Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Voter Suppression Poll


vcczar
 Share

Voter Suppression Poll  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following forms of Voter Suppression should be legal for a federal, state, or local authorities to employ for an election?

    • None. All these forms of suppressing a vote should be illegal.
    • Strict voter ID Laws
    • Closing DMVs (where one gets and ID) in states with strict voter ID laws
    • Eliminating early voting
    • Strict requirements/punishments for voter registration groups
    • Purposely failing to process voter registration forms in time in order to hurt the opposition party
      0
    • Reducing the number of polling places in a way that hurts the opposition party
    • Relocating polling places to make them further from voters of the opposition party
    • Supplying select polling locations with fewer ballots and less functional machines to hurt the opposition party
      0
    • Refusing to place polling stations on college campuses
    • Excessive voter purging to disenfranchise voters primarily of the opposition party
    • Placing polling stations far away from a public transportation drop off point
    • Disenfranchising ex-felons
    • Literacy Tests
    • Poll Tax
      0
    • Failure to accommodate voters with physical disabilities
      0
    • Deceptive practices to misinform voters of the opposition party on where to vote, when to vote, etc.
      0
    • Voter intimidation, including allowing voter intimidation if it effects primarily the opposition party
      0
    • Partisan gerrymandering
    • Employers publicly connected to one party not allowing employees time off to vote if most employees are presumed to be members of the opposition party
    • Purposely creating situations in which some polling places will have very long lines for voters of the opposition party
    • Fraud by purposely miscounting or losing ballots in a way that hurts the opposition party
      0
  2. 2. Which of the following do you support?

    • The elimination of all voter suppression mentioned above.
    • The elimination of only the voter suppression above that I checked off.
    • Election Day as a national holiday, allowing everyone time to vote on election day.
    • Extending early voting
    • Extending mail-in voting
    • Allowing late voting in some rare cases, so long as the votes are processed before the Electoral College meets.
    • Automatic voter registration for all US citizens on reaching 18, changing residency, or when becoming US citizens.
    • None of the above
  3. 3. Who does voting suppression (tactics used in question #1) unfairly benefit in most cases in the 21st century?

    • It benefits Republicans and suppressed more Democratic votes.
    • It benefits Democrats and suppresses more Republican votes.
  4. 4. Which 21st century presidents would have likely lost the presidential election if they were not helped by voter suppression tactics from question #1 in their election?

    • In 2000, GW Bush would have likely lost FL to Al Gore, thus ushering in a Gore presidency.
    • In 2004, GW Bush would have likely lost OH to John Kerry, thus ushering in a Kerry presidency.
    • In 2008, Barack Obama would have likely lost NC, IN, FL, and OH, and a couple more states, thus ushering in a McCain presidency.
    • In 2012, Barack Obama would have likely lost FL, OH, VA, and CO, thus ushering in a Romney presidency.
    • In 2016, Donald Trump would have likely lost MI, PA, WI (or FL), thus ushering in a Clinton presidency.
    • In 2020, Joe Biden would have likely lost GA, AZ, WI, PA, thus ushering in a Trump presidency.


Recommended Posts

It's my firm belief that if all forms of voter suppression didn't exist, that GHW Bush would have been the last Republican president. Bush definitely would not have won in 2000. He likely would have lost in 2004. Trump would have definitely lost in 2016. 

However, the timeline would be different. 

Gore wins in 2000. I think the War on Terror commits people to him in 2004, much in the same way Bush benefited. 

In 2008, Gore would be hurt by the Great Recession, so a Republican like McCain might have won. 

I think McCain would be a one-termer during the Great Recession, as he would be unlikely to win over voters with a Republican-led response for being struggling in the recession. Democrats will always give out more money and services and spend more combatting domestic crises. 

Obama wins in 2012 and probably again in 2016 as the economy rebounds.

I see Obama WAAAAY more successful with a 2013-2021 presidency; however, his approval sinks with COVID tanking the economy at the tail end of his presidency. Obama responds to Covid much better than Trump did, but his required lockdowns upset some voters. 

I see the 2020 in this alternate history as too close to call with Republicans leaning in the poll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious to hear @Dobs argument on 1) How the voting suppression listed in question #1 helps Democrats more than Republicans; and 2) How McCain would have won in 2008 if not for voter suppression.

I figured you might. I chose not to answer the questions on the principle I think that such things are unquantifiable and shouldn’t be objects of partisan desire. Voter suppression is a nonpartisan evil and I think both parties suffer immensely because of it as the entire country suffers immensely. As for the final question, I don’t think that it would have changed the outcome of any election so I simply picked the one with the largest margin to lodge my discontent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I'm not voting on this simply because both parties are guilty of voter suppression throughout history, and even today in many different areas. I won't take a side on an issue that both parties have done in some way shape or form.

Obviously, both parties do it to a degree. The first question asks which do you disapprove of. It's a non-partisan question. Doesn't affix blame to any party.

The second question asks which you would support. It's a non-partisan question. Doesn't affix blame to any party. 

Third question does affix blame, but it asks you to which part do you think has been guilty of it more often. It does not affix blame solely on one party. 

Fourth questions asks which elections do you think were voter suppression was crucial in determining the election. It includes all parties, and does not affix blame, except in isolated elections. 

Not sure what your issue is here. 

9 minutes ago, Dobs said:

I figured you might. I chose not to answer the questions on the principle I think that such things are unquantifiable and shouldn’t be objects of partisan desire. Voter suppression is a nonpartisan evil and I think both parties suffer immensely because of it as the entire country suffers immensely. As for the final question, I don’t think that it would have changed the outcome of any election so I simply picked the one with the largest margin to lodge my discontent.

Very lame. Also see my response above to Pringles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pringles said:

I'm not voting on this simply because both parties are guilty of voter suppression throughout history, and even today in many different areas. I won't take a side on an issue that both parties have done in some way shape or form.

Just out of curiosity, where are Democrats suppressing votes today? The question specifically mentioned 21st century. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Just out of curiosity, where are Democrats suppressing votes today? The question specifically mentioned 21st century. 

I think there's probably some sort of shenanigans in the Big Party Machine cities, but I have no data on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

I think there's probably some sort of shenanigans in the Big Party Machine cities, but I have no data on it.

Agreed, I think long lines in blue states like NY are a problem. But it's in no way as much as the laundry list of items the GOP is indulging in these days. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Just out of curiosity, where are Democrats suppressing votes today? The question specifically mentioned 21st century. 

I think partisan gerrymandering in and of itself is voter suppression. Republicans and Democrats are just as guilty of these things. Democrats try their best to win governorships and local elections so that they can control redistricting when the time comes. State parties also control the timing of these local elections, locations of voting, spending on them, etc. All have hints of voter suppression because they are trying to get their voters out there moreso than the opposition. Goes for both sides.

 

And yes, party machines can be an example although that screams more 20th century. Chicago machine baby. Still exists today tbh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I'm surprised that, while we disagree on much of this, @ConservativeElector2's responses are quite reasonable. In fact, much more progressive than what I would generally give a conservative credit. 

Thank you!

I am just not sure if I got the wording of the second question right. I'd be in favor of eliminating all I didn't check in the first question, but I am not sure if the sentence means that: ''The elimination of only the voter suppression above that I checked off.'' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Thank you!

I am just not sure if I got the wording of the second question right. I'd be in favor of eliminating all I didn't check in the first question, but I am not sure if the sentence means that: ''The elimination of only the voter suppression above that I checked off.'' 

Your vote means you are in favor of eliminating those you checked in question 1, but are not in favor of eliminating those you didn't check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Your vote means you are in favor of eliminating those you checked in question 1, but are not in favor of eliminating those you didn't check.

But that way I don't really see the logic behind that option. Why should I believe those checked in question 1 should be legal but abolished in question 2.

Likewise it seems contradicting itself, when the poll taker thinks something should be illegal in Q1 (unchecked) and not abolished at the same time - that's what you described to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

What’s wrong with voter ID?

I fully support voter ID.  But I did become weary at the word "strict."  I do believe you should have to show an ID to vote, but I also believe IDs should be free and easy to obtain.  We can't have strict voter ID laws until IDs are free and easy to obtain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

I think the people who often say, "strict," most often mean driver's licenses, passports, credit cards, VIP passes - you know the bit. :S

And I'm perfectly fine with that -- as long as driver's licenses, passports, credit cards, and VIP passes are free and easy to obtain. ;c)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At best, ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem.  Impersonating individual voters is a grossly inefficient way to attempt to influence elections and anybody with the resources to do it on a large enough scale to matter will be able to procure fake IDs with no problems, in addition to being able to affect the outcome in other, more effective ways.

Are we going to train poll workers to spot fake IDs?  What safeguards have we put in place to keep poll workers from committing identity theft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

I can't help but notice that voter ID and gerrymandering and such are great topics to hash out here, and they are indeed very valid, but no one wants to respond to, or acknowledge, the institutional suppression of all non-Duopoly candidates from all being viable for all but a few token offices around the nation, at all levels of government, as real problem of electoral suppression - a problem that cutting a lot of political viewpoints and ideals, including some very needed from, from significance or clout in the political discourse or policy-making, and allowing the Duopoly as a whole to maintain a powerful degree of utter lack of accountability, transparency, and it's membership facing real justice for their crimes, corruption, and abuses of power while in power and using government resources.

You've been bringing this up for years, but never offered an actual solution that didn't involve magic wand-waving.  How would you actually accomplish this?

There are exactly two parties in the US who have figured out a way to raise enough money and promote serious enough candidates to be competitive in races across the entire nation.  No other party has pulled that off yet.  In my opinion, they don't particularly NEED to figure it out.  They just need to take control of one of the existing parties by winning primaries.  We've already seen "the Tea Party" changing the Republican Party from within.  We're starting to see the "Democrat Socialists" do the same with the Democrat party.  Maybe these are long term changes, maybe they're not -- but the idea that either side of the "duopoly" is actually static is false.  The parties are changing all of the time.  They have to, to survive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is not the entire story. You're forgetting the utter and total through abuse of incumbency by the use of ballot access laws, fundraising laws, thoroughly and flagrantly BIPARTISAN (not NON-PARTISAN) FEC and the Federal courts who adjudicate irregularities, the backing of a shamelessly and overtly partisan and incendiary media. I don't know about you, but I've gone to Third Party websites, and read biographies and interviews about their candidates, campaigners, fundraisers, ideologues, and lawyers who represent them in lawsuits to try (almost always in vain) to challenge unfair electoral laws. They show a REAL perspective of facing a United Russia- or ZANU-PF-type mountain, just divided in two, and without arbitrary arrest, beatings, or assassinations being an issue. The fact is, it's far more than just the success of the Duopoly - like many corporate Duopolies (like Microsoft-Apple), they're using that success and all it's gained them to keep everyone else down by dirty and underhanded tactics. Ross Perot had the advantage of being a billionaire, and using Internet advertising at a time when it was a pioneer frontier and the Duopoly weren't motively doing so. It SHOULDN'T require that extreme of a situation is a free-and-fair, contested electoral situation.

I made an honest effort to read that.  I got through most of it -- but you ignored my solution of changing the parties from within, which is exactly what does happen and is currently happening.  These great duopolic forces you describe are extremely vulnerable to inside attacks via the primaries, and we don't need to look much farther than 2016 to see absolute proof of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...