Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[One Brow]

Oh the irony.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans have credulous followers, but there is real difference in the degree to which the parties are willing to take advantage of the credulousness over the past 6 years or so.

 

[fishonjazz]

.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[The Thriller]

What problem does this resolve? How does this make elections more safe and secure?



I’m old enough to remember when a poster or two on here denied the existence of white supremacy and how it was driving these voter suppression bills.

“iT’s AbOuT eLeCtIoN iNtEgRiTy!”

 

[Red]

Scholars warn democracy is threatened, call for voting rights protections

A group of university professors and scholars on Tuesday signed onto a statement calling for increased federal voting protections, warning that U.S. democracy is “now at risk” with the wave of rece…

thehill.com

Statement of Concern

Democracy scholars urge members of Congress to pass national voting and election administration standards.

newamerica.org

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk......

 

[Red]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eading-experts-our-democracy-is-grave-danger/

What’s striking is that the statement is signed by scholars who specialize in democratic breakdown, such as Pippa Norris, Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky. Other well-known names include Francis Fukuyama and Jacob Hacker.

“We wanted to create a strong statement from a wide range of scholars, including many who have studied democratic backsliding, to make it clear that democracy in America is genuinely under threat,” Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America and a leading organizer of the letter, told me.

“The playbook that the Republican Party is executing at the state and national levels is very much consistent with actions taken by illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-pluralist parties in other democracies that have slipped away from free and fair elections,” Drutman continued

 

[Al-O-Meter]

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm.

Firstly, the term “liberal democracy” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Liberal values, I refer to liberal in the sense of the Enlightenment rather than any modern political affiliation, and democracy are at odds. They cannot coexist.

Currently our nation has more democracy than ever. Far from being under threat, we are at peak democracy. More people have more say on every detail of everything than ever in history. Being that everyone is able to look around to see the obvious just like I can, what is it about this narrative that causes people to latch on to it? This question is open to anyone: If you think “our democracy is under threat”, please tell me why because I don’t get it.

 

[Red]

Firstly, the term “liberal democracy” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Liberal values, I refer to liberal in the sense of the Enlightenment rather than any modern political affiliation, and democracy are at odds. They cannot coexist.

Currently our nation has more democracy than ever. Far from being under threat, we are at peak democracy. More people have more say on every detail of everything than ever in history. Being that everyone is able to look around to see the obvious just like I can, what is it about this narrative that causes people to latch on to it? This question is open to anyone: If you think “our democracy is under threat”, please tell me why because I don’t get it.

I agree with the “Statement of Concern” completely. I think if a party is enacting laws that will make it easier to overturn elections, easier to prevent a rival party’s followers from voting, well, that’s problematic for me, and I simply agree with the concerns expressed. But, when you come right down to it, I can’t help you understand where I, or those scholars are coming from. So, sorry, but I’m not going to be the one to explain it to you. You don’t have to “get it”, I could not care less if you don’t. Really, it’s no biggie, not trying to be sarcastic. Their statement made all the sense in the world to me. We need to pass the John Lewis voting act, we need to pass the We the People act.

You want exaggeration, since you do seem to think it’s all exaggeration? OK, I’ll give you exaggeration. I grew up loving American history. Favorite subject, taught it for a spell. Growing up I always wished I had lived during the really huge junctures of American history. The Revolution. The Civil War. Well, here I am, wish came true. I find myself living at perhaps the most important juncture in American history. And those scholars, (and there are conservative scholars, like George Will, etc., that would agree with that statement) are right to say History will judge us.

That’s actually what baffles me where considering the stance taken by many Republicans today. They really do not care how History will judge them. Me, that would be my first concern. I just would not want to be remembered as someone who supported Trump’s Big Lie will be remembered. It’s a Big Lie that damages our democracy. I mean, the quote from the man, Timothy Snyder, whom I regard as our most perceptive living American historian, in my signature, is in that spirit, is a version of the very same warning. I sure as hell get it. Don’t care if you do or do not. But, honestly, how one does not know how one of our two parties promoting an Orwellian level Big Lie is damaging to our democracy, I admit, that too baffles me....

In terms of protecting our democracy, in terms of protecting “one man, one vote”, I am living at the most important juncture in my nation’s history. My wish came true. I wish it had not. Not this way. Seems much too perilous to me....

Liberal democracy

www.cs.mcgill.ca

 

[Red]

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I agree with the “Statement of Concern” completely. I think if a party is enacting laws that will make it easier to overturn elections, easier to prevent a rival party’s followers from voting, well, that’s problematic for me, and I simply agree with the concerns expressed.

We do seem to think differently. I look at data points and plot trends to see where things are going. I cannot say this strongly enough but I do not intend this as any sort of attack on you, but you seem to latch on to concerns over what is possible. Your concern isn’t that an election has been overturned but that one could potentially be in the future. Your concern isn’t that a rival party’s followers are being prevented from voting but that it could be made easier to prevent them in the future.

The attack on democracy you are referring to isn’t an actual attack on democracy that is happening but a possible future attack that could happen in the future if certain pieces of legislation are passed. To your point of view, real data showing that a political party has won the majority of popular votes in recent elections thereby showing they aren’t being hindered, or data showing voters of a historically marginalized ethnic block are actually at a rate higher than their portion of the population in the last 4 elections thereby showing they aren’t being hindered doesn’t shape your view because your view is centered on concerns over a hypothetical future set of events. We don’t agree because I’m looking at data while you are looking at concerns over possibilities.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I grew up loving American history. Favorite subject, taught it for a spell. Growing up I always wished I had lived during the really huge junctures of American history. The Revolution. The Civil War. Well, here I am, wish came true. I find myself living at perhaps the most important juncture in American history. And those scholars, (and there are conservative scholars, like George Will, etc., that would agree with that statement) are right to say History will judge us.

I’m happy to learn that you taught history. I think history is understudied, but with an eye on our history why do you keep saying “our democracy”? We don’t have one. We’ve NEVER had one. We have a republic. Our nation’s founders hated democracy and were very clear about how much they feared it.

We have 3 branches of government. The President was picked by the Electoral College. The people could vote for the president but the vote was non-binding and only for show. The Congress was bicameral and the Senate was picked by the state assemblies. The people didn’t get a vote on Senators at all. The Supreme Court members were double protected from democracy by being nominated by the non-democratically elected President and confirmed by the non-democratically elected Senate.

The only piece of the federal government that was democratically elected was the House, and even that vote was only open to the militia. You had to be a male of fighting age and subject to conscription by the government to potentially give your life in service of your country even against your will, and in exchange for that you got to cast a ballot for members of the House.

The United States was set up as a republic with 5/6th of the structural leadership of government having no exposure to democracy and the 1/6th that was subject to popular vote did not have universal suffrage. It wasn’t set up that way because the founders were ***-ists or ***-ophobes, but because they were astute in history and noted that democracy was incapable of overcoming faction. In a society ruled by democracy, everyone retreats into tribes refusing to see the other side’s points and it quickly gets to people killing each other as the nation rips itself apart.

We know this because James Madison, the same guy who wrote the US Constitution, documented that thought in Federalist No. 10.

it may be concluded that a pure democracy… can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. …there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

We have a lot more democracy now then in 1787 when James Madison wrote that. The 17th Amendment was passed to make Senators subject to popular vote. The requirement of being subject to conscription was done away with to allow universal suffrage. There are efforts to do away with the Electoral College and even Supreme Court nominations have become highly political affairs. I’m not saying that is a bad thing but it is reality.

Now that we have so much more democracy, were the founders correct? Are we retreating into factions unable to see each other’s points?

 

[Red]

We do seem to think differently. I look at data points and plot trends to see where things are going. I cannot say this strongly enough but I do not intend this as any sort of attack on you, but you seem to latch on to concerns over what is possible. Your concern isn’t that an election has been overturned but that one could potentially be in the future. Your concern isn’t that a rival party’s followers are being prevented from voting but that it could be made easier to prevent them in the future.

The attack on democracy you are referring to isn’t an actual attack on democracy that is happening but a possible future attack that could happen in the future if certain pieces of legislation are passed. To your point of view, real data showing that a political party has won the majority of popular votes in recent elections thereby showing they aren’t being hindered, or data showing voters of a historically marginalized ethnic block are actually at a rate higher than their portion of the population in the last 4 elections thereby showing they aren’t being hindered doesn’t shape your view because your view is centered on concerns over a hypothetical future set of events. We don’t agree because I’m looking at data while you are looking at concerns over possibilities.

Yes, I would have to say you are describing where I am coming from. The president spread what has come to be called a Big Lie. The term no doubt coined with Orwell in mind. That much happened.

Somehow, the majority of the Republican base came to fully believe this lie. Republican politicians, both those in Washington, and Republican leadership in certain states, recognized that belief in this Big Lie would be useful in justifying voter suppression laws. Not sure a one of them, other than maybe Marjorie Greene, actually believe it. Apparently including in Texas a way to make it easier for a state legislature to overturn the results in their state.

I am concerned with where all of this is going, since gerrymandering has already been in their arsenal for some time, and, having embraced a Big Lie, I don’t see a reason why they would not attempt to steal elections in the future. And actually, where the question of who won the 2020 election is concerned, the constituents of our two major parties no longer subscribe to a consensus reality. Which is itself damaging, I believe.

And I do think future elections, at least in the near term, are likely to be beset with claims of fraud, regardless of what the actual facts are. Given the way in which the effort by Trump’s lawyers to alter the results went, case after case being tossed out of court, yet the belief in the Big Lie actually grew, rather than subsided, then I see no reason why Republicans would not try anything to overturn future elections that do not go their way.

I do not know if something like the We the People Act can counteract suppression efforts at the state level, and, you are absolutely correct: my concern is what MIGHT happen if the Democrats do not pass that act. I am worried about possibilities, but not in a vacuum. I think my concern is based on Republican efforts already taking place. But, yes, sure, cannot argue with the different approach you are describing....

 

[Red]

I’m happy to learn that you taught history. I think history is understudied, but with an eye on our history why do you keep saying “our democracy”? We don’t have one. We’ve NEVER had one. We have a republic. Our nation’s founders hated democracy and were very clear about how much they feared it.

We have 3 branches of government. The President was picked by the Electoral College. The people could vote for the president but the vote was non-binding and only for show. The Congress was bicameral and the Senate was picked by the state assemblies. The people didn’t get a vote on Senators at all. The Supreme Court members were double protected from democracy by being nominated by the non-democratically elected President and confirmed by the non-democratically elected Senate.

The only piece of the federal government that was democratically elected was the House, and even that vote was only open to the militia. You had to be a male of fighting age and subject to conscription by the government to potentially give your life in service of your country even against your will, and in exchange for that you got to cast a ballot for members of the House.

The United States was set up as a republic with 5/6th of the structural leadership of government having no exposure to democracy and the 1/6th that was subject to popular vote did not have universal suffrage. It wasn’t set up that way because the founders were ***-ists or ***-ophobes, but because they were astute in history and noted that democracy was incapable of overcoming faction. In a society ruled by democracy, everyone retreats into tribes refusing to see the other side’s points and it quickly gets to people killing each other as the nation rips itself apart.

We know this because James Madison, the same guy who wrote the US Constitution, documented that thought in Federalist No. 10.


We have a lot more democracy now then in 1787 when James Madison wrote that. The 17th Amendment was passed to make Senators subject to popular vote. The requirement of being subject to conscription was done away with to allow universal suffrage. There are efforts to do away with the Electoral College and even Supreme Court nominations have become highly political affairs. I’m not saying that is a bad thing but it is reality.

Now that we have so much more democracy, were the founders correct? Are we retreating into factions unable to see each other’s points?

No time to really give your thoughts justice here. Suffice to say, yes, I agree with what you are saying by and large. Have not read every word yet, but yes, understand we are a constitutional republic, understand how very limited the franchise was when this nation was established. Understand that the franchise expanded. We actually had a short revolution in Rhode Island, the Door’s Rebellion(1841-42), to do away with property ownership requirements to be able to vote. Still flat out amazes me that women could not vote a mere hundred years ago. Your last question is a great question and thought provoking. And I will have to give it more thought, but yes, I understand and do not dispute what you are saying.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The president spread what has come to be called a Big Lie. The term no doubt coined with Orwell in mind. That much happened. Somehow, the majority of the Republican base came to fully believe this lie. ... the constituents of our two major parties no longer subscribe to a consensus reality. Which is itself damaging, I believe.

YES!!! ^^This exactly!!!^^

I don’t see that as an attack on democracy so much as an attack on the legitimacy of the other. Many see the President elected in 2020 as illegitimate because of “The Big Lie”. Many on the other side viewed the President elected in 2016 as illegitimate because of “Election Interference”. I don’t know what marketing will be used to sell the idea in 2024 but if the trend continues, an even greater number of people will be taken in by this phenomenon.

It would be so much easier if we'd just say “Hey everybody! It is the craziest thing but we checked in this old document and it turns out we’re a republic. You Arizona folks can recount as many times as you want, and if Rudy wants to file a new lawsuit every day then go for it because that is just the vote. It turns out the election happens in mid-December and the democrat nominee beat the republican nominee by 306 to 232. We heard people were worried about fraud so we re-asked all 538 people and they confirmed their votes. We also asked if any were Russian spies and none of them said they were.”

With regards to the various state voting measures and the federal ones trying to stop the state voting measures, I don’t see either as doing anything to slow this race to delegitimize the other. There are things we could do but no one seems interested. The worst part is that I don’t believe there is a shadowy group doing this to us. It is just the popular thing to do so everyone is losing their minds and jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[One Brow]

Many on the other side viewed the President elected in 2016 as illegitimate because of “Election Interference”.

Could you quote some polling number that indicate this was as high as 10% of Democrats as late as January 2017?

I found this for November 2016:

In U.S., 84% Accept Trump as Legitimate President

Eighty-four percent of Americans accept Donald Trump as the legitimate president, about the same percentage who accepted George W. Bush as legitimate in December 2000.

news.gallup.com

Do you think it got worse two months later? Further, these claims were made on things like Russian media influence. I don't recall anyone claiming the ballots were miscounted.

With regards to the various state voting measures and the federal ones trying to stop the state voting measures, I don’t see either as doing anything to slow this race to delegitimize the other. There are things we could do but no one seems interested. The worst part is that I don’t believe there is a shadowy group doing this to us. It is just the popular thing to do so everyone is losing their minds and jumping on the bandwagon.

I think you are correct there.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I found this for November 2016:

In U.S., 84% Accept Trump as Legitimate President

Eighty-four percent of Americans accept Donald Trump as the legitimate president, about the same percentage who accepted George W. Bush as legitimate in December 2000.

news.gallup.com

Those numbers work for my point. In 2016 you've got 16% of Americans who thinks the President is illegitimate.

Admittedly you can quibble with these stats but doing back-of-the-napkin math, in a 2020 Gallup poll 23% of Americans identified as Republicans. Let's say a full 70% of them believe Biden is illegitimate. That makes 17.5% of Americans who think Biden is illegitimate. Personally I think the number is even higher and may be as high as 20% of Americans who believe Biden didn't legitimately win the 2020 election. That is a 4% increase from your source's numbers in one election to the next.

That is the trend concerning me, and I could easily see the next election with that rate up another 4 points regardless of which party wins.

 

[fishonjazz]

YES!!! ^^This exactly!!!^^

I don’t see that as an attack on democracy so much as an attack on the legitimacy of the other. Many see the President elected in 2020 as illegitimate because of “The Big Lie”. Many on the other side viewed the President elected in 2016 as illegitimate because of “Election Interference”. I don’t know what marketing will be used to sell the idea in 2024 but if the trend continues, an even greater number of people will be taken in by this phenomenon.

It would be so much easier if we'd just say “Hey everybody! It is the craziest thing but we checked in this old document and it turns out we’re a republic. You Arizona folks can recount as many times as you want, and if Rudy wants to file a new lawsuit every day then go for it because that is just the vote. It turns out the election happens in mid-December and the democrat nominee beat the republican nominee by 306 to 232. We heard people were worried about fraud so we re-asked all 538 people and they confirmed their votes. We also asked if any were Russian spies and none of them said they were.”

With regards to the various state voting measures and the federal ones trying to stop the state voting measures, I don’t see either as doing anything to slow this race to delegitimize the other. There are things we could do but no one seems interested. The worst part is that I don’t believe there is a shadowy group doing this to us. It is just the popular thing to do so everyone is losing their minds and jumping on the bandwagon.

I didn't think trump was not a legitimate president. I think he won and I think Russia wanted him to win and spread some dirt about Hillary. In the end more electoral votes went to Trump than Hillary (even though more Americans still voted for Hillary than trump).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

Those numbers work for my point. In 2016 you've got 16% of Americans who thinks the President is illegitimate.

In November, about a week after the election.

That is the trend concerning me, and I could easily see the next election with that rate up another 4 points regardless of which party wins.

Where you see a trend, I see a bumpy line. The number that said Obama wasn't qualified to be President was much higher.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The number that said Obama wasn't qualified to be President was much higher.

"Qualified" and "Illegitimate" are very different.

 

[One Brow]

"Qualified" and "Illegitimate" are very different.

You mean, they thought Obama was a legitimate, unqualified President?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You mean, they thought Obama was a legitimate, unqualified President?

I don't have the statistics so I can't comment on exactly what they thought, but the questions of "Was this person elected in a free and fair election?" and "Does this person have the requisite intelligence and experience to perform a task?" are different. The answers could be double-no, double-yes, or a split of yes and no. I don't think it is correct to conflate them.