See, that's the simplistic way of thinking which CNN and MSNBC hope will be utilized when analyzing the situation. I guess it's working!Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
So you're saying that you don't think it was designed to prevent people from voting?
It isn't an automatic that "more people voting = good". It depends HOW you get these people voting, and whether unfair extra steps are being taken to nudge a certain portion of electorate into casting a vote.
If the state handed out $100 to each person after they finished voting, that would increase turnout tremendously. But would it be right? Obviously not.
Voting is a right. However, effortless voting is NOT a right. That's why it's ridiculous when the rollback of COVID-related exceptions in Georgia is considered "suppression". It's also ridiculous to say that a government ID requirement is suppression, when there are far more things you can't do without government ID than voting.
Take the mobile bus situation I described in a previous post today. On the surface, a mobile bus making it easier to vote seems like a great idea to increase access to voting. But when that bus is only running in one (heavily Democratic) county, and only parking itself in places where Democrats are far more likely to utilize it, then it doesn't become so great, right?
I've admitted all along that each party is attempting to act in its own interest, so I don't know why you think it's such a gotcha that Republicans passed this law to help them in future elections. Both parties are getting involved with this issue for the exact same reason -- to help themselves.
It comes down to this:
Democrats have determined that a certain portion of their base won't vote unless you make it super duper easy and effortless for them, and that they have more of these type of people than Republicans. Therefore, Democrats want voter laws which make it super duper easy and effortless to vote, so as to nudge these lazy voters to the polls.
Republicans have determined the exact same thing. Thus, they are trying to keep the voting much more standard, to where all of these additional allowances are either eliminated or reduced. They aren't doing this to suppress, but rather because they feel that the Democrats are only pushing this ridiculous shit in order to increase their vote totals.
I'm glad Sloppy Joe is one of the few Democrats who realizes that this isn't about racism, but he's still stuck on the voter suppression whine, which is very sad.
Why can't you just admit that both parties are acting in their own interests, and there isn't an obvious line between which rules are reasonable and unreasonable, when it comes to stuff like this?
Suppression means you're actually preventing people from voting. Nobody is being prevented from voting. Decreased drop boxes, the lack of the Double Dutch Voter Bus, the ID requirement... none of this is preventing people who want to vote from being able to do so in the next election.
You need to face the fact that a good portion of your party just doesn't feel like voting unless someone holds their hand the whole way and requires zero effort on their part. I see no reason to have to accommodate people like that. People have a funny definition of voting these days.
Reply With Quote