BBC News: Voting Rights: How the Battle is unfolding across the US
According to the BBC, "At the centre (sic) of this national debate is a question of what is the greatest threat to American Democracy. Is it the security of an election process that in 2020 relied heavily on early and mail-in voting?"
No. That was never the problem. The problem is American politicians poke each other and position themselves behind minimal details rather than actually taking the act of voting seriously. Voting is the core of citizenship, connected directly to the Revolution, the Declaration, the Constitution, all that, it is the very center of your existence as a citizen. You should be vigilant to changes in the system, against advantages and disadvantages. But you should also keep an eye on which crises are just babble for TV cameras and which present actual problems to solve.
The Democrats and Republicans will likely spend the next two years going to war over 'voting rights' to distract the American people from what voting rights actually are or need to be. They're going bare knuckle over a semicolon on page 56 of some obscure Act instead of actually making voting more convenient and effective for the widest possible pool of citizens. The parties are just looking to put on a good show, some philosophical red meat that makes us feel like the politicians are fighting for us when in reality all they're doing is distracting the masses.
We just had an election where more people voted in more ways than ever before....the voting system has never been better. Imperfect since birth, but not bad and continuing to improve. The political outcry is because the parties need outcry, and where there is no outcry, the parties are expert at creating the appearance of a philosophical battle when actually they're fighting over something insignificant or tangential.
Manipulative political bickering is the only problem with voting rights Americans have ever experienced. The Dems are making a vague grab at continually federalizing the workings of civic society and maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. If they pull it off, maybe it'll make a difference in our lives, maybe it won't. The talk will continue, though, and when a scoundrel needs a refuge, expect big talk about high falutin' gibbery like the failure of democracy.
BBC: "Or is it a system, corrupted by the influence of big donors and powerful interests, that makes voting more difficult than necessary, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups?"
Big donors? Powerful interests? Restrictions on voting are now and have always been the result of the political parties and no one else. The government gives the citizens the right to vote because it wants the People to vote, to participate in the civic order. It is the political parties that carve up the People into sub-groups (some intentionally disadvantaged), for their own purposes.
The Republicans and the Democrats are two extremely wealthy corporations that have colluded together to keep everyone else away from the forces of actual power (re: gov't spending). Most of their collusion revolves around making sure the People never challenges their duopoly over gov't power. (FWIW, the American People seem to love the 2-party system; hell, even through all my complaining, I must admit it has been remarkably stable for multiple centuries and that ain't bad. But I still can't help thinking the endless political bickering is to alter capital flows to partisans rather than citizens and...well, not much else. It's all about the money and just the money--and these are the guys that print the money)
BBC: "The Democratic effort at national voting law centres (sic) around passage of the 'For the People Act'...(which) would guarantee that voters can receive a mail-in ballot if requested, mandate a minimum of 15 days of early voting before every federal election, require paper ballots and set standards for voting machines."
1) Mail-in ballot. The first (and only) time I voted was 1992. I voted by mail-in ballot. I can only speak for Fayette County, Kentucky in 1992, but as for as I know, mail-in ballots are always available if requested. And if they've ever not been available, you should've complained to your representatives.
2) 15 days of early voting. I don't really understand what this means. Election Day is election day, early voting is fine with me, but the votes would sit uncounted (right?) until Election Day. Election Day is an end point, not a beginning point, there has to be an agreed-upon moment where the voting comes to a close, but what difference does when we start the vote? How does it work? (I don't get why this is important)
3) Paper ballots. Uh oh, here's the problem--should be a problem for Liberals more than Conservatives! Once you mandate a specific form of ballot itself, then you cut off any evolution of what ballots can be. As we move further and further into the digital world, paper ballots themselves will become (already are, actually) obsolete and wasteful. And this will LIMIT rather than expand the range of voting population.
If Democrats were really looking out for the American people (which, of course, they are not) they wouldn't be putting forward such a short sighted proposition. Republicans, too, should run screaming from this kind of Federal control but they won't, because they're Republicans (rather than rational thinkers). Paper ballots are fine, but other types of ballots may benefit the citizenry, too, so why create limitation rather expansion? The Left will continually applaud themselves for giving away rights, but the Right is too stupid to keep it from happening because both think of their own Partisan advantage rather than the welfare of the American populace. The Citizenry isn't advanced by this waste of effort, our choices are delineated and neutered.
4) Standards for voting machines. Voting itself is county by county--which is why this bill is either utterly pointless (applies only to federal guidelines, of which there really aren't many) or incredibly important (amazing attempted power grab at centralizing voting which has hitherto always been very local). I think its the former rather than the latter. Politicians love to blather about stuff designed to be insignificant knowing full well its just a (micro) money-sucking tool and not an actual (macro) evolution of the social order. For the Feds to grab control it means they'd have to grab it from a million little fish out there, but those fish are gonna bite back. There's a reason why voting is extremely local--and extremely not Federal--in USA: even piddly politicians don't like giving up their power. And hanging chads is their super power.
BBC: "It would prohibit states from disenfranchising felons who have completed their sentences and enact new restrictions on undisclosed 'dark money' contributions."
1) Disenfranchising felons should never have been authorized by any legislature or accepted by any judiciary. What jurisdiction has the right to permanently limit Constitutional rights to citizens? I support not letting inmates vote, violent crimes should come with cessation of some Constitutional rights while incarcerated. But once the sentence has been served, why should the State exert any cessation of Constitutional opportunities of the Citizen? By what authority is Constitutional protection stripped from a citizen? Why would past criminal activity ever be a consideration to remove natural born rights?
We're treating this like the gov't is granting us a right, when in fact the hope here is that it stops removing this right. Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives alike should be in support of this. How it took 200 years to get here (and I don't know that this will be reversed) is shameful and irritating.
2) Restrictions on 'dark money' contributions is, to my mind, a "campaign" issue rather than a "voting" issue, but I don't make the issues. I'm not opposed to restricting dark money, though I doubt any of the current Our Gang could actually craft something useful. It seems to me the proper reading of Citizens United v Fed Election Commission is that political contributions should be more documented rather than less but I don't know that it has played out that way. As long as all contributions are documented and made public, I'm cool with it. (Don't get me wrong, I'd never give a politician any of my money, that's absurd and I'm skeptical of anyone that would give their money to these most horrible people in our society, but if people wanna give their money to hucksters, liars, fools, and soothsayers, they should be free to do so)
"Dark" Money doesn't necessarily mean illegal contributions, sometimes it can mean out of state contributions or obscure sources which may or may not be illegal, so dumping potential criminal activity right in a patch of legal activity is an intentional obfuscation. Legislators know very well they're stirring the pot by leaving future arguments built into the laws they write.
BBC: "Many new voters would be automatically registered under the legislation, which also requires tech companies to disclose information about political advertising, create new government support for small donor-funded candidates and seek to end practices of "gerrymandering" voting maps for partisan advantage."
1) Automatic registration. Yes, this is how it should always have worked, tied to taxation (re: the annual piece of paperwork all citizens are expected to submit). The reason it doesn't work that way (and never has) is because the political parties don't want it. It is the political parties--and only the political parties--that limit voting opportunities in USA. Always. Again, this is an example of the politics making voting harder rather than easier and the Partisans have been getting away with it for centuries. (Bet you a dollar this provision is left out)
2) Tech companies disclose advertising. Yeah, whatever. Trying to get "information" from a tech company is like an orphan asking for more: you'll look really sympathetic when you don't get what you want but that's as good as its gonna get. This is just vague puffery that looks like an opportunity for politicians to make vague future wars on each other through trying to manipulate the tech industry (who will likely be one step ahead of the politicos for the foreseeable future). Any and all of that makes me wanna barf.
3) Gov't support for donor-funded candidates is something that already happens, right? Remember when Obama turned down gov't sponsorship in 2008 because his donations were so high? This already happens when the parties leave certain candidates out of the big money. Whatever, just another way to funnel federal monies straight into Partisan bank accounts. Serves no other purpose. I see no benefit to the Citizenry, merely Public monies going to Party interests.
4) "Gerrymandering" *exasperate shrug* You realize that most voting blocs of citizens don't live in a rectangle or a perfect circle, right? The sheer bizarre shape of a voting district probably has more to do with physical landmarks (mountains, highways, etc) than political chicanery; indeed, weird shapes should be expected. Every 10 years as per the Constitution, the Congressional districts are re-drawn and the Party in power at that time has the power to make it so. This is how it has always worked since 1790. Each party has put their grubby fingerprints on the drawings numerous times over the years, there is nothing new about it or out of the ordinary about it. And the weird shape of the map is not a smoking gun.
If we endeavor to change this system, the worthwhile change would be to convene a private body--outside of Congress (or State Legislatures)--every 10 years to perform this task. Okay. First, that requires Congressmen to give up their grubby powers and hand it over to a bunch of outsiders (yeah, that ain't happening). Even if that did happen, what rationale for voter re-districting would this independent body take up? What is the proper way to draw districts? Yeah....there is no answer to that question. Even an independent body would likely draw it up based on partisan voting patterns because, well, what else is there?
For example, if a large city has a cluster of African-Americans, is it advantageous to the local African-Americans to be lumped together in one district that they could then politically dominate? Or better to be divided across 3-4 districts, to ensure African-American representation across a range of seats? What's better for African-Americans in that scenario? I dunno, how would anyone know that? We would only know over time if creating an African-American dominated district is better than creating a wider dispersal of African-American constituency--and even then, whose opinion determines what is "better"? What "advantages" this population and what "disadvantages" them? I dunno. How would anyone know? Only time will tell if any given policy ever does any of the things that it's supposed to do. I vote for empowering the citizenry against unnecessary gov't spending at all times. How does that effect re-districting?
The Party in power gets to be in charge of the process, how else would it work? Why would we have imbued Congress with these primary powers if we did not expect them to adjudicate things amongst themselves? "Amongst themselves" means majority power in the House with some minority powers in the Senate. This is one of those rubber to the road moments, this is just how the process works, trying to change that is a feudal process--indeed, what exactly is there to 'change'?
The debate is a non-starter and in this case the solution is just a new version of the same problem. The system we call "gerrymandering" is what it is. It is inherently politically corrupt in the sense that everything the gov't does is corrupt. We could call it something else but getting rid of the reapportionment of Congressional districts is not gonna happen--and that's all 'gerrymandering' is. So what is it you think you're trying to get rid of by 'banning' it? (And how do you plan on 'banning' it?)
As for as I'm concerned, any move of Congress is a no-win situation, we're all disadvantaged every time any of them do anything. Occasionally the agglomeration of sheer gov't waste creates enough detritus to power the economy, I am for empowering the citizen to be the most in control of his own destiny; preferably with the aid of (rather than threat from) the gov't (but figuring out how to do that is rather complicated).
BBC: "Democrats have since turned their focus to updating the Voting Rights Act, a 1960s-era law that has been curtailed by the Supreme Court over the past decade."
What the Supreme Court pointed out was that the Voting Rights Acts was basically defunct because it hadn't been updated (or actually employed) since 1972. The Supreme Court didn't 'curtail' anything, it pointed out that the Act had not been properly maintained and was basically null and void on its own. It showed clearly what needed to be changed for re-submission to the legislature, which could have happened without much effort at any point since that decision was handed down. Instead, the Dems have not bothered to re-write or re-submit the bill because claiming victimhood is politically more palatable and blaming the Supreme Court for something that clearly hasn't been important since 1972 is easy money to a politician.
BBC: "Democrats counter that the confidence of the public has been damaged by the unsubstantiated allegations made by Trump and others after November's balloting."
Even in foreign lands the prevailing narrative is Trump is responsible for all ills. Not at all. Voting rights improprieties in USA go back to the 1780s--probably earlier. I guarantee this problem is older than Trump--there are multiple amendments to the Constitution on this very topic, voting rights didn't just appear ten minutes ago.
Do you understand what you're doing when you blame Trump for everything? You're getting further from ascertaining the real problems that need solving and engaging in empty cult of personality uselessness designed to keep the masses--even the educated fancy pants masses--from really absorbing what their gov't is, what it does and can do and how it interacts with the citizenry.
Hurling mud is the easiest form of rhetoric and Trump is the muddiest target America has produced in ages. That's not a defense of Trump, it is a call to ignore the sideshow and the demagoguery that comes in his wake. But none of this started with Trump, he is just the most convenient distraction for Partisans to wave in front of the American People.
"Taxation without representation is theft!" was one of the battle cries of 1776. The understanding is clear: taxation is a fact of life but representation needs to be demanded. The colonists of the Eastern seaboard were tired of being made to pay for British imperialism, especially since it no longer served colonial interests.
The ability to choose our own leaders is what it means to be an American, the ability to remove them when they have failed us is the purest, best power the American people have. And protecting that power should be our foremost concern because it so primary.
But once you actually elect the leaders, they combine around their own necessities, the necessities of representing. An infrastructure of gov't sets in quickly (just ask George Washington, that dude hated being president). The power of the people to choose their own representatives fades once the representatives themselves create their own power blocs within the façade of gov't.
A corporation becomes prominent when it serves the needs of the consumers, it will make whatever adjustments the consumers demand in order to maintain its position. But when the corporation gets big enough, it moves on to its own concerns and consumer influence becomes more of a suggestion than a motivating force. Political philosophy is just a consumer good, like bicycle tires or yogurt. You buy it off the shelf--it's called 'retail politics' for a reason. And the exotic partisans have 'boutique' issues, the consumer relations of the game itself are built right into the language.
When set against each other politicians are generally more successful at playing a negative game as opposed to a positive one: loving your favorite candidate isn't nearly as important as hating the opposing candidate. Here the partisans keep the people divided, using hatred as animus, and now using the tool of voting to injure each other. Voting is is presented as a weapon rather than a right and thus some people must have their weapon removed.
Voter suppression is always and only a function of political will, what else could it be? Who else can manipulate the levers of democracy except the politicians? Politicians are just entertainers, they say what the paying-est people want to hear in order to keep their jobs. And by driving each other from the marketplace, they injure the Citizenry's right to choose. And by pretending to fight for those rights, the Citizens are meant to feel protected when in fact they're more in danger than ever.
Okay, so Major League Baseball decided they didn't like Georgia's voting laws, so they abruptly moved the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver. Okay, so what is Colorado doing that makes their laws so clearly better than Georgia's? I dunno, we never had that debate. All I know about the odious Georgia laws is that you're not allowed to give water to someone standing in line. I have no idea why giving water to someone waiting is a threat to democracy, but then again I have no idea why people stand in line to vote. Seems like we're fighting over a symptom rather than the disease. I'm guessing most all the people in those lines would have cell phones, no? Why doesn't everyone just hit a button on their phone in the privacy of their home weeks ahead of the election if they want? And if you say, 'that method of voting wouldn't be secure enough!' I would say, 'as opposed to what? What is the form of voting that is infallible?'
Major League Baseball is trying to convince us that our current system is dangerous enough to not even deserve an exhibition baseball game in Atlanta! Well, what the fuck could be so different about voting on an app? If the point is to make things easier to vote--something I firmly believe in--then why aren't we voting on our phones yet? If you think its because paper ballots are safer....why do you think that?
The politicians are using the most dire language to describe the most mundane elements of our freedoms. And the People have become so use to pointless political blather that no one is even bothering to notice the deception the partisans are trying to pull over on us. The problems with voting are the same problems we've had for decades: that the politicians occasionally remove rights from us and then try to convince us they're doing it for our protection.
The technology rules us, not the politicians. The technology rules the politicians, too. We need to get right with the coming technology and we need the gov't to protect us. And that's precisely not what its doing because the Partisans need to keep us unprotected for their benefit. They're pretending to fight for you but the Parties are fighting for themselves; they, like the gov't, are planning on out-living you. They are doing whatever it takes to keep the Citizenry ignorant of the future. When it gets to the level of something as basic, as primary as voting rights, then it's clear to see the Democrats and Republicans are using our rights as bargaining chips. This is a game to these corporations and the citizenry are the tokens.
The political parties are the scourge of our nation. They're more or less in an intertwined death struggle that's dragging us further from our Constitutional rights. You can pick your favorite one, but why bother? They're both foul, they're both self-interested, they both live on ignorance and manipulation--and the nicest thing I can say is that they're both much too inefficient to actually be as bad as they could be.
Voting is the same problem it always was. The details are just a part of someone's self-aggrandizing narrative. How hard is it for you to vote? If it is hard in any way, you should stampede to your local, state and federal representatives at least to register complaint. Try to live from your own experience rather than imagining yourself (or others) as a trending statistic. All the Republic asks of its citizens is for each one of you to be you. When it comes to your relation to voting, remember it belongs to you, it cannot be taken from you, though the Partisans will endeavor to make you work for it while pretending to serve you.
Your right to vote is clearly laid out in the Constitution therefore--think about it!--no law on voting rights can expand the Constitution. Therefore any law on voting rights--put forth by any party in any place at any time--can do nothing but LIMIT voting rights. As a citizen you should be wary of anything related to "voting rights" because it can only be about limiting rights, not extending them.
The partisans know that this is a phony debate that can only end up worse for the citizenry. You may think you're on the right side of this but I assure you there is no right side of this debate.
