Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

Sure. I think we would mostly debate the question of whether people have adequate opportunities to cast their vote and have it be counted. Presumably we agree that it is possible for a state to make election laws that would make voting hard enough to remove that adequate opportunity. If it is possible, then it makes sense to have regulations that prevent that, which would have the effect of partially standardizing elections.

We have "partially standardized" elections, as well as mechanisms in place to ensure that election laws at least provide an adequate opportunity to vote and have that vote be counted. APKmetsfan isn't talking about a "partial standardization," but national uniformity brought about by federal control over federal elections.

geography shouldn't matter for federal elections, its doesn't for federal tax purposes, federal criminal law, etc.

And you know leaving it up to the states kinda precludes those fair elections, there's a reason we have constantly passed laws when states have been unfair, VRA (racism over tho), Motor Voter, the 2002 bill.

what is this difference.I'm arguing there should be one law so we don't have these problems.

Geography most certainly matters for federal tax purposes. For instance, a Californian can deduct his state income taxes on Schedule A of Form 1040, while a Texan cannot. It also matters for federal criminal law, such as the criminal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Face it: ours is a federal system in which the states have immense governmental power, and the federal government often must defer to that.

As for state control precluding fair elections, you're now complaining not about a lack of national uniformity, but that some states have policies you don't like. Would you prefer a uniform national voting law with photo ID requirements as strict as Texas'?

(racism over tho)

Now, you're just trolling.

 

[Jooney]

Now, you're talking about intrastate unfairness resulting from laws having a disparate impact on different groups within a single state, not interstate unfairness caused by differing election laws among states.

Right. And APK's point is that a standardised system across all states would eliminate this bias and make it such that people wouldn't have to jump through the arbitrary and capricious regulations that their state imposes on their constitutional right to vote.

It's good to know that you acknowledge intrastate unfairness though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

We have "partially standardized" elections, as well as mechanisms in place to ensure that election laws at least provide an adequate opportunity to vote and have that vote be counted. APKmetsfan isn't talking about a "partial standardization," but national uniformity brought about by federal control over federal elections.

Just like we did after the civil war, with the VRA (pre SCOTUS butchering) ? I'm fine with that.

 

[pigeon]

We have "partially standardized" elections, as well as mechanisms in place to ensure that election laws at least provide an adequate opportunity to vote and have that vote be counted. APKmetsfan isn't talking about a "partial standardization," but national uniformity brought about by federal control over federal elections.

That's presumably because he considers that our election laws do not provide an adequate opportunity to vote to all parties.

 

[benjipwns]

you do nothing but respond back sarcastically to everything and quote inane articles and comments,. You can't be engaged because you twist and turn even more. We're stuck with you derailing everything because politics sucks in your mind.

This is a pretty good encapsulation of things, I'm "derailing everything" whenever I actually discuss politics instead of just emoting or repeating The Party line.

You never seem to get upset when you and everyone else makes snarky/sarcastic comments or post inane articles or comments. I wonder why that is.

One thing to keep in mind is that just because you can't follow someone or something doesn't mean they're trying to lose you.

But thanks for bitching about your perception of others instead of discussing politics.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Right. And APK's point is that a standardised system across all states would eliminate this bias and make it such that people wouldn't have to jump through the arbitrary and capricious regulations that their state imposes on their constitutional right to vote.

But it wouldn't, necessarily. The federal government can enact arbitrary and capricious regulations just as easily as can the states. What APKmetsfan really wants is uniformity, but only if his co-partisans get to craft those uniform rules.

Just like we did after the civil war, with the VRA (pre SCOTUS butchering) ? I'm fine with that.

You'll be happy to learn that that's what we have now.

That's presumably because he considers that our election laws do not provide an adequate opportunity to vote to all parties.

And he is free to make that argument if he wishes to do so, but I haven't seen him do so yet.

 

[benjipwns]

That's presumably because he considers that our election laws do not provide an adequate opportunity to vote to all parties.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of election laws?

 

[BotoxAgent]

Thank god I'lol be in IMAX watching Interstellar while the votes are being counted. It should help with my anxiety levels for a few hours.

 

[Jooney]

But it wouldn't, necessarily. The federal government can enact arbitrary and capricious regulations just as easily as can the states. What APKmetsfan really wants is uniformity, but only if his co-partisans get to craft those uniform rules.

Give me an example of a federal voting regulation that is arbitrary and capricious. Because at the moment I see things like shifting valid ID requirements (Gun licence vs. Student ID), variance in polling station availability, and reduction in early voting happening at the State level.

And I call bullshit that APK "wants his co-partisans" to craft the uniform rules. He has said no such thing.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I saw some signs for Adrian Wyllie (Libertarian candidate for FL Gov) outside of a Burger King on my way home.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

The election being held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November is federal law. It's nothing out of the 18th century.

You're right. It's out of the 19th century.

I still don't get why we haven't made election day a national holiday and given everyone the day off.

Because that doesn't increase turnout.

 

[Jooney]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of election laws?

By parties he presumably means people, not actual political parties. In which case I totally think it's a fair statement that electoral laws are to facilitate equitable access for all.

 

[benjipwns]

In the early years of the Republic, there was no secret ballot, the parties bought a bunch of liquor, the electorate came down to the town center, got wasted and picked up the colored ballot they wanted and stuck it in the box.

By parties he presumably means people, not actual political parties. In which case I totally think it's a fair statement that electoral laws are to facilitate equitable access for all.

But various parties including the parties have an interest in certain parties not having equitable access as defined by the legal parties.

 

[eBay Huckster]

In the early years of the Republic, there was no secret ballot, the parties bought a bunch of liquor, the electorate came down to the town center, got wasted and picked up the colored ballot they wanted and stuck it in the box.

Why's it only gotta be the colored ballots?

 

[Squirrel Killer]

In the early years of the Republic, there was no secret ballot, the parties bought a bunch of liquor, the electorate came down to the town center, got wasted and picked up the colored ballot they wanted and stuck it in the box.

Define "town center" please.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Give me an example of a federal voting regulation that is arbitrary and capricious. Because at the moment I see things like shifting valid ID requirements (Gun licence vs. Student ID), variance in polling station availability, and reduction in early voting happening at the State level.

And I call bullshit that APK "wants his co-partisans" to craft the uniform rules. He has said no such thing.

Here's the example you requested.

As for APKmetsfan, look at his complaints. They're primarily directed at the substance of voting regulations--photo ID requirements, polling station hours, and so on. Do you think that he would be satisfied if those stringent requirements were imposed by the federal government rather than some states? Would he stop complaining because, after all, at least there's uniformity? Of course not.

 

[benjipwns]

Why's it only gotta be the colored ballots?

Because white ballots would just make the whole thing square.

Define "town center" please.

Usually wherever they had the central market, that's one reason Tuesday was picked. Wednesday was market day.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Usually wherever they had the central market, that's one reason Tuesday was picked. Wednesday was market day.

Wikipedia says, "Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote." That sound right to you?

 

[benjipwns]

I suppose that would make sense, come to town Tuesday, get drunk and vote. Sell your wares on Wednesday then head back.

 

[ivysaur12]

What's everyone drinking tomorrow?

I bought a bunch of Chimay to try to drown out my sorrows.

 

[Jooney]

Here's the example you requested.

To paraphrase certain Republican politicians when responding to a particular question on a particular issue: "I'm not a lawyer". So can you summarise in plain English what the arbitrary discrimination is here by the federal government.

As for APKmetsfan, look at his complaints. They're primarily directed at the substance of voting regulations--photo ID requirements, polling station hours, and so on. Do you think that he would be satisfied if those stringent requirements were imposed by the federal government rather than some states? Would he stop complaining because, after all, at least there's uniformity? Of course not.

Sure, if what APK wanted was "stringent requirements" on the voting process. But he doesn't want that, he wants what I would want, which is a fair and equitable voting process for all, which one could argue that the Federal government has a better track record in recent times when compared to the States.

I never understood tolerating discrimination because it's done at the State level.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What's everyone drinking tomorrow?

I bought a bunch of Chimay to try to drown out my sorrows.

I've taken to keeping a bottle of this in my office desk. So, that. (S'pose I'll be celebrating what y'all are mourning, though. With any luck.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But it wouldn't, necessarily. The federal government can enact arbitrary and capricious regulations just as easily as can the states. What APKmetsfan really wants is uniformity, but only if his co-partisans get to craft those uniform rules.

I want a federal non-partisan election agency.

I want laws that make it easier to vote.

 

[Jooney]

I suppose that would make sense, come to town Tuesday, get drunk and vote. Sell your wares on Wednesday then head back.

Well when you put it like that, that system doesn't seem so bad and makes me wonder why we would need to reform the current system. Plus: the slaves being sold could rest for the night and witness the fun of the franchise first hand.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

As for APKmetsfan, look at his complaints. They're primarily directed at the substance of voting regulations--photo ID requirements, polling station hours, and so on. Do you think that he would be satisfied if those stringent requirements were imposed by the federal government rather than some states? Would he stop complaining because, after all, at least there's uniformity? Of course not.

The federal government generally don't impose those restrictions (as they violate protections in the constitutions). The federal government has a history of protecting the franchise, the states, the opposite.

I am for things like what colorado did. Guess who's winning there?

I have no problems with admitting I agree with democratic polices towards voting, they're fairer to all. even republican.

Edit: this goes along with my consitutional right to vote, I think there need to be standard laws and rights about elections that are equal through the country. We're all US citizens.

 

[ivysaur12]

Making election day a national holiday would help, but it also should be easier for non-salaried employees to get off work to vote.

 

[Metaphoreus]

To paraphrase certain Republican politicians when responding to a particular question on a particular issue: "I'm not a lawyer". So can you summarise in plain English what the arbitrary discrimination is here by the federal government.

Sure.

I want a federal non-partisan election agency.

I think the system we have now--where states have primary control over elections, subject to federal oversight--is better. States are free to experiment with different voting rules, and it doesn't take an act of Congress to modify those rules. As for a non-partisan election agency, I think that's wishful thinking (not to mention anti-democratic). The Supreme Court is non-partisan--how's that working out?

 

[benjipwns]

I want a federal non-partisan election agency.

Like:
National Electoral Institute
Electoral Commission
Elections Canada

Well when you put it like that, that system doesn't seem so bad and makes me wonder why we would need to reform the current system.

Because that's not the current system?

 

[HylianTom]

Making election day a national holiday would help, but it also should be easier for non-salaried employees to get off work to vote.

It's shameful that Election Day isn't a national holiday.

And imagine how many businesses would take off Monday as well for one big four-day holiday weekend shopping extravaganza!

"SALE SALE SALE! Start your holiday shopping early this year, and happy Election Day!"

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well, I'm going into the election tomorrow expecting the GOP to win a majority, but hoping for the best (at least a 50/50 tie). I've said here before the lowest I'm expecting is something like 48 seats for the Democrats (49 counting an Orman victory) which wouldn't be too bad all things considered.

I already voted so I'll just be watching the results come in with some friends in the Twin Cities.

 

[benjipwns]

And imagine how many businesses would take off Monday as well for one big four-day holiday weekend shopping extravaganza!

So the 1% get it off from their trading securities for old peoples homes, but the sick and uneducated and ugly who work retail have to slave around working so they can spend their unearned cash stolen from the workers and put into the pockets of other ruthless business owners?

 

[HylianTom]

So the 1% get it off from their trading securities for old peoples homes, but the sick and uneducated and ugly who work retail have to slave around working so they can spend their unearned cash stolen from the workers and put into the pockets of other ruthless business owners?

Pretty much like any other American holiday.. :/

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sure.



I think the system we have now--where states have primary control over elections, subject to federal oversight--is better. States are free to experiment with different voting rules, and it doesn't take an act of Congress to modify those rules. As for a non-partisan election agency, I think that's wishful thinking (not to mention anti-democratic). The Supreme Court is non-partisan--how's that working out?

Experiment with different voter suppression tactics is what it is most of the time. (and don't counter with the liberal vote by mail and early voting 'experiments' we can look to other countries and don't need states who lag behind even them)

Is there anything where the status quo isn't what you think is best? I that's why you're a conservative.

And what is actually in place is a hodgepodge of different rules (even within states that very by county), differing voter registration rules, a stymied federal justice department, a court system that lets unconstitutional laws into effect before judging them, unfair playing field with dark unlimited corporate money, differing rules about disenfranchisement etc.

Again, we are a laughing stock and we've not achieved nor even approached universal suffrage. We should be embarrassed and insulted every time we talk about elections in other countries

edit: why are you guys talking about making tuesday a holiday? Move it to the weekend like the UK. In fact make it all weekend or all month. What's the problem with that?

 

[ivysaur12]

So the 1% get it off from their trading securities for old peoples homes, but the sick and uneducated and ugly who work retail have to slave around working so they can spend their unearned cash stolen from the workers and put into the pockets of other ruthless business owners?

Like all those poor Black Friday workers :-(

 

[Jooney]

I want a federal non-partisan election agency.

I want laws that make it easier to vote.

The federal government generally don't impose those restrictions (as they violate protections in the constitutions). The federal government has a history of protecting the franchise, the states, the opposite.

I am for things like what colorado did. Guess who's winning there?

I have no problems with admitting I agree with democratic polices towards voting, they're fairer to all. even republican.

Sounds radical and dangerous. I hope you and your co-conspirators don't get your way.

Sure.

Within 48 hours of that decision, some States compelled under that law enacted voter restrictions. All that shows to me is that the Federal Government was right. It's also funny how those States didn't go through a period of analysis to determine an evidenced-based approach to developing their voting laws. They had their shit prepped and good to go when SCOTUS gave the green light. That should tell you something.

I'm less concerned about States with a history of discrimination having their ability to discriminate being taken away from them, when compared to citizens with a history of legitimate voting suddenly having their right taken away from them for no good, evidenced-based reason.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I'm amazed you can't just vote from your phone at this point. They coudl also have Elections held over a weekend or something. For me I'll have to get out of work at 7am, wait around for an hour or so, then drive 3 blocks over to the place I vote at. Theoretically I could have done early voting, but that requires going down to City Hall which is about as fun as the DMV and a Colonoscopy combined.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm amazed you can't just vote from your phone at this point. They coudl also have Elections held over a weekend or something. For me I'll have to get out of work at 7am, wait around for an hour or so, then drive 3 blocks over to the place I vote at. Theoretically I could have done early voting, but that requires going down to City Hall which is about as fun as the DMV and a Colonoscopy combined.

We could but too many people would vote and its painfully obvious why certain people don't want that.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

I'm amazed you can't just vote from your phone at this point.

Or heck, online voting.

 

[Jooney]

If voting from your phone was allowed, which manufacturer's devices would be permitted?

Personally, I think that decision should be left to the States.

 

[Diablos]

Or heck, online voting.

LOL. 4chan would bring it down in an hour.

 

[benjipwns]

Experiment with different voter suppression tactics is what it is most of the time. (and don't counter with the liberal vote by mail and early voting 'experiments' we can look to other countries and don't need states who lag behind even them)

We can look to exactly one other country. Switzerland. Everyone else has implemented those "experiments" after or while one of the States did. Much like women getting the vote.

Again, we are a laughing stock and we've not achieved nor even approached universal suffrage.

Again, I don't think you realize how few countries have. The United States lags few places not half covered in ice.

Zimbabwe "legally" has universal suffrage, but I really wouldn't give them any credit for that.

Move it to the weekend like the UK.

Now I know you must work for the government. The UK votes on Thursday.

I'm amazed you can't just vote from your phone at this point. ... DMV

Your own post had the answer!

 

[eBay Huckster]

Like:
Elections Canada

Personally, I want a robocall scandal that has no chance of actually swinging an election to take up most of a non-partisan commission's time here, too.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Or heck, online voting.

That's what I meant. Wasn't the point of Real ID to give people a single profile to use for all Government websites? Why not use that and allow people to vote using that? I'm not saying make it the only way to vote, but if it were an option I guarantee the younger people in this country would take 3 minutes to do it from their phone.

If voting from your phone was allowed, which manufacturer's devices would be permitted?

Personally, I think that decision should be left to the States.

The manufacturers would be irrelevant because you just tie it to Real ID or require a License number to be entered and the vote is handled through a federal or state site. It would be as reliable as voting machines at the very least considering those are less strictly enforced than god damn slot machines.

And ideally the States should handle it, but they've poven to be pretty god damn awful at it (Georgia losing 40,000 minority voter registrations, Voter ID laws, e-voting machines constantly on the fritz, 2000 election, those several instances of people just "losing" a large number of ballots from certain counties).

 

[benjipwns]

Personally, I want a robocall scandal that has no chance of actually swinging an election to take up most of a non-partisan commission's time here, too.

Canada has such the cutest little scandals.

That's what I meant. Wasn't the point of Real ID to give people a single profile to use for all Government websites? Why not use that and allow people to vote using that.

States that have met Real ID compliance with their drivers licenses (or state ID cards):

DHS expects three more by 2016.

Plus Real ID is actually a secret DHS plot to get all our DNA on file to create clones who they will use to harvest organs for the Lizard People.

Speaking of Adrian Wyllie mentioned a few posts ago, he's one of the people with a lawsuit against REAL ID.

EDIT:

On May 17, 2011, Wyllie surrendered his driver’s license in protest of the REAL ID Act. He then attempted to be cited for violating the law by contacting all local law enforcement agencies to turn himself in. No agency would respond to his provocation.[10] Two months later, he berated the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida on his radio program, which resulted in his receiving a citation hours later.[11]

On May 9, 2014, Wyllie was arrested after parking his car to attend a charity event at the Safety Harbor Spa and Resort.[12] He was charged for piloting a vehicle without a driver's license and his automobile was impounded. After being held for seven hours in a Pinellas County jail, Wyllie was released on his own recognizance.[13]

 

[NYCmetsfan]

from a political article on voter apathy

But rest assured, our systemic ills won’t disappear - nor will the ongoing search for systemic cures. To be sure, the turnout mavens have plenty of proposed fixes. How nice it might be, theoretically, if we could put the vicious partisan fight over voting rights behind us and embrace universal voter registration. Among other sensible suggestions: a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College (supposedly, non-swing state voters would become more motivated); the abolition of gerrymandering, in which state legislators draw congressional districts to ensure safe non-competitive seats for their own political party; a reversal of the special-interest/secret donor money chase, via strict campaign finance laws that would be validated by some future Supreme Court; mandatory voting, a la Australia, where abstaining citizens are fined, where middle-of-the-road voters are thus required to dilute the influence of the ideological voters; a biometric national ID card, a la Mexico, that would automatically enfranchise the 61 million Americans that are unregistered to vote but eligible.

Right now, sadly, all these improvements are about as likely to happen as pigs flying. American democracy is breaking, and the trends suggest it’s going to get a lot more broken before we figure out how to fix it.

all of those things are supported by liberal groups, opposed by conservatives.

they are all fair and easy to support (maybe not the ID card but even then)

both sides aren't equal, one side believes in democracy and the franchise and the other wants to limit it.

And ideally the States should handle it, but they've poven to be pretty god damn awful at it (Georgia losing 40,000 minority voter registrations, Voter ID laws, e-voting machines constantly on the fritz, 2000 election, those several instances of people just "losing" a large number of ballots from certain counties)

Why?

 

[Diablos]

Election day should be a paid holiday. Period. No one should have to work.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Experiment with different voter suppression tactics is what it is most of the time. (and don't counter with the liberal vote by mail and early voting 'experiments' we can look to other countries and don't need states who lag behind even them)

Is there anything where the status quo isn't what you think is best? I that's why you're a conservative.

You don't get to make claims like that in you first sentence without backing them up. Show me the receipts.

And I didn't say I think the current system is best. I said I think it's better than your proposed system of unelected nominally non-partisan bureaucrats deciding when and how citizens get to vote on the politicians who appointed the bureaucrats.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I suppose that would make sense, come to town Tuesday, get drunk and vote. Sell your wares on Wednesday then head back.

See, that's the thing... it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. You think a poll tax is bad, requiring voters to go to the county seat, which may be 10-20 miles away, just to vote is insane.

So I started looking in to this. The oldest records that I knew would be readily available to me were in Iowa Red Book (a digest of various government information, including election results.) That only goes back to about 1890, but even the first one I was able to get a hold of (1892,) results were broken out by precinct, which are significantly smaller than counties.

Maybe they still traveled to county seats and just had separate ballot boxes. I checked contemporary resources for election instructions, but couldn't find any in my local library's microfiche catalog. After some serious Google-fu, I found a document of Florida precinct information around Sarasota in 1845 (the year the Presidential Election Day Act was passed.) "FORT HARLEE PRECINCT | House of Mrs. Ann Monroe" and "FORT CRANE PRECINCT | House of D. C. Cash" do not sound like "town centers" to me.

Eventually, I came across this Harvard Kennedy School site that has an impressive collection of early election data. Just spot checking some of those results, I'm seeing elections as early as 1799 breaking results out by precincts.

So where do I think this "having to travel long distances to vote" myth come from? Well, if you read the debate on the Presidential Election Day Act, you see that a major sticking point for South Carolina was the long distance to the state capitol that their presidential electors would have to travel twice (once for this new uniform presidential election day, and later for their normal Senator election day.) To which the other states eventually said, "Just fucking deal with it SC." I'm thinking that over time, SC's objections got morphed in to this idea that it was everyone's general objection instead of a specific state's refusal to adapt because it hadn't yet moved to direct election of its Senators.

Now, this is my own original research and lacks the academic rigor or Wikipedians quoting unverified myths of early election procedures, so take it with a huge grain of salt. Well, except for the bit about setting Tuesday because it was so long to get to the county seat. That's just false.

 

[benjipwns]

the abolition of gerrymandering, in which state legislators draw congressional districts to ensure safe non-competitive seats for their own political party

I hope the article lays out how this is possible.

a reversal of the special-interest/secret donor money chase, via strict campaign finance laws that would be validated by some future Supreme Court

We had to give up some tenants of liberal democracy in order to save it.

mandatory voting, a la Australia, where abstaining citizens are fined

And is total bullshit.

On the upside, it got a Libertarian elected because his name was first on the ballot and the donkey votes outweighed everyone else.

See, that's the thing... it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. You think a poll tax is bad, requiring voters to go to the county seat, which may be 10-20 miles away, just to vote is insane.

Well, I guess I really meant "town center" more than county seat and shouldn't have ignored your specifics. I would assume any notions of that story would come from areas where the county seat was the only civilization. I know there are a few counties in which that is nearly the case now. Tend to be places where the post office is the only thing for miles thus it's the polling station.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Why?

Honestly, I now can't think of a compelling reason why it should. Fuck it, make the Federal Government (which was intended by the founders to be the overseeing entity) handle it.