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

[D3thray]

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.

Would you then disagree that there are statutes in the bill specifically devoted to regulating ‘manner’ and ‘timing’ in the bill. Because again, just going by the OP, there are.

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.

You realize the statutes hit places like New Jersey and New York as well. Two pretty major Democrat strongholds. Regardless the debate is between those state and federal portions of the elections clause as stated. That’s the Republican perspective as requested. You don’t have to agree with it, I’m certainly not making a case for or against it here.

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

Never in the history of ever has the solution to a law not working been to make another law saying the same thing. Unless you’re putting on theatre for the ignorant masses. You can probably guess what I think is going on.

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

No offense taken, I’m just laying out the Republican argument as I understand it, not trying to make a case for it.

[Edge-]

Would you then disagree that there are statutes in the bill specifically devoted to regulating ‘manner’ and ‘timing’ in the bill. Because again, just going by the OP, there are.

None of which are disallowed in the Constitution, and given the consistent attempts of state level Republicans to deny people their Constitutional right to vote, is sadly necessary.

If Republicans weren't causing a problem, this legislation wouldn't be necessary.

Just like the Voting Rights Act.

You realize the statutes hit places like New Jersey and New York as well. Two pretty major Democrat strongholds.

Why yes I do, thanks for pointing out that this is not a partisan bill aimed only at Republican states but rather a neutral bill aimed at everyone.

That’s the Republican perspective as requested. You don’t have to agree with it, I’m certainly not making a case for or against it here.

And that's fine. I'm just here pointing out it's an argument built on lies and dishonesty while I wait for a remotely honest argument. If there is one.

Never in the history of ever has the solution to a law not working been to make another law saying the same thing.

The Voting Rights Act.

[Endus]

Would you then disagree that there are statutes in the bill specifically devoted to regulating ‘manner’ and ‘timing’ in the bill. Because again, just going by the OP, there are.

What, exactly, do you think this proves?

The federal government has always had a capacity for regulatory oversight of elections.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution. You need to keep reading the whole thing;

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.

It's not even a separate sentence. If you're citing that States can, Constitutionally, control the way their elections run, the same clause gives Congress even greater oversight and regulatory authority over those proceedings. That has always been the case, and pretending otherwise is willful dishonesty.

Not yours. It's the Republicans whining about this who are liars and con men. They know this, they're just relying on their fascy base to support any lies that help them seize more power, however illicitly.

You realize the statutes hit places like New Jersey and New York as well. Two pretty major Democrat strongholds.

And? Protecting elections shouldn't be a partisan thing. You're trying to act as if it's partisan. Sure feels like that's a "you" problem.

Regardless the debate is between those state and federal portions of the elections clause as stated. That’s the Republican perspective as requested.

There's no real debate. States were granted broad privileges. Congress was given even greater oversight to not just make laws overruling those State laws, but to alter those State laws directly if need be. It's a single sentence and it's written in plain (if somewhat archaic) English.

We get that the Republican "perspective" is to lie about the Constitution and what it says, but that isn't a defense of their falsehoods. They're just obviously wrong, and if you're telling me they're wrong honestly, then I'm going to suggest they probably need to have a social worker touch base to make sure they're okay and living safe, because they're not fit to handle living by themselves without oversight, let alone making legislation for others. We're talking "shouldn't be allowed to use an oven to heat up hot pockets" levels of challenge with basic function.

[D3thray]

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.

Now that’s a dishonest take at best and a willfully bad faith interpretation at worst. Because I know you’re not merely gullible or ignorant. I know you’re not saying that certain groups of people delineated by say race/age/gender are less capable or less likely than other groups of meeting the requirements for voting in their states. Because that would actually be racist.

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.

I’m not pushing anything beyond an actually discussion of the OP. To my understanding, yes that is the Democrat perspective on the issue, I’d agree.

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.

I’m sorry, who doesn’t understand how state and federal elections work again? If you vote for a federal representative who then votes for a law that affects a state you don’t live in, they might get a little miffed about that don’t you think? Have a little empathy. I’m just explaining my understanding of why beyond theatre of their own that Republicans would oppose this legislation with a little more nuance than ‘they’re evil nazi’s’.

I mean it’s only the Republicans entire raison d'être for most voters at this point since they don’t really do anything else. The Stop-Democrats-from-interfering-in-my-life Party doesn’t have quite the same ring.

- - - Updated - - -

The Voting Rights Act.

Ok ONE, time. And a temporary reminder at that given the current state of the bill.

[Endus]

Now that’s a dishonest take at best and a willfully bad faith interpretation at worst. Because I know you’re not merely gullible or ignorant. I know you’re not saying that certain groups of people delineated by say race/age/gender are less capable or less likely than other groups of meeting the requirements for voting in their states. Because that would actually be racist.

Do we really have to dig into the history of Republican voter ID laws being overturned because of exactly that? Or that there's never been a threat of voter fraud, despite that mythical threat being the supposed motive for those laws being passed?

It isn't "dishonest". It's fact. Republicans have willfully pushed deliberately prejudicial legislation with the explicit intent to disenfranchise Democratic voters (or at least, more Democratic than Republican voters). That's just factual history at this point. Denying it is delusion.

And when it comes to the current animus against the new Voter Rights Act, they're trying to argue that it's unconstitutional, when the Constitution explicitly allows for such federal legislation and oversight. They're liars. Once we know they're liars, it's pretty trivial to expose that their issues are with the protections that act would provide, not some State vs Federal authority issue.

I’m sorry, who doesn’t understand how state and federal elections work again? If you vote for a federal representative who then votes for a law that affects a state you don’t live in, they might get a little miffed about that don’t you think?

Are we talking national laws that apply to every State, or laws specific only to one State?

Because it sure looks like you're suggesting the very existence of a federal government is somehow "unfair" to members of any given State, because it might pass laws that were voted through by representatives from States other than your own. And yeah. That's how federal governments work. You've discovered the concept of a federal government. And you're angry about it.

Have a little empathy.

I have empathy for those whose rights to vote are being actively and willfully obstructed.

That's how empathy works. Me understand the motives of those seeking to engage in said obstruction is also rooted in "empathy", even if I fundamentally reject the emotions motivating those decisions. The same way you might empathically understand why a husband murdered his wife when he found out she'd cheated on him, while simultaneously stating that it categorically means he's a violent and abusive person who needs to face decades in prison for his indefensible acts.

Understanding does not require acceptance and support. Sometimes, empathy leads to you understanding, say, why some people are racists. And that empathy then tells you why those racists are evil, abusive people. Not that they aren't evil.

I mean it’s only the Republicans entire raison d'être for most voters at this point since they don’t really do anything else. The Stop-Democrats-from-interfering-in-my-life Party doesn’t have quite the same ring.

Again, I understand this is their viewpoint.

It's a seditionist, unthinking, partisan viewpoint, and it's the entry point to fascism. And most of those making these arguments are primarily focused on what they see as Democratic censure of things like racism, homophobia, and other petty, shitty bigotries.

If you're trying to limit the number of votes cast by black Americans, getting angry that "the Democrats are interfering in my life" just demonstrates how deeply malicious and racist your "life" always was.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok ONE, time. And a temporary reminder at that given the current state of the bill.

https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws

The Civil Rights Acts of 1870, 1957, 1960, and 1964, not just the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Oh, also the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984.
And The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002.
The Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act of 2009.

So okay, TEN times.

Maybe you just don't actually have a valid argument.

[Beefhammer]

Now that’s a dishonest take at best and a willfully bad faith interpretation at worst. Because I know you’re not merely gullible or ignorant. I know you’re not saying that certain groups of people delineated by say race/age/gender are less capable or less likely than other groups of meeting the requirements for voting in their states. Because that would actually be racist.
I’m not pushing anything beyond an actually discussion of the OP. To my understanding, yes that is the Democrat perspective on the issue, I’d agree.




I’m sorry, who doesn’t understand how state and federal elections work again? If you vote for a federal representative who then votes for a law that affects a state you don’t live in, they might get a little miffed about that don’t you think? Have a little empathy. I’m just explaining my understanding of why beyond theatre of their own that Republicans would oppose this legislation with a little more nuance than ‘they’re evil nazi’s’.

I mean it’s only the Republicans entire raison d'être for most voters at this point since they don’t really do anything else. The Stop-Democrats-from-interfering-in-my-life Party doesn’t have quite the same ring.

- - - Updated - - -



Ok ONE, time. And a temporary reminder at that given the current state of the bill.

Do yourself a favor and do some research before posting that Endus doesn't know their shit or is arguing in bad faith. Endus knows their shit and will always back it up with source backed facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we really have to dig into the history of Republican voter ID laws being overturned because of exactly that? Or that there's never been a threat of voter fraud, despite that mythical threat being the supposed motive for those laws being passed?

It isn't "dishonest". It's fact. Republicans have willfully pushed deliberately prejudicial legislation with the explicit intent to disenfranchise Democratic voters (or at least, more Democratic than Republican voters). That's just factual history at this point. Denying it is delusion.

And when it comes to the current animus against the new Voter Rights Act, they're trying to argue that it's unconstitutional, when the Constitution explicitly allows for such federal legislation and oversight. They're liars. Once we know they're liars, it's pretty trivial to expose that their issues are with the protections that act would provide, not some State vs Federal authority issue.



Are we talking national laws that apply to every State, or laws specific only to one State?

Because it sure looks like you're suggesting the very existence of a federal government is somehow "unfair" to members of any given State, because it might pass laws that were voted through by representatives from States other than your own. And yeah. That's how federal governments work. You've discovered the concept of a federal government. And you're angry about it.



I have empathy for those whose rights to vote are being actively and willfully obstructed.

That's how empathy works. Me understand the motives of those seeking to engage in said obstruction is also rooted in "empathy", even if I fundamentally reject the emotions motivating those decisions. The same way you might empathically understand why a husband murdered his wife when he found out she'd cheated on him, while simultaneously stating that it categorically means he's a violent and abusive person who needs to face decades in prison for his indefensible acts.

Understanding does not require acceptance and support. Sometimes, empathy leads to you understanding, say, why some people are racists. And that empathy then tells you why those racists are evil, abusive people. Not that they aren't evil.



Again, I understand this is their viewpoint.

It's a seditionist, unthinking, partisan viewpoint, and it's the entry point to fascism. And most of those making these arguments are primarily focused on what they see as Democratic censure of things like racism, homophobia, and other petty, shitty bigotries.

If you're trying to limit the number of votes cast by black Americans, getting angry that "the Democrats are interfering in my life" just demonstrates how deeply malicious and racist your "life" always was.

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws

The Civil Rights Acts of 1870, 1957, 1960, and 1964, not just the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Oh, also the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984.
And The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002.
The Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act of 2009.

So okay, TEN times.

Maybe you just don't actually have a valid argument.

He doesn't, he's just projecting like most right wing chuds. It's right there in the first line.

[Coniferous]

Now that’s a dishonest take at best and a willfully bad faith interpretation at worst. Because I know you’re not merely gullible or ignorant. I know you’re not saying that certain groups of people delineated by say race/age/gender are less capable or less likely than other groups of meeting the requirements for voting in their states. Because that would actually be racist.
I’m not pushing anything beyond an actually discussion of the OP. To my understanding, yes that is the Democrat perspective on the issue, I’d agree.




I’m sorry, who doesn’t understand how state and federal elections work again? If you vote for a federal representative who then votes for a law that affects a state you don’t live in, they might get a little miffed about that don’t you think? Have a little empathy. I’m just explaining my understanding of why beyond theatre of their own that Republicans would oppose this legislation with a little more nuance than ‘they’re evil nazi’s’.

I mean it’s only the Republicans entire raison d'être for most voters at this point since they don’t really do anything else. The Stop-Democrats-from-interfering-in-my-life Party doesn’t have quite the same ring.

- - - Updated - - -


Ok ONE, time. And a temporary reminder at that given the current state of the bill.

Inflammatory language from other posters aside, I think the point is that a lot of times in our history, states' rights arguments have really been arguments for states to do something unsavory - most obviously, slavery. The language in every state's secession documents in 1861 was all about states rights with very little mentioned about slavery. It was all "we want to avoid federal intervention in our system", but the real motivation was "We don't want slavery to end".

To me, the "states rights" argument sounds like a dodge. I'm not even really sure why you would want states to have broad latitude to choose their own rules - seems better to develop a broad consensus that everyone follows. Particularly because states tend to be a lot more partisan than the federal government, so states make their own rules would be more likely to make rules that favor one side over the other.

So the real question is about the validity of the restrictions.

There is a messy argument about whether democrats are trying to use their slim majority to maintain power, which gets very circular because democrats will argue that they only have a slim majority because the republicans are suppressing voting... gross.

[Endus]

Inflammatory language from other posters aside

Tone policing is a shitty move, and it's significantly more offensive than what you're labelling as "inflammatory language".

I think the point is that a lot of times in our history, states' rights arguments have really been arguments for states to do something unsavory - most obviously, slavery. The language in every state's secession documents in 1861 was all about states rights with very little mentioned about slavery. It was all "we want to avoid federal intervention in our system", but the real motivation was "We don't want slavery to end".

Umm, probably want to go re-check your sources, cause this is pretty much false. The only "States' right" they were talking about, explicitly, was slavery.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...eceding-states

Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property . . . "

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

North Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "

Texas: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."

Virginia is the only Confederate State who didn't explicitly state the institution of slavery as their primary reason for secession, though it's implicit in their coming to the support of and alliance with "Southern slaveholding states".

They were really, really fuckin' open about all this. The idea that they weren't is Jim Crow era propaganda.

So the real question is about the validity of the restrictions.

There is a messy argument about whether democrats are trying to use their slim majority to maintain power, which gets very circular because democrats will argue that they only have a slim majority because the republicans are suppressing voting... gross.

There's not a shred of evidence of any malicious conduct my Democrats to "maintain power" by any means other than "winning more legitimate votes in fully-legal elections".

Meanwhile, we've got literally more than a century of conservative efforts to marginalize and disenfranchise minority voters, which have continued apace right up through into recent years. Hence the Voting Rights Act of '65. Hence the SCOTUS cases regarding intentionally discriminatory voter ID laws in some states. That Republicans are making efforts to disenfranchise legitimate Democratic voters isn't a hypothesis. It's verified and proven fact.

This isn't a "messy argument", and trying to both-sides it is garbage. One side is behaving unconscionably; the Republicans. Meanwhile, Democrats haven't been shown to have engaged in any chicanery regarding voter rights, at least not in the last few decades (I really don't feel like checking back to the '80s and before to catch minor issues in the aftermath of the VRA, since any such that might exist clearly haven't been maintained, unlike with Republicans).

[Coniferous]

Tone policing is a shitty move, and it's significantly more offensive than what you're labelling as "inflammatory language".



Umm, probably want to go re-check your sources, cause this is pretty much false. The only "States' right" they were talking about, explicitly, was slavery.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...eceding-states

Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property . . . "

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

North Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "

Texas: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."

Virginia is the only Confederate State who didn't explicitly state the institution of slavery as their primary reason for secession, though it's implicit in their coming to the support of and alliance with "Southern slaveholding states".

They were really, really fuckin' open about all this. The idea that they weren't is Jim Crow era propaganda.



There's not a shred of evidence of any malicious conduct my Democrats to "maintain power" by any means other than "winning more legitimate votes in fully-legal elections".

Meanwhile, we've got literally more than a century of conservative efforts to marginalize and disenfranchise minority voters, which have continued apace right up through into recent years. Hence the Voting Rights Act of '65. Hence the SCOTUS cases regarding intentionally discriminatory voter ID laws in some states. That Republicans are making efforts to disenfranchise legitimate Democratic voters isn't a hypothesis. It's verified and proven fact.

This isn't a "messy argument", and trying to both-sides it is garbage. One side is behaving unconscionably; the Republicans. Meanwhile, Democrats haven't been shown to have engaged in any chicanery regarding voter rights, at least not in the last few decades (I really don't feel like checking back to the '80s and before to catch minor issues in the aftermath of the VRA, since any such that might exist clearly haven't been maintained, unlike with Republicans).

More inflammatory language to ignore, but ok so there were some mentions of slavery... my point was really that states rights usually comes up when they're trying to do something unsavory.

But again, it still comes back to whether the things they are trying to do make sense. The states rights argument is pretty pointless. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your argument by the way, I don't know much about what's in the law. I'm just reacting to the states rights argument - and I think we are in agreement on that.

[Endus]

More inflammatory language to ignore

What "inflammatory language", exactly?

Daring to call you out for empty tone policing, which you're doing again here in an attempt to avoid dealing with arguments you have no real answer to?

The observable reality that there are wide gaps in ethicality between Republicans and Democrats, where the former are far more malicious in their legislative intent?

but ok so there were some mentions of slavery...

Repeated statements that their only motives were the protection of the institution of slavery, you mean.

Why are you deflecting from that simple reality? It's right there; anyone else can go read the links. I pulled choice quotes, for sure, but that was in pursuit of brevity, and nothing else, I linked to a source with the entire bodies of those secession declarations precisely because I know anyone can go check and read the whole thing and see that I am not in any way misrepresenting their content.

my point was really that states rights usually comes up when they're trying to do something unsavory.

Which I never contested. Yes; it's a lie that's never meant anything.

But again, it still comes back to whether the things they are trying to do make sense. The states rights argument is pretty pointless. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your argument by the way, I don't know much about what's in the law. I'm just reacting to the states rights argument - and I think we are in agreement on that.

Lying about "States' rights" and stuff does make sense.

It's a convenient lie that conceals their actual motives, and even better, it's a century-and-a-half-old dogwhistle that provides both deniability (however implausible, given this history) and guarantees that everyone in their base knows the real message being sent.

That's malicious in intent and action, yes. But their goal is to engage in said malice. That's not an accident, it's their primary purpose and goal. Lying in pursuit of achieving those malicious outcomes makes sense, if they think the lie will help achieve them.

It's just ethically heinous and demonstrates how thoroughly contemptible they are as people.

"Making sense" doesn't mean "isn't heinous and evil". The Holocaust "made sense" to a Nazi regime who wanted to exterminate their critics and opposition as well as use various other groups as scapegoats to flare up their base. That's also a big part of why Nazis were horrible and evil. It wasn't because they were nonsensical. It's because their actions were deliberate and intentional and very specifically made a lot of sense in the pursuit of achieving their evil, horrible goals.

[Coniferous]

What "inflammatory language", exactly?

Daring to call you out for empty tone policing, which you're doing again here in an attempt to avoid dealing with arguments you have no real answer to?

The observable reality that there are wide gaps in ethicality between Republicans and Democrats, where the former are far more malicious in their legislative intent?



Repeated statements that their only motives were the protection of the institution of slavery, you mean.

Why are you deflecting from that simple reality? It's right there; anyone else can go read the links. I pulled choice quotes, for sure, but that was in pursuit of brevity, and nothing else, I linked to a source with the entire bodies of those secession declarations precisely because I know anyone can go check and read the whole thing and see that I am not in any way misrepresenting their content.



Which I never contested. Yes; it's a lie that's never meant anything.



Lying about "States' rights" and stuff does make sense.

It's a convenient lie that conceals their actual motives, and even better, it's a century-and-a-half-old dogwhistle that provides both deniability (however implausible, given this history) and guarantees that everyone in their base knows the real message being sent.

That's malicious in intent and action, yes. But their goal is to engage in said malice. That's not an accident, it's their primary purpose and goal. Lying in pursuit of achieving those malicious outcomes makes sense, if they think the lie will help achieve them.

It's just ethically heinous and demonstrates how thoroughly contemptible they are as people.

"Making sense" doesn't mean "isn't heinous and evil". The Holocaust "made sense" to a Nazi regime who wanted to exterminate their critics and opposition as well as use various other groups as scapegoats to flare up their base. That's also a big part of why Nazis were horrible and evil. It wasn't because they were nonsensical. It's because their actions were deliberate and intentional and very specifically made a lot of sense in the pursuit of achieving their evil, horrible goals.

Ok, delete the word "some" from my statement... really was trying to admit I was wrong and agree with you... just take the win.

[Shalcker]

To me, the "states rights" argument sounds like a dodge. I'm not even really sure why you would want states to have broad latitude to choose their own rules - seems better to develop a broad consensus that everyone follows. Particularly because states tend to be a lot more partisan than the federal government, so states make their own rules would be more likely to make rules that favor one side over the other.

Isn't that exactly a problem with developing "broad consensus that everyone follows"?

How would you have everyone on the same page when both sides are convinced that other side pushes something purely self-serving - be that various measures to increase minority participation or gerrymandering empowering rural vote ?

And those measures do seem mostly self-serving, even if they are technically based on more broad values.

[Coniferous]

Isn't that exactly a problem with developing "broad consensus that everyone follows"?

How would you have everyone on the same page when both sides are convinced that other side pushes something purely self-serving - be that various measures to increase minority participation or gerrymandering empowering rural vote ?

And those measures do seem mostly self-serving, even if they are technically based on more broad values.

The whole “which side does it benefit” argument goes nowhere because you can’t make any rules then… the only way to do this is to be principled and argue what the rules should be based on democratic principles.

[Logwyn]

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/10730...dvancement-act

So let's go 1 by 1

Voting Holiday: What's the opposition here? How is this bad? It seems like guaranteeing that folks can get time off to vote in person is a good thing, and I'm not sure how this could expose risk to any fraud.

Not good enough. Monday and Tuesday should both be days for voting and BOTH should be national holidays where school and everything is closed. Have celebrations and parades. Holiday specials and BBQ's If you can't figure out two days to go vote shame on you!!!

[Shalcker]

The whole “which side does it benefit” argument goes nowhere because you can’t make any rules then… the only way to do this is to be principled and argue what the rules should be based on democratic principles.

Which shared principles do Republicans and Democrats have in this case that could be used as a base?

And how would it be meaningfully different from existing situation?

They quite clearly have different priorities and opinions on which parts should or should not be changed.

[Glorious Leader]

Which shared principles do Republicans and Democrats have in this case that could be used as a base?

And how would it be meaningfully different from existing situation?

They quite clearly have different priorities and opinions on which parts should or should not be changed.

How bout democracy? Oh yea the Republicans don't share a belief in that.

[Shalcker]

How bout democracy? Oh yea the Republicans don't share a belief in that.

That's like "they believe in voting" - both true and meaningless.

[Lenonis]

Typical dishonest framing

It's so nice and refreshing to see someone who still sees the good in people who are openly saying they are up to no good.

Here's the real framing of the issue:
Democrats: Let's making voting as easy as possible for eligible voters since investigation after investigation has shown that illegal voting is a non-issue.
Republicans: Let's making voting as hard as possible since we're now just openly admitting that if we let people vote we'll start losing elections. Oh and let's just flat out lie about the results of the voter fraud investigations while we are at it since it's showing we're the ones doing it. Whoopsy.

[Endus]

Isn't that exactly a problem with developing "broad consensus that everyone follows"?

I'm not even sure why you'd bring that up, because "broad consensus" has never been the goal of democratic governance.

How would you have everyone on the same page when both sides are convinced that other side pushes something purely self-serving - be that various measures to increase minority participation or gerrymandering empowering rural vote ?

1> "Both sides" is a distraction. It posits an equivalence that does not exist.
2> You said the quiet part out loud; that Republicans oppose voter rights laws because Republicans are racists who want to disenfranchise minority voters.
3> Gerrymandering is not done to "empower the rural vote". That's a lie. Where the hell are you getting this shit?

[D3thray]

Well yeah it’s not JUST racist.

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

Don’t sell them short.

I don’t think either party has a leg to stand on in that area. It’s really obvious with this latest kerfuffle.