Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 13)
Thread Tools
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of Idaho
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I assume you mean, having another person deliver ballots to post office or election officials? ie - for old folks or those without transportation.

The "other person" is not an official. I don't see a Constitution violation, though Congress could specify something by "appropriate legislation". Seems like a method of reducing ballots from low-income and minority voters. I think advocates challenged the restriction mostly on Equal Protection of the Law (14th) and perhaps a de-facto poll tax (24th).
This is not ballot harvesting, which is a real problem that has real consequences which lead to the disenfranchisement of everyone.

Ballot harvesting is when political activists go into low-information communities, frequently the elderly and the impoverished, with prefilled ballots that they then encourage people to sign. They turn around and deliver large packets of identical ballots, signed by people who otherwise wouldn't have voted - and people who have no motivation to vote shouldn't be voting. Voting is a very important action in our society that must be taken seriously. Harvesting piles of ballots to make sure Your Guy wins in any election at any level ultimately disenfranchises everyone, as it creates a new system by which people win through coercion and cheating, rather than actually persuading people to rationally vote for them.

There is nothing immoral about discouraging low-information, low-intelligence voters from voting. Such people are merely useful idiots, weaponized by a political establishment which very clearly will do anything - absolutely anything - to ensure it never loses power unto eternity.

The Constitution makes clear that the federal government does not have the authority to mandate how elections are carried out in the states. The Democrats' "Voting Rights Act" includes *mandatory* mail-in voting in all 50 states, even though there is plenty of evidence that mail-in voting is not secure, is not safe, and has many attack vectors which have yet to even be acknowledged, let alone mitigated. The federal legislature has NO Constitutional authority to MANDATE all fifty states use a voting method that is clearly very flawed.

Meanwhile, states which are attempting to ensure their elections are clean and fair - by engaging in very basic security protocols, like signature validation on mail-in ballots, and validating someone's ID before they're allowed to vote - are smeared by the media as being *ist and *phobic...even though we're one of the only nations left on the planet that takes not even the smallest steps to ensure one vote per legal living citizen.

If you have to cheat to win, you don't deserve to win. You deserve to be severely punished and made a public example of, so everyone in the nation - the whole world - knows that Americans will not tolerate their elections being stolen from them.

And remember: the most popular president by vote count in US history has been deeply, deeply unpopular everywhere that isn't the cockholsters at CNN and MSBC. Super super weird how someone so clearly mega-popular could barely get a hundred people to a rally, when the now-former President Trump is still amassing crowds of 40,000+ people.

So. Weird.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
with prefilled ballots that they then encourage people to sign.
I am not aware of anywhere in the US where it’s legal for randos to deliver ballots to a voter, only collection. A quick skim of Google only mentions collections. Do you have a citation?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Ballot harvesting is when political activists go into low-information communities, frequently the elderly and the impoverished, with prefilled ballots that they then encourage people to sign.
Thanks for the clarification. "Ballot harvesting" didn't ring any bells. However, I agree with subego's comment - does this actually happen?

Here in CA, you can only get a ballot through a county elections office. Even if you get one from the Post Office or DMV, what you're actually getting is an application for absentee voting. Mail it to elections office - they mail back a ballot. In all cases, people only get ballots from their local elections office.

... - and people who have no motivation to vote shouldn't be voting. Voting is a very important action in our society that must be taken seriously.
Assuming this actually happens, aren't you arguing it wrong? The US has famously low turnout in typical elections (2020 was not typical). The problem isn't uninformed people voting, but rather uninformed people. Everyone should be informed and voting.

So if Party A lobbies people to vote with incomplete info, this will FORCE Party B to lobby people with further info, to balance the scales. Competition for voters, with more informed voters all around. If Party B doesn't feel like informing voters, don't they deserve to lose? They sure wouldn't be representing these partially-informed voters, if they can't even be bothered to try for their votes.

There is nothing immoral about discouraging low-information, low-intelligence voters from voting. Such people are merely useful idiots, weaponized by a political establishment which very clearly will do anything - absolutely anything - to ensure it never loses power unto eternity.
This position sucks IMO. Don't relegate fellow citizens to the trash pile - at least try for them. The answer to idiots isn't screwing them over, it's education.

The Democrats' "Voting Rights Act" includes *mandatory* mail-in voting in all 50 states, even though there is plenty of evidence that mail-in voting is not secure, is not safe, and has many attack vectors which have yet to even be acknowledged, let alone mitigated.
I think you mean mandatory (access to) mail-in voting. And the security critiques apply more to electronic voting (especially over the internet).

States already do signature validation on mail-in ballots. Checking against the signature on file with their most recent application. With in-person voting, I always show the card or sample ballot mailed to me by the elections board. Then sign the sign-in sheet. I've never tested showing up without paper, giving name, and asking for a ballot. Not sure if that would fly in CA, though I might test it in a future election.

If you have to cheat to win, you don't deserve to win.
Sounds like you are against gerrymandering. Republicans should have been punished after Project Redmap in 2010. Or is this another case of how "her emails" are a terrible outrage if a Dem does it, but not worth mentioning when Trump's EPA head does it. Nor when Ivanka does it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
rather than actually persuading people to rationally vote for them.
Sorry, what about a presidential campaign is rational? None of it. Campaigns don't sway voters based on logic and reason, and pretending that doing so is the "correct" way to win voters is ridiculous. 100% of the campaign is tribalism and emotion.

even though there is plenty of evidence that mail-in voting is not secure, is not safe, and has many attack vectors which have yet to even be acknowledged, let alone mitigated. The federal legislature has NO Constitutional authority to MANDATE all fifty states use a voting method that is clearly very flawed.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publicatio...formation-2020

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues...th-voter-fraud

https://cdt.org/insights/why-widespr...aud-is-a-myth/

(I welcome a claim of widespread voter fraud from a source less biased than CDT).

Meanwhile, states which are attempting to ensure their elections are clean and fair - by engaging in very basic security protocols, like signature validation on mail-in ballots, and validating someone's ID before they're allowed to vote - are smeared by the media as being *ist and *phobic
Because of the gap between a policy's stated goals (marketing) and actual outcomes (intent).

Here's how it works. If it's my team proposing the legislation, I can wholeheartedly trust their stated goals, and take them at face value.

If it's the other team proposing the legislation, I assume nefarious intent and that no matter what they say the purpose of the legislation is, I know they are secretly trying to ruin America with their secret plans.

If you have to cheat to win, you don't deserve to win. You deserve to be severely punished and made a public example of, so everyone in the nation - the whole world - knows that Americans will not tolerate their elections being stolen from them.
It's like you're so close to getting it.

And remember: the most popular president by vote count in US history has been deeply, deeply unpopular everywhere that isn't the cockholsters at CNN and MSBC. Super super weird how someone so clearly mega-popular could barely get a hundred people to a rally, when the now-former President Trump is still amassing crowds of 40,000+ people.

So. Weird.
No, there's a very simple explanation, but someone that wants so badly to believe something that's untrue will do everything in their power not to see it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Thanks for the clarification. "Ballot harvesting" didn't ring any bells. However, I agree with subego's comment - does this actually happen?
Sorry… by the definition I’m aware of, you had it right. In states where it’s legal to hand off a completed ballot to anyone, ballot harvesting is sending out party operatives to collect and submit ballots for people.

In Arizona, it’s still legal to hand a ballot off to a family member, a caretaker, or a member of the household.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 05:02 PM
 
The most obvious vectors for fraud I see from ballot harvesting are bribery and intimidation. These links seem to focus on impersonation.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
This is not ballot harvesting, which is a real problem that has real consequences which lead to the disenfranchisement of everyone.
I think people mesh several things together when they talk about ballot harvesting. Some people would call e. g. community groups trying to find ways to allow inhabitants of nursing homes to cast their votes ballot harvesting, because they infer from the voting statistics of that community a partisan bent. Another thing is ballot harvesting done by campaigns or PACs associated with a specific candidate or party.

An intelligent discussion requires us to untangle that.
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
There is nothing immoral about discouraging low-information, low-intelligence voters from voting. Such people are merely useful idiots, weaponized by a political establishment which very clearly will do anything - absolutely anything - to ensure it never loses power unto eternity.
No, this is morally wrong and would make society dangerously unstable: every citizen has a right to vote. If only “high intelligence people” voted, that'd disenfranchise large parts of the population, especially in rural America. Parties and politicians should inform potential voters rather than come up with lists of who should and should not vote. Most importantly, what you propose is clearly unconstitutional.

Otherwise, I propose we just allow people with PhDs and doctorates in other fields to vote.
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The Constitution makes clear that the federal government does not have the authority to mandate how elections are carried out in the states.
No, the Constitution has several provisions that pertain to voting; reader50 listed them. States may not violate the Constitution nor the laws that derive from that.
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The Democrats' "Voting Rights Act" includes *mandatory* mail-in voting in all 50 states, even though there is plenty of evidence that mail-in voting is not secure, is not safe, and has many attack vectors which have yet to even be acknowledged, let alone mitigated.
This is just FUD. There is no evidence for widespread problems with mail-in ballots. Other Western countries that also have mail-in ballots likewise have had good experience with them. (FWIW I have voted with mail-in ballots for years.) Mail-in ballots were used to drive consistent turnout in Republican-dominated segments of the electorate for decades. It allows older people to vote safely and conveniently. There is no reason to place conditions on that. Voting should be easy for every eligible person.

That's the big flaw in the push to curb or abolish mail-in voting: the GOP depends on it and party operatives know that. It is just the (factually incorrect) perception that this time around it helped “the other guys”, whether that is true or not. The same goes for voter id laws: rather than proposing a simple, unified id, most of them just try to carve out exceptions for their voters (by accepting CCW permits but not student ids).
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
[…] even though we're one of the only nations left on the planet that takes not even the smallest steps to ensure one vote per legal living citizen.
Yes, although I think many of the folks who cried loudly about the lack of voter ID laws are against the obvious solution that works extremely well in many other countries: mandatory national IDs. In Germany, when you register your place of residence, you automatically register to vote. When you want to vote in person, you don't need to re-register, you just need to walk in with an ID (national ID or passport) and that's that. You are not dropped from the voters rolls when you do not vote in x years. Nothing of that sort. When you receive the election notice, they include the form to ask for mail-in ballots. The system is super easy, very reliable and there is no election fraud.
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
If you have to cheat to win, you don't deserve to win. You deserve to be severely punished and made a public example of, so everyone in the nation - the whole world - knows that Americans will not tolerate their elections being stolen from them.
Making it easier for people to vote is not stealing an election, it is not cheating. I think the 2020 election was a good example: turnout was very high on both sides, and I think this is great. Each side should focus on maximizing turnout and convincing undecided voters rather than limiting who can and does cast their vote.
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
And remember: the most popular president by vote count in US history has been deeply, deeply unpopular everywhere that isn't the cockholsters at CNN and MSBC. Super super weird how someone so clearly mega-popular could barely get a hundred people to a rally, when the now-former President Trump is still amassing crowds of 40,000+ people.
I find it ironic that you point out the unpopularity of a president in about 50 % of the country after Trump. The difference between the two is that Trump lost the popular vote both times. Biden has much higher approval ratings than Trump, and given the polarization, the difference is made up by independents and to a lesser degree Republicans. According to the linked 538 poll, he is 11.9 points more popular than Trump at the same point in their respective presidencies. And measuring popularity by crowd masses in the middle or a pandemic is not the yard stick I'd use to gauge a politician.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Assuming this actually happens, aren't you arguing it wrong? The US has famously low turnout in typical elections (2020 was not typical). The problem isn't uninformed people voting, but rather uninformed people. Everyone should be informed and voting.

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So if Party A lobbies people to vote with incomplete info, this will FORCE Party B to lobby people with further info, to balance the scales. Competition for voters, with more informed voters all around. If Party B doesn't feel like informing voters, don't they deserve to lose? They sure wouldn't be representing these partially-informed voters, if they can't even be bothered to try for their votes.
Plus, this kind of thinking is usually applied only to specific groups, especially minorities. If you took that thinking seriously, you'd probably prevent a large share of rural citizens from voting, not just poor people of color in inner cities. We see this with how in many states people with a criminal record are no longer eligible to vote — the unequal application of laws (e. g. drug laws) lead to unequal suppression of votes. Moreover, “uninformed” is a catch-all phrase that conceivably can also distinguish between people who have unorthodox views or views the electoral majority finds abhorrent.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 11:31 PM
 
Like I said earlier, the only definition I’ve heard of for ballot harvesting is a third party doing mass collection and delivery of ballots.

To repeat my question, should states be forced to make this legal?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To repeat my question, should states be forced to make this legal?
Are you talking about ballot harvesting or mail-in ballots?

If you are talking about ballot harvesting, I think it depends on what type of ballot harvesting you are talking about. To be honest, I think there are more important aspects and I wouldn't focus on that to be honest. What disturbs me of the pushes in Republican-dominated states is the partisan motivation to changes in voter laws. In many cases I don't even think there is evidence that there is a clear partisan advantage for the Democrats when it comes to e. g. mail-in ballots. It is just the perception, because it took longer to count votes in urban environments. Or that there is no logical coherence to the claims of wide-spread voter fraud (which wouldn't even be voter fraud but election fraud).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 01:51 AM
 
Some states allow a voter to designate anyone to collect and deliver their ballots.

Should the states which do not allow this be forced to allow it.

I focus on this because this is what the SCOTUS decision we’re talking about reviewed.



Partisan ****ery with voting laws is legal as long as it doesn’t specifically target minorities.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 02:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Some states allow a voter to designate anyone to collect and deliver their ballots.

Should the states which do not allow this be forced to allow it.
Sorry to disappoint, but the answer is a clear it depends, it depends on the circumstances, it depends on how it is done, and I am not clear whether this is a point that needs to be done federally.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Partisan ****ery with voting laws is legal as long as it doesn’t specifically target minorities.
First of all, I reject that what matters here is legality. The second issue that makes your framing even more difficult to answer is that the believed impact of these rules is likely very different than the actual impact, both in scope and audience.

You should not alter the rules of the game just because you lost in the last round. I am opposed to the philosophy of restricting citizens's ability to cast their votes when there is no evidence for wrongdoing. I am glad that turnout for both, Trump and Biden voters was at record levels. I'd say that even if Trump had won re-election. Because democracies die when people stop believing in it. That's why I think these laws are so dangerous: they are based on conspiracy theories and end up undermining faith in the democratic rule of the United States.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 03:09 AM
 
This is a Supreme Court thread. Legalities are the topic.

If specifics are needed, refer to the case under discussion. Arizona law is the only non-official a voter may allow to collect and deliver their ballot is family, caretakers, and members of the household. The Supreme Court upheld this law. Should they have forced Arizona to allow anyone to collect and deliver?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 04:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a Supreme Court thread. Legalities are the topic.
Point taken
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If specifics are needed, refer to the case under discussion. Arizona law is the only non-official a voter may allow to collect and deliver their ballot is family, caretakers, and members of the household. The Supreme Court upheld this law. Should they have forced Arizona to allow anyone to collect and deliver?
As I wrote, I don't know, I'm more interested in the broad strokes. At the SCOTUS level, you need to have the bigger picture in view. I don't necessarily mean the judges should enter the realm of politics, but recent rulings were rather narrow and the judges avoided issuing rules that set forth principles. I think the Supreme Court is shirking its responsibilities.

It looks to me that the stipulations of the Civil Rights Act concerning voting laws are trimmed and pared down to the absolute minimum until it almost disappears. If precisely that is the intention of the majority, but I'd say then that this is a disingenuous way to go about it. If not, they should provide guidance what kind of federal laws are consistent with the Constitution. Unlike shifuifmam I do think the US Constitution explicitly gives the federal government some rights to make sure that states do not violate the Constitution when it comes to voting rights. The decisions are too narrow in fleshing out where the limits may be in the view of the majority.

To return to the narrow question: the reason why I am not sure whether federal laws may mandate to allow some form of what some consider “vote harvesting” is that I don't have a cogent and coherent philosophy that would help me draw this dividing line. Independently of the question whether there should be a federal mandate, I believe that people should have the option to have someone submit the vote on their behalf. On German mail-in ballots, this is part of the form: with the stroke of a pen I can just determine that my father or my hairdresser (in Germany) submits my ballot on my behalf. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and I can think of tons of situations where this is a good and fair solution. For example, many couples aren't married, so perhaps the child of the son's new girlfriend can submit the ballot on behalf of her “grandmother-not-grandmother”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 07:30 AM
 
Pretend I never said “ballot harvesting”.

Every state except for Alabama allows someone other than the voter to deliver their mail-in ballot. In most states, this person can be anyone. Arizona is one of a minority of states which limits who it can be.

The charge is by having these limits, Arizona is violating the Voting Rights Act.

The majority resolutely affirmed the portion of the VRA under review. It’s explicitly constitutional by way of the 15th amendment. This portion of the VRA has enough similarities to the 15th Amendment, for the sake of simplicity we can use the 15th Amendment (copied from reader).
15: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, that’s the question. By limiting the group of people who can deliver a ballot, is Arizona denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?

Not a question with a simple answer, but the question itself is straightforward.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, that’s the question. By limiting the group of people who can deliver a ballot, is Arizona denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?
Phrased in this way, Arizona's position does not violate the 15th Amendment. Limiting ballot delivery to (officials or) family members is not a restriction based on race, color, or previous servitude.

However, if Congress has enforced it with appropriate legislation (like the VRA) then additional angles might come into play. Congress may have added extra terms and details.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 01:51 PM
 
I think there are a few added wrinkles. I wanted to get just the basics down first, and I only got about a quarter of the way through the opinions.

The biggest wrinkle is how intent figures in. IIUC, intent to abridge on account of race or color isn’t necessary to have violated the law, but I’m not entirely sure what the parameters are. In this specific case, it’s claimed the Arizona law is really hosing people who live on Reservations, where mail service is spotty (as an example).
( Last edited by subego; Jul 5, 2021 at 03:34 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 04:37 PM
 
The basic thrust of the majority opinion as I understand it is:

1) The plaintiffs were unable to show intent to abridge voting rights on account of race. They can demonstrate partisan intent, but that’s legal.

2) Only voters who can’t vote because of the Arizona law have a VRA claim. This is distinct from voters who could vote but don't because of the law. In other words, the number of people entitled to a claim is much smaller than the raw discrepancy in turnout caused by the law.

3) When this portion of the VRA was last amended (1982), mail-in voting was outright discouraged by the states. Congress then was fine with that, so they’d also be fine with the far less restrictive Arizona law.

4) Arizona has an interest in protecting against fraud, which is facially correct, but there’s obviously much argument over how real the threat is.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Phrased in this way, Arizona's position does not violate the 15th Amendment. Limiting ballot delivery to (officials or) family members is not a restriction based on race, color, or previous servitude.
On face value perhaps. But you can place restrictions on strong correlates, which is usually the issue in other voting rights and also gerrymandering cases. So perhaps the text does not aim at specific groups explicitly, but because you are aiming for strong correlates the impact is felt most strongly. For example, you could limit the number of polling places and their opening hours in poorer, urban areas specifically (for no good reason, causing long cues) and make giving food and water to people waiting in line a criminal offense. That’d impact urban communities of color more strongly than poorer, rural communities.

Now I don’t think this is necessarily the case here, my point is that it isn’t as easy as taking the text of the law under question literally and see whether it is compatible with the Constitution. In a sense, the question is what mechanisms are compatible with the Constitution that are meant to check whether states’s voting laws are consistent with the Constitution?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
4) Arizona has an interest in protecting against fraud, which is facially correct, but there’s obviously much argument over how real the threat is.
Depends on how you define “argument.” There’s the republican stance that, seemingly, vote fraud is rampant to where no election result can be trusted. Then there’s the actual, statistical, verifiable, reality where no such fraud has ever been found to exist. It’s an argument only in that one highly-motivated political party disagrees vehemently with reality.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Depends on how you define “argument.” There’s the republican stance that, seemingly, vote fraud is rampant to where no election result can be trusted. Then there’s the actual, statistical, verifiable, reality where no such fraud has ever been found to exist. It’s an argument only in that one highly-motivated political party disagrees vehemently with reality.
Like I mentioned earlier, the statistics seem to be heavily focused on impersonation, when the concern with mail-in ballots should be bribery and intimidation.

Impersonation was/is an issue because that’s what ID requirements are ostensibly meant to fight. Mail-ins don’t need an ID.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Like I mentioned earlier, the statistics seem to be heavily focused on impersonation, when the concern with mail-in ballots should be bribery and intimidation.
Yes, but there does not seem to be any evidence for large-scale voter fraud or election fraud. The only case in recent memory involved a Republican who was promptly removed from office — the laws that are on the books now seem to work sufficiently well.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Impersonation was/is an issue because that’s what ID requirements are ostensibly meant to fight. Mail-ins don’t need an ID.
But they do provide other means of verifying a voter’s identity: mail-in ballots are only sent to eligible voters who are on the roll. And officials compare signatures on mail-in ballots.

Edit:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Like I mentioned earlier, the statistics seem to be heavily focused on impersonation, when the concern with mail-in ballots should be bribery and intimidation.
To expand on my earlier post, one added difficulty is that a lot of these laws are solutions to imagined problems. That is, you don’t need to balance the rights of voters (“ease of use”) with the actual cases of widespread voter or election fraud (i. e. the harm isn’t real, but imagined). The proposed solution is purely partisan, but not all of these measures will have the initially intended effect (diminish turnout for Democrats). (Because, say, curbing the use of mail-in ballots hits traditional Republican voters as well.) Even if you don’t 100 % agree with the characterizations, I think you should get my larger point.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jul 6, 2021 at 01:15 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2021, 08:31 PM
 
Officials may compare signatures at polling places too. Here in CA, I normally vote in person. 2020 was my first mail-in ballot.

I've been recalling the in-person voting procedure. They never asked me to show an ID, but they *always* require me to sign beside my name in their roll book. I don't know if they compare signatures routinely, or only when challenged. ie - if two reader50s attempt to vote.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 07:26 AM
 
The in-person setup here is mainly a signature check. Signature on an affidavit stating you are who you say you are is required to get a ballot. The city also mails out voter cards.

My signature now is different from when I was 18, and I never bothered to update it, so I usually get hassled. DL always smooths it over.

I think I mentioned, when I did my mail-in plague ballot last year I had to “forge” my old signature.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
large-scale voter fraud or election fraud.
Just want to toss out there that fraud doesn’t need to be large-scale to throw a rural election.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Just want to toss out there that fraud doesn’t need to be large-scale to throw a rural election.
For local elections, yes, for federal elections no, because representatives represent a set number of people. But even for local elections I still don’t see any reason why existing laws are not enough. (I remember a case in Bavaria where the owner of an asparagus farm coerced his workers to vote for him in the local elections. He was successful and was elected with the help of these 500ish votes … until he was caught.) The changes in election laws in Red states are supposedly due to large scale voter and election fraud, though. Which is why I framed the discussion as I did.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The basic thrust of the majority opinion as I understand it is:

1) The plaintiffs were unable to show intent to abridge voting rights on account of race. They can demonstrate partisan intent, but that’s legal.
The GOP is an overwhelmingly white party whereas the DEMs are far more diverse. According to Pew research in the 2020 electorate Non-Hispanic White Americans comprise 80% of GOP voters right out of the gate. So naturally this figure will be even higher if one included White Americans who are Hispanic as well. Contrast this with the DEMs where "nonwhites" comprise 40% of their overall voters with 90+% African-American support. So one could make a strong case that given the demographic differences between the two major parties that focusing on partisan vs racial intent is making a distinction without a difference. Especially in light of the fact that for nearly a century Jim Crow legislation was ostensibly "race neutral" in its actual language. That is the fundamental reality that the conservative majority on the SCOTUS refuses to recognize let alone address.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 02:15 PM
 
If we’re not counting Hispanics, it’s 72 to 88. While a 16 point difference is notable, it’s not enough for me to consider all partisanship to be indistinct from racism, and I’d call neither party diverse.

In Arizona, the breakdown is 80 to 96. Unaffiliated is 87.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
...and I’d call neither party diverse.
You’d be very wrong, but go ahead.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 03:39 PM
 
72 percent white people is diverse?

Edit: my mistake, I should cut that down for non-white Hispanics, so, say 63%. Almost 2/3 white is diverse?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we’re not counting Hispanics, it’s 72 to 88. While a 16 point difference is notable, it’s not enough for me to consider all partisanship to be indistinct from racism, and I’d call neither party diverse.

In Arizona, the breakdown is 80 to 96. Unaffiliated is 87.
Not exactly sure what you mean by the highlighted part above. But I'll respond to what I think you mean ...



As you can see with the 2020 electorate Non-Hispanic Whites are 81% of GOP voters. The fine print on the graph shows that "Whites and Blacks include only those who are NOT Hispanic." That's why I'm saying that once you include "White Hispanics" into the mix the GOP is even more of a "White" party.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2021, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: my mistake, I should cut that down for non-white Hispanics, so, say 63%. Almost 2/3 white is diverse?
To answer that question, shouldn't you relate those percentages to the number of non-whites in the electorate?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2021, 04:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not exactly sure what you mean by the highlighted part above. But I'll respond to what I think you mean
My overall point is the Democratic numbers are also whiter if we exclude non-white Hispanics, however I incorrectly removed all Hispanics the first time around (72%) rather than make a guesstimate for non-white Hispanics (63%).


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
To answer that question, shouldn't you relate those percentages to the number of non-whites in the electorate?
It’s useful data, but the question implies there’s no absolute measure of diversity. I’d say there is, and 60% white ain’t it.

Chicago for example is 33% non-Hispanic white. That’s diverse in absolute terms. It’s 50% white if we include Hispanics, which I’d say is on the edge of diverse, but not really there yet. Half-white, half a combination of 6 or so other groups is “white dominated” in my book.

Edit: Arizona is 82% white if we include Hispanic whites. So, even if every non-white person in the state is a Democrat, the state party would still have a near supermajority of white people.

Edit 2: my Arizona example assumes a rough 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans, with no unaffiliated voters.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 7, 2021 at 08:12 AM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2021, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My overall point is the Democratic numbers are also whiter if we exclude non-white Hispanics, however I incorrectly removed all Hispanics the first time around (72%) rather than make a guesstimate for non-white Hispanics (63%).
I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers. But regardless, surely if you don’t count non-white voters (Hispanic or otherwise) it will make the DEM (or GOP) electorate whiter percentage wise. So I’m still unsure about the point you are trying to make.

What I’m saying is that Hispanic voters can belong to any racial group … that is they can be black, white, brown or any combination thereof … which is why they are listed separately from the White and Black categories in the Pew chart I posted above. So my point is we can derive the Overall White % as either A or B below.

GOP Non-Hispanic White: 81% + Hispanic White X% = A%
DEM Non-Hispanic White: 59% + Hispanic White Y% = B%

The GOP is already 22% higher right out of the gate with Non-Hispanic Whites. The Overall Hispanic % for GOP and DEM is 7% and 13% respectively. So if no GOP Hispanics identified as “white” and all DEM Hispanics did then A = 81% and B = 72% … which means the GOP would STILL be a “whiter” party by 9 percentage points. But obviously that’s not the reality. And there’s a strong case to be made that GOP Hispanics are far more likely to identify as “white” than DEM Hispanics so the difference between A and B is probably even greater than where we started with Non-Hispanic Whites.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2021, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It’s useful data, but the question implies there’s no absolute measure of diversity. I’d say there is, and 60% white ain’t it.
60-40 is quite diverse, close to half-half, especially considering the proportion of whites-to-non-whites in the electorate. 40 % is certainly big enough to be a significant group to cater to. At least on the smaller scale, interactions fundamentally change when groups reach about 25-30 %. (The research had been done on women and minorities, I think.)

I'd also point out that apart from racial diversity, Democrats are much more diverse in other ways, too, e. g. when it comes to religion or social policies.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Chicago for example is 33% non-Hispanic white. That’s diverse in absolute terms. It’s 50% white if we include Hispanics, which I’d say is on the edge of diverse, but not really there yet. Half-white, half a combination of 6 or so other groups is “white dominated” in my book.
I don't think you need 50-50 or greater to count as diverse. I think the threshold is 25-30 %, because then the group of non-whites has enough weight to not just be taken for granted.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: Arizona is 82% white if we include Hispanic whites. So, even if every non-white person in the state is a Democrat, the state party would still have a near supermajority of white people.
It seems to me you are arguing something entirely different: we are not arguing that e. g. Arizona is diverse, we are talking about diversity amongst the electorate. The claim is that on the whole minorities make up an above average share of Democratic voters and a below average share of Republican voters (I am sure there are local exceptions). If the total population (locally) is less diverse, then the absolute numbers will be different, yes. But I'd still say that you need to consider relative numbers.

I lived in one of the least and one of the most diverse places in the US (rural PA and the Bay Area). At my high school, I can only remember seeing two black kids, a senior and a 10th grader. We also had a girl whose parents immigrated from India, but that's about it. Sharp as a tack, she went on to do her PhD at Yale. So the area was not diverse. The Bay Area couldn't have been more different. Will non-white Democrats have the same weight internally in rural PA than in the Bay Area? No, but that's because they are a much, much smaller share of the total population. Makes sense to me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2021, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
What I’m saying is that Hispanic voters can belong to any racial group … that is they can be black, white, brown or any combination thereof … which is why they are listed separately from the White and Black categories in the Pew chart I posted above. So my point is we can derive the Overall White % as either A or B below.
I'd like to expand on that: to me Hispanics look white. A colleague from Spain (who is as Castilian as you can be, including Salvadore Dalí-like mustache) was very miffed when US immigration agents insisted he wasn't white, he was Hispanic. On the other hand, a Chilean friend of mine who lives and works in France told me she isn't being treated as white, and most French people assume she is from Maghreb when they see her. She is fluent in French, but has a hint of an accent. So I guess since a lot of immigrants to France are from Maghreb, that's the drawer they put her in.

The second point is the reference group: my daughter and my yet-to-be-born child are Japanese and German, and in Japan to most they count as non-Japanese whereas in Europe they'd count as Asian. By the same token Obama counts as the first black President even though one parent was black and the other white. Racial groups are typically defined relative to the (perceived) majority, which is white in the US. I write perceived, because locally, whites may be the minority, but might be over-represented in positions of power. I suspect that in diverse democracies our notion of racial identity will undergo a rapid shift once most people simply have a mixed heritage. I reckon I won't be around to see this, but my descendents will contribute to this.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The GOP is already 22% higher right out of the gate with Non-Hispanic Whites. The Overall Hispanic % for GOP and DEM is 7% and 13% respectively. So if no GOP Hispanics identified as “white” and all DEM Hispanics did then A = 81% and B = 72% … which means the GOP would STILL be a “whiter” party by 9 percentage points. But obviously that’s not the reality. And there’s a strong case to be made that GOP Hispanics are far more likely to identify as “white” than DEM Hispanics so the difference between A and B is probably even greater than where we started with Non-Hispanic Whites.
An important observation is that independently of whether or not Hispanics are white (or which Hispanics count as white), as a voting block with its own idiosyncrasies, Hispanic voters are different from white voters. Indeed, if you dig down further, it makes a difference whether you are talking about Cuban Americans or Mexican Americans, for example. The fact that Hispanics tend to vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans (on average, local exceptions exist) makes Democratic voters much more diverse than Republicans.

The reason why I think this matters greatly is that monoculture is bad, you are much more likely to end up in an evolutionary dead end and die out. The Republicans (and many conservative parties in e. g. Europe) could clean the clock electorally if they were more open to immigrants and emphasized certain aspects of social conservatism.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'd like to expand on that: to me Hispanics look white. A colleague from Spain (who is as Castilian as you can be, including Salvadore Dalí-like mustache) was very miffed when US immigration agents insisted he wasn't white, he was Hispanic. On the other hand, a Chilean friend of mine who lives and works in France told me she isn't being treated as white, and most French people assume she is from Maghreb when they see her. She is fluent in French, but has a hint of an accent. So I guess since a lot of immigrants to France are from Maghreb, that's the drawer they put her in.
Depends on a) ancestry, and b) how you look at it. A Castilian from Spain would generally be considered “white”. As along as s/he didn’t have enough melanin in their skin to raise eyebrows. Moorish rule over Southern Europe was a real thing for centuries. Even if that part is noticeably glossed over in Western Civilization 101. In the Western Hemisphere if a Hispanic’s ancestry is primarily and most important visibly that of the Spanish “conquistador” then they would be considered “white”. Albeit a “lesser” white because they are not of Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, if one is of indigenous or African ancestry or some combination of the three and most important visibly of a darker skin tone then they are considered “brown” or “black”. A “person of color” so to speak. I went to college with a guy from Belize. In America he’d be considered a light skinned “black” dude. Though in his country he was clearly Mestizo or “mixed race”. He spoke about how his immediate family was all over the color line. Siblings who were light enough to be considered “white” in America. Others dark enough to be considered “black”. A grandmother unequivocally of African descent. Which just goes to show how nonsensical the idea of “race” is. It simply has no biological basis and is merely a deeply ingrained social construct designed to advance and preserve the power of a certain group of people. Who themselves don’t have as pure of an ancestry as they choose to believe.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The second point is the reference group: my daughter and my yet-to-be-born child are Japanese and German, and in Japan to most they count as non-Japanese whereas in Europe they'd count as Asian. By the same token Obama counts as the first black President even though one parent was black and the other white. Racial groups are typically defined relative to the (perceived) majority, which is white in the US. I write perceived, because locally, whites may be the minority, but might be over-represented in positions of power. I suspect that in diverse democracies our notion of racial identity will undergo a rapid shift once most people simply have a mixed heritage. I reckon I won't be around to see this, but my descendents will contribute to this.
Indeed. That’s because in America for most of the 20th Century we’ve had the “One Drop Rule” which essentially stated that any “black” ancestry … even a single person generations in the past … excluded them from being considered “white” legally and socially. So given this history and his physical appearance he’s definitely considered “black”.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
An important observation is that independently of whether or not Hispanics are white (or which Hispanics count as white), as a voting block with its own idiosyncrasies, Hispanic voters are different from white voters. Indeed, if you dig down further, it makes a difference whether you are talking about Cuban Americans or Mexican Americans, for example. The fact that Hispanics tend to vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans (on average, local exceptions exist) makes Democratic voters much more diverse than Republicans.

The reason why I think this matters greatly is that monoculture is bad, you are much more likely to end up in an evolutionary dead end and die out. The Republicans (and many conservative parties in e. g. Europe) could clean the clock electorally if they were more open to immigrants and emphasized certain aspects of social conservatism.
You are spot on about Hispanic voters not being a monolith. Most of those of Cuban descent came to America under very different circumstances than those of Puerto Rican or Mexican descent. The observation I’m making is that the color line is readily apparent in Latin America just like it is in the USA. In terms of wealth, political power, education, social status, etc. And that plays a large factor in how Hispanics vote in US elections.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 02:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Depends on a) ancestry, and b) how you look at it. A Castilian from Spain would generally be considered “white”.
Theoretically, yes, yet the immigration officer insisted. (After all, Spain is in Hispanic! )

I understand the theory behind it, but in the end it is applied to people who just seem to be different from you. Hence, the misclassification of my Chilean friend as someone from Maghreb: she apparently doesn't seem quite white.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
As along as s/he didn’t have enough melanin in their skin to raise eyebrows. Moorish rule over Southern Europe was a real thing for centuries. Even if that part is noticeably glossed over in Western Civilization 101. […] Others dark enough to be considered “black”. A grandmother unequivocally of African descent.
Not only that, if you look at Maghreb, you have people who are bona fide Africans yet not black. Or if you look at Brazil, you have people who you probably would not visually classify as Hispanic and yet have ancestry in South America going back several generations.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Albeit a “lesser” white because they are not of Anglo-Saxon heritage.
That's another bit racists gloss over: in the US the notion of white was initially closely tied to Anglo-Saxon and people from Italy, Germany and Ireland were not considered fully white.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Which just goes to show how nonsensical the idea of “race” is. It simply has no biological basis and is merely a deeply ingrained social construct designed to advance and preserve the power of a certain group of people. Who themselves don’t have as pure of an ancestry as they choose to believe.
Yup, which is why you correctly focus visible markers for determining one's racial identity rather than culture. (Culture does have an impact, but it is learned and not tied to superficial properties like you melatonin content or whether you have Asian facial features.)

And it's one of the main gaps in the arguments of Sam Harris et. al when they criticize identity politics: racial identity is a social construct, and as such does have measurable consequences even though ideally it should not. They conflate is and ought.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Indeed. That’s because in America for most of the 20th Century we’ve had the “One Drop Rule” which essentially stated that any “black” ancestry … even a single person generations in the past … excluded them from being considered “white” legally and socially. So given this history and his physical appearance he’s definitely considered “black”.
Right, and I'm not disputing how Obama identifies. I'm just pointing out that I reckon Obama being told over and over again that he is is a Black man has contributed to forming his identity as a Black man.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The observation I’m making is that the color line is readily apparent in Latin America just like it is in the USA. In terms of wealth, political power, education, social status, etc. And that plays a large factor in how Hispanics vote in US elections.
I've heard this from many Brazilians that literally span the gamut from pasty white (as I am) to deep black. My wife's gym instructor is from Brazil and half-black, and she told me that depending on where you are on the color gradient, you are treated differently in Brazil (no surprise even though I have never been there). She was also concerned about her daughter's (beautiful) curly hair, because it might make her a target for discrimination in Japan (where black people are treated differently than non-Japanese Asians or whites).

(The last part is the only concern I have as a parent when it comes to race. Bullying is a big problem at Japanese schools.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers. But regardless, surely if you don’t count non-white voters (Hispanic or otherwise) it will make the DEM (or GOP) electorate whiter percentage wise. So I’m still unsure about the point you are trying to make.
I made my point poorly. Let me try again.

The original white numbers, not including any Hispanics, are 81%(R) to 59%(D).

If we include white hispanics in the white numbers they’re probably closer to 88%(R) and 63%(D). In other words, both are whiter.

(My numbers are guesses… I’m assuming effectively all Republican Hispanics are white, while only a fraction of Democratic Hispanics are white)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
60-40 is quite diverse, close to half-half, especially considering the proportion of whites-to-non-whites in the electorate. 40 % is certainly big enough to be a significant group to cater to. At least on the smaller scale, interactions fundamentally change when groups reach about 25-30 %. (The research had been done on women and minorities, I think.)
60-40 is closer to 2/3-1/3 than it is to half-half.

Is the 25% tipping point just raw numbers (i.e, 75% white to 25% non-white), or does the 25% need to be voting as a bloc?

Also, when you said “diversity amongst the electorate”, for a law in Arizona, is it not the Arizona electorate we should be considering?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
60-40 is closer to 2/3-1/3 than it is to half-half.
I think we are arguing past each other. A ratio of 60-40 is IMHO already plenty diverse whereas I your tipping point seems to be 50 %. The importance of crossing a threshold, which I peg way below 50 %, for me is not to be dominant, but to be such an important part of the political power equation that the interests of these groups cannot be ignored.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is the 25% tipping point just raw numbers (i.e, 75% white to 25% non-white), or does the 25% need to be voting as a bloc?
Not really.
And we should not pretend that the 75 % white people are a single, monolithic voting block either. People are not voting blocks and their different identities are not mutually exclusive. Urban voters share some interests independently of skin color. Religious voters share others. Rural voters share yet others.

Like I wrote in response to OAW, it’d be wrong to understand diversity amongst the electorate only in the sense of racial groups, and to focus in on racial groups only is too myopic. Members of the LGBT community are more likely to vote for Democrats. With black voters you have a sizable voting bloc (especially locally) of people who are more religious and in part socially conservative. Now former Republican voters from the suburbs, especially women, migrate to the Democratic party who are socially more liberal but financially conservative. All of this means that Democrats have to deal with more diversity and I have heard quite a few say that they are happy that they have such a diverse party. (As an aside, this is one reason why the German Green Party appeals to me.)
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also, when you said “diversity amongst the electorate”, for a law in Arizona, is it not the Arizona electorate we should be considering?
Like I said, to me the relevant numbers are vote shares relative to the demographics of the voting public in Arizona. And unless I am missing something, we all agree that racial minorities are overrepresented among Democratic voters and underrepresented among Republican voters. To achieve that, Democrats in Arizona presumably take the interests of those minorities into account and put people from minority backgrounds into positions of power. At least federally, you can clearly see that e. g. in the composition of the Biden Administration.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Like I wrote in response to OAW, it’d be wrong to understand diversity amongst the electorate only in the sense of racial groups, and to focus in on racial groups only is too myopic.
Again, this is a Supreme Court thread. I’m understanding diversity amongst the electorate only in the sense of racial groups because the VRA and the 15th Amendment only apply to racial groups.

My hands are tied here. If that’s myopic, the blame lies at the feet of those who wrote the law.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Not really.
This sounds like kind of a loosey-goosey conclusion for academic research.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I made my point poorly. Let me try again.

The original white numbers, not including any Hispanics, are 81%(R) to 59%(D).

If we include white hispanics in the white numbers they’re probably closer to 88%(R) and 63%(D). In other words, both are whiter.

(My numbers are guesses… I’m assuming effectively all Republican Hispanics are white, while only a fraction of Democratic Hispanics are white)
Ok. We are both basically saying the same thing.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
60-40 is closer to 2/3-1/3 than it is to half-half.
Indeed it is. And that's about the breakdown that whites vote GOP vs DEM respectively. So nearly 2/3rds of white people in America vote GOP. Generally considered a "landslide" by any standard or measure. Using your own "guesstimates" of including Hispanic Whites into overall white voters by party:

GOP voters: 88% white and 12% non-white
DEM voters: 63% white and 37% non-white

So yes white voters make up a majority of voters in both parties. But that's to be expected since the country is majority white (for the moment). But clearly the GOP is an overwhelmingly white party that commands the support of 2 out of 3 white people in America. Whereas the DEMs are a far more diverse party with nearly 4 out of 10 of its voters being non-white. Nearly quadruple the amount of non-white support as the GOP. Including nearly 9 out of 10 black voters for the last 5 decades.

Now to circle back to the SCOTUS decision that prompted this discussion ... given these numbers if one's goal was to preserve white dominance of political power in America then clearly the party of white people aka the GOP would target voter suppression legislation at DEMs because the overwhelming majority of people of color support that party. And it's totally disingenuous of the conservative majority on the SCOTUS pretend like the very obvious correlation between partisanship and race doesn't exist. Not only does it ignore the very stark racial voting disparities before them and the history that led to their existence ... it simply defies basic logic and common sense.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2021, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again, this is a Supreme Court thread. I’m understanding diversity amongst the electorate only in the sense of racial groups because the VRA and the 15th Amendment only apply to racial groups.
Putting things into their proper context is key, though, to understand the motivation why many Red states, including Arizona, are attempting to use election laws to give themselves a real or perceived advantage. It is correct that only racial discrimination is protected, but since these laws usually only target correlated groups (e. g. new regulations that apply to urban areas or laws forbidding felons to vote after serving their sentence), I think this is still important. The more monolithic your coalition of voters is, the easier it is to think of measures that spares them.

In summary, it is important, because voting restrictions do not apply to race directly, but target correlated factors (for otherwise the laws would be unconstitutional based on the plain reading of the law and immediately struck down). The relevant correlated factors are determined by your make-up of voters, and the election laws do not just target racial groups but e. g. urban areas. It is true that only racist or misogynistic election laws are unconstitutional, but this is precisely the question: if you are targeting urban areas that are majority Democratic and with an above average minority population (perhaps even majority minority), is it proper to say these election laws disenfranchise minorities? How big does the correlation need to be?

Further, I still maintain that relative numbers are crucial here, because they imply that targeting minorities will overwhelmingly cost the Democratic Party votes. Look no further than the last election: Biden's advantage was a mere 0.3 percentage points (or less than 10,500 votes). Small differences in vote totals could have tipped the election, the advantages for either party are slim (Republicans have 2 seat advantages in both chambers and the Arizonian Administration is mixed).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2021, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now to circle back to the SCOTUS decision that prompted this discussion ... given these numbers if one's goal was to preserve white dominance of political power in America then clearly the party of white people aka the GOP would target voter suppression legislation at DEMs because the overwhelming majority of people of color support that party. And it's totally disingenuous of the conservative majority on the SCOTUS pretend like the very obvious correlation between partisanship and race doesn't exist. Not only does it ignore the very stark racial voting disparities before them and the history that led to their existence ... it simply defies basic logic and common sense.
Are Republicans racist by default for being Republicans (i.e, they support the party of white dominance)? It seems like that’s part of the point, but I’m not sure.

Would the Arizona GOP have not passed the law if it only affected white Democrats?

(I’m trying to get an idea of your position, not pose rhetorical questions)
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2021, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are Republicans racist by default for being Republicans (i.e, they support the party of white dominance)? It seems like that’s part of the point, but I’m not sure.
No. Though the GOP in the 20th century tended to be largely white (due to their aligning with large business concerns) I think white supremacists migrated to the Republican party largely after the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 60s. This move was welcomed by the party, since it effectively ended the Democratic party in the south, and resulted in the infamous Southern Strategy which embraced whites to the exclusion of other racial groups. 60 years later, and following the GOP's courting of conservative evangelicals, we now have the party you see today.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Would the Arizona GOP have not passed the law if it only affected white Democrats?
Possibly. Doing so would disenfranchise their mortal enemies "The Libs". Everything the GOP does today is about gaining permanent power, so disenfranchising anyone who wouldn't support that goal is fair game in their eyes. But, disenfranchising other whites would necessarily mean disenfranchising your neighbors and family members. Going after poorer minorities means they never have to actually see the people they're screwing. Out of sight, out of mind. And, given that Democratic success depends a great deal on minority participation, there's no real reason to target whites to achieve your goals.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2021, 11:59 AM
 
It’s obvious (to me at least) the Arizona GOP’s intent was to outlaw ballot harvesting.

The conventional wisdom is Democrats are better at that than Republicans.

Assuming that’s true, is it due to minority representation, or is it a general Democratic thing?


My off-the-cuff analysis is it’s not minorities who need their wheels greased to vote, but it’s white people.

Minorities will certainly make use of available wheel grease, and tend to do well with it because they’re more politically organized, but that’s not the same as them requiring it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2021, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are Republicans racist by default for being Republicans (i.e, they support the party of white dominance)? It seems like that’s part of the point, but I’m not sure.
1. Being an overt racist isn't a dealbreaker for Republican voters. i.e. Steve King, Trump, et al.

2. Racism has been purposely baked into Republican messaging and strategy for decades i.e. Southern Strategy and War on Drugs.

I know we're all familiar with it, but I think it's worth quoting again just to make this point absolutely clear. This was from 1981.

Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
and from 1994:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."
I know you like assuming good faith as it's hard to have a productive conversation if you don't, but Republican leaders have made it clear for decades that they do not operate in good faith. Republican strategists and policymakers absolutely know what they're doing when they talk about Welfare Queens and taxes and drugs and violence and terrorism and supporting our police heros and other dog whistles to signal their true intent. They whistle, and their dogs hear the whistles.

3. This comes down to a "What is a racist?" If you're asking whether or not all Republican voters don white hoods and burn crosses nightly, then no, of course not. But when they hear someone say the equivalent of "existing power structures are the way they are for a good reason and should be maintained," and they support that idea, they ignore all of history that shows that existing power structures are they way they are for usually very racist reasons.

And if you look at that history, and how all of the political and social messaging has been purposely shaped and designed to lead us to this exact outcome, you almost can't blame Republican voters for not knowing any better. This article is fascinating:

https://www.theroot.com/we-found-the...619-1846832317

Most of these lawmakers (and others of their time) grew up learning a completely fabricated version of history, one that justified the social positions of white people above all others. No wonder they vehemently (and sometimes violently) reject the reality that disagrees with their illusion.

So with all of this in mind, Republicans say, "The honesty and integrity of our Democracy is very important, so here are some laws to strengthen voting requirements." Oh and oops those laws, policies, and changes disproportionately disenfranchise black and brown people. You understand why we have trouble believing it's an "oops?"
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,