they are Constitutionally guaranteed.

Makes a not insignificant portion of the proposed bill redundant.

If this was the case, it wouldn't be necessary.

Mind I’m just trying to better represent the Republican argument beyond ‘they raaaaaacist’.

And right now, and this is not intended as an insult towards you, you're not doing a stellar job.