Where is the National Guard?

[Umbran]

Saying it is their job to deal with the world and not with local issues, politics, and general goings on.

If that is his stance (and I know our understanding is incomplete) then he's missing a very basic point: Sometimes (probably often), dealing with the world has local impact.

 

[billd91]

Small potatoes. The electoral college does such a tremendous job at suppressing votes that it dwarfs the very small number of people who would lose votes over these laws. Every Republican in California has his vote suppressed during presidential elections. Ever Democrat in Texas is likewise disenfranchised by the electoral college.

If you're really worried about people losing votes, that's the place to start.

I agree the electoral college should go, but it does have an interesting effect of actually raising the power of individual voters in competitive states. There were a pair of mathematicians who calculated the power indices of voters and showed an individual vote is more powerful thanks to the electoral college than it would be in a nation-wide presidential race.

But even the electoral college doesn't suppress votes. Voters still get to cast them and have them counted. That CA hasn't voted GOP for president since 1984 doesn't mean it can't be competitive. Republican governors have carried the state since then and if they can, surely a Republican presidential candidate could too. Or maybe they could if they didn't try to pander so much to some of their Bible Belt activists that they become unpalatable in CA.

 

[Umbran]

Every Republican in California has his vote suppressed during presidential elections. Ever Democrat in Texas is likewise disenfranchised by the electoral college.

If you're really worried about people losing votes, that's the place to start.

Well, the Electoral College applies only to the offices of the President and VP. The suppression measures under discussion apply to *all* elections, all levels, and there's strong argument that all the other levels are far more important in the long run.

The electoral college system has its flaws, and I'm not in principle against replacing it with something else. However, the way we collectively form political opinions these days sometimes makes me wonder if the Founding Fathers were correct, that we need some protection against certain forms of whim of the electorate.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree the electoral college should go, but it does have an interesting effect of actually raising the power of individual voters in competitive states. There were a pair of mathematicians who calculated the power indices of voters and showed an individual vote is more powerful thanks to the electoral college than it would be in a nation-wide presidential race.

But even the electoral college doesn't suppress votes. Voters still get to cast them and have them counted. That CA hasn't voted GOP for president since 1984 doesn't mean it can't be competitive. Republican governors have carried the state since then and if they can, surely a Republican presidential candidate could too. Or maybe they could if they didn't try to pander so much to some of their Bible Belt activists that they become unpalatable in CA.

The votes are counted as they are thrown in the trash as worthless. It doesn't matter which party wins the state. The votes of the other party are automatically tossed away as garbage, holding no weight whatsoever.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, the Electoral College applies only to the offices of the President and VP. The suppression measures under discussion apply to *all* elections, all levels, and there's strong argument that all the other levels are far more important in the long run.

The electoral college system has its flaws, and I'm not in principle against replacing it with something else. However, the way we collectively form political opinions these days sometimes makes me wonder if the Founding Fathers were correct, that we need some protection against certain forms of whim of the electorate.

It's not really protection, though. Only rarely is the one elected as President not the winner of the popular vote. The one time it has happened in modern times didn't protect anyone. Gore may not have been the best for the job, but he couldn't have been any worse than Bush or Obama. It may have started out as protection, during a time when people really couldn't find out who was who and what they stood for, but that hasn't been the case for decades.

Edit: I forgot to respond to your first paragraph.

While I agree that state elections are more important than the election of the President, the numbers of people who are suppressed by these state laws are small. States charge a small handful of dollars or give I.D. cards free to poor people. If they really want an I.D., it's easy for them to get one.

 

[Valador]

More of these race baiting discussions... How about we do this. You poor mistreated souls just tell me how much of my hard earned money as a donation would ease the massive pain and suffering you're obviously in thanks to the man holding you down... *insert eyeroll*

This is sarcasm by the way... Please don't ask me for money, go for work it, thanks.

 

[Umbran]

While I agree that state elections are more important than the election of the President, the numbers of people who are suppressed by these state laws are small.

To quote the New York Times, about the PA voter ID law mentioned above:

"The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts."

(emphasis mine)

Now, in the presidential campaign, we could argue that hundreds of thousands do not matter. They certainly do matter for the US Congressional elections in the State. They mater for State-level representation as well.

. States charge a small handful of dollars or give I.D. cards free to poor people. If they really want an I.D., it's easy for them to get one

Oh, about that:

"In addition, Judge McGinley ruled, the state’s $5 million campaign to explain the law had been full of misinformation that has never been corrected. He also said that the free IDs that were supposed to be made available to those without driver’s licenses or other approved photo identification were difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain."

So, really, not so much easy.

It would be easy to get a card if you are in good health, have a car, and have a job in which taking a few hours off to go to the DMV to get an ID isn't a big deal. If you are in this state of being, you have a certain amount of privilege that you should be happy you have. If you have that privilege, you can afford to give a little leeway for others, who have less advantage than you.

Especially when there was no notable voter fraud to prevent. This was legislation that, supposedly, was designed to fix a problem that could not be demonstrated as actually existing!

I would imagine a conservative should be *happy* that entirely unnecessary legislation that impinged on the freedom of law abiding American citizens would be shot down!

 

[tuxgeo]

And, getting back to the occupation at the Wildlife Refuge again for a moment:

Burns, Oregon (CNN) --
The leaders of the Burns Paiute tribe have a message for the men and women who have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon: "Go home. We don't want you here."

OK, so that's at least one group of local residents who don't want the Bundy militia to do what they're doing, where they're doing it. . . .

One of the Paiutes was shown in a video saying something to the effect that the Bundys want the government to give the land back to its rightful owners, and she was quipping that she was busy writing an adquate acceptance letter. (Tongue firmly in cheek, I suspect.)

 

[Maxperson]

"The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts."

Given the prevalence of bench legislation in this country, I'm not going to just take a judge's word on that.

"In addition, Judge McGinley ruled, the state’s $5 million campaign to explain the law had been full of misinformation that has never been corrected. He also said that the free IDs that were supposed to be made available to those without driver’s licenses or other approved photo identification were difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain."

Then he should have required corrections be made.

It would be easy to get a card if you are in good health, have a car, and have a job in which taking a few hours off to go to the DMV to get an ID isn't a big deal.

If they have trouble taking a few hours to get an I.D., they aren't going to be in any shape to go vote, either. If you can do one, you can do the other.

If you are in this state of being, you have a certain amount of privilege that you should be happy you have. If you have that privilege, you can afford to give a little leeway for others, who have less advantage than you.

I've been poor. I didn't have a car. I didn't have a job that gave me vacation time. I still managed to get an ID.

Especially when there was no notable voter fraud to prevent. This was legislation that, supposedly, was designed to fix a problem that could not be demonstrated as actually existing!

This is true. Voter fraud, while not non-existent, is nearly so.

 

[Sacrosanct]

More of these race baiting discussions... How about we do this. You poor mistreated souls just tell me how much of my hard earned money as a donation would ease the massive pain and suffering you're obviously in thanks to the man holding you down... *insert eyeroll*

This is sarcasm by the way... Please don't ask me for money, go for work it, thanks.

Wait, are you saying that the only reason people are victims of disparate treatment is not based on their ethnicity/race/religion but because they're too lazy to work? or that people who are claiming to be victims of disparate treatment, aren't, and that they just want money? Or both?

The votes are counted as they are thrown in the trash as worthless. It doesn't matter which party wins the state. The votes of the other party are automatically tossed away as garbage, holding no weight whatsoever.

Just because "your side" didn't win an election, doesn't mean that your votes are worthless and garbage. They also drive future behavior and strategy

And, getting back to the occupation at the Wildlife Refuge again for a moment:

Burns, Oregon (CNN) --
The leaders of the Burns Paiute tribe have a message for the men and women who have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon: "Go home. We don't want you here."

OK, so that's at least one group of local residents who don't want the Bundy militia to do what they're doing, where they're doing it. . . .

One of the Paiutes was shown in a video saying something to the effect that the Bundys want the government to give the land back to its rightful owners, and she was quipping that she was busy writing an adquate acceptance letter. (Tongue firmly in cheek, I suspect.)

In the article I posted yesterday from the Paiute tribe, they basically said, "We made a treaty 150 years ago agreeing that the government would take care of this sacred land. The militia are damaging sacred relics, so the government needs to keep its promise and take care of the area. (implying, get rid of these militia as soon as possible).