As a Republican how do you defend voter suppression?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Typical of leftist Democrats to use someone like this to support them;

n a deposition released last month, Jim Greer, who was ousted as party chief in 2010 and is currently on trial for corruption charges relating to his management of the party's finances, said that at times during his tenure “political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting."

Just more proof that what I said about felons is true, they all go Democrat.
 

Zxian

Senior member
May 26, 2011
579
0
0
Due to us being able to directly vote for our leader (as opposed to having the leader chosen for us by the party with the most MPs), we needed to come up with a system that allowed the states with small populations to still matter some in the elections. The Electoral College ensures that no state gets less than 4 EC votes. This mirrors what we did in the Senate, were every state gets 2 Senators regardless of how few people are in the state.

You're missing the point. When it comes to selecting a single federal leader such as a president, there is ZERO reason for one person's vote to have more weight than another.

In Canada, the PM is simply the leader of the party with the most seats. He/she happens to be the one to represent Canada on an international scale, but he/she doesn't have any more political capabilities than other members of parliament when it comes to passing motions (the PM cannot veto bills, for example). The number of votes needed to get him his seat in parliament is no different than the number of votes to get any other MP in the house.

Do you think that it's fair that your system allows for such a wide disparity between the popular vote and the number of EC votes? The second video shows an example of how you'd only need 22% of the popular vote in order to get your candidate into the Whitehouse.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Typical of leftist Democrats to use someone like this to support them;
Just more proof that what I said about felons is true, they all go Democrat.

Just more proof of your own state of denial, your acceptance of underhanded tactics so that your team can win.

We start with the whole concept of in person voter fraud, which is just a marketing tool, like bigfoot, Iraqi WMD's & the rest.

Repubs attach voter ID to that as if it's statistically significant, when it's not. You and the rest accept that on Faith, because you want to believe it's true, despite a total lack of proof.

When real life examples of people being disenfranchised are offered, you obfuscate & divert into discussion of other situations requiring ID, as if they matter. They don't.

When confronted, you resort to calling other kinds of electoral fraud "voter fraud" as if voter ID would diminish them, even though it won't. It can't. Felons voting in Minnesota has nothing to do with voter ID, and you won't even concede the truth in that.

Going further, you offer up a couple of Philly boneheads as proof of Dems' campaign of "voter suppression", as if that even vaguely compares to what Repubs are attempting nationwide.

When statements & actions by Repub figures in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, & Maryland are brought forth, you ignore them or attack the source.

You convince nobody but yourself & fellow rubes of the righteousness of voter suppression efforts, and you do so because you're afraid, very afraid, that real Democracy would threaten what you think you have to lose.

It's always been that way with Conservatives, who have attempted to limit the franchise all along. At first, only landowners could vote, which gave way under conservative reluctance to only white men over the age of 21 could vote in the 1850's. In the wake of the civil war, conservatives managed to keep it that way in many parts of the country with Jim Crow. Conservatives opposed Women's suffrage, and ultimately lost. They clung to Jim Crow ferociously until the civil rights acts of the 60's, and opposed lowering the voting age to 18, as well. But that doesn't mean they've given up, at all. They've just switched tactics, found new ways to attempt to stifle hostile voting groups, people who have every right to vote, just like the rest of us.

A poor person's vote is every bit as potent and as valuable as Mitt's, but only if they actually get to vote, so Repubs will do their damndest to see that they never get there.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
/snip............Do you think that it's fair that your system allows for such a wide disparity between the popular vote and the number of EC votes? The second video shows an example of how you'd only need 22% of the popular vote in order to get your candidate into the Whitehouse.


We have a Republican state in Nebraska that changed the way they cast their electoral votes, it goes by congressional district. Each district would get a vote. It would be a fairer system without our having to change our Constitution. Since I live in California though which is a majority Democrat state my vote never counts. What are the chances that Democrats in my state will vote to cost themselves some EC votes even if it is fairer and more representational and true to democracy?

Yeah they talk the bullshit hypocritical talk, but never walk the honest and fair walk.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
We have a Republican state in Nebraska that changed the way they cast their electoral votes, it goes by congressional district. Each district would get a vote. It would be a fairer system without our having to change our Constitution. Since I live in California though which is a majority Democrat state my vote never counts. What are the chances that Democrats in my state will vote to cost themselves some EC votes even if it is fairer and more representational and true to democracy?

Yeah they talk the bullshit hypocritical talk, but never walk the honest and fair walk.

Heh. The same could be said of Texas Repubs... whose gerrymandering has been epic & ruthless... using computer generated packing & cracking only dreamed of 30 years ago...
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You're missing the point. When it comes to selecting a single federal leader such as a president, there is ZERO reason for one person's vote to have more weight than another.

In Canada, the PM is simply the leader of the party with the most seats. He/she happens to be the one to represent Canada on an international scale, but he/she doesn't have any more political capabilities than other members of parliament when it comes to passing motions (the PM cannot veto bills, for example). The number of votes needed to get him his seat in parliament is no different than the number of votes to get any other MP in the house.

Do you think that it's fair that your system allows for such a wide disparity between the popular vote and the number of EC votes? The second video shows an example of how you'd only need 22% of the popular vote in order to get your candidate into the Whitehouse.

Yes, it is fair. It is just as fair as having a Senate where each state gets 2 Senators regardless of how many people are in the state. It is also far more fair than forcing you to vote for a scumbag in order to get the PM you want.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
We have a Republican state in Nebraska that changed the way they cast their electoral votes, it goes by congressional district. Each district would get a vote. It would be a fairer system without our having to change our Constitution. Since I live in California though which is a majority Democrat state my vote never counts. What are the chances that Democrats in my state will vote to cost themselves some EC votes even if it is fairer and more representational and true to democracy?

Yeah they talk the bullshit hypocritical talk, but never walk the honest and fair walk.

Proportional awarding of EC votes is the change I would like to see in every state.
 

Zxian

Senior member
May 26, 2011
579
0
0
Yes, it is fair. It is just as fair as having a Senate where each state gets 2 Senators regardless of how many people are in the state.

The equal representation in the Senate is one thing. I understand that it's intended to prevent smaller states from having no say in Congress, but that's a very different concept than having disproportionate representation for the President.

It is also far more fair than forcing you to vote for a scumbag in order to get the PM you want.
That's the downfall of how outsiders view Canadian politics. Most people I know of (myself included) are not voting for this party leader or that - they vote for the person running for their riding. The PM has no more power in the House of Commons than any other MP when it comes to passing bills.

Your statement of proportional voting of EC votes would help a lot, but it still gives quite a bit of weight to the smaller states. My concern (even though it doesn't directly affect me) is the fact that regardless of how the EC divides the votes, a person from Wyoming has four times the voting weight of someone in California. Is that fair just because they happen to live in a smaller state?