|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 8, 2020 14:37:40 GMT -5
Denver Elections Division just sent me an e-mail saying my ballot is being mailed shortlyl. States voting entirely by mail isn't that hard people. We need to do it nationally.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 14:58:41 GMT -5
I care way more about the outcome of elections than most people. I don't have apathy. I am just saying the real 'gain' to me from voting is entirely intangible. There is zero chance that my specific vote will make a difference in an election that matters to me. Now, the cost of voting (my time either voting or learning about who to vote for) is always going to be more than the non-intangible gain from voting.
So, in myself, we are talking about someone that is probably in the upper 5% of the people in this country that cares about politics/elections. There is a significant portion of people that don't really give a rip about an election. The vote for those people has more value to others than the person actually voting.
Near as I can tell - anyone that wants to vote is able to vote with minimal time and effort. All this talk of suppression is based on people concerned about others. Like they want to 'force' people to vote whether they are interested in voting or not. If they can eliminate 'any' effort, (which includes looking into the candidates and issues, and just voting the way someone else wants them to vote) - have we really accomplished anything? There are people out there that don't care. There are people like me that cares a lot and still decide often times not to vote.
People are easily able to vote already. The problem - some people don't really care enough to put in the minimal effort to vote.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 8, 2020 15:11:08 GMT -5
I care way more about the outcome of elections than most people. I don't have apathy. I am just saying the real 'gain' to me from voting is entirely intangible. There is zero chance that my specific vote will make a difference in an election that matters to me. Now, the cost of voting (my time either voting or learning about who to vote for) is always going to be more than the non-intangible gain from voting. So, in myself, we are talking about someone that is probably in the upper 5% of the people in this country that cares about politics/elections. There is a significant portion of people that don't really give a rip about an election. The vote for those people has more value to others than the person actually voting. You clearly do have apathy. An interest in politics might mean you care about elections, but you've frequently expressed your lack of interest in actually voting, i.e. attempting to effect policies you actually have a passion about. Posting on a board or reading the news every day exerts exactly zero control over government. Voting does. This "minimal time and effort" thing is untrue. I'll refer you back to many of my (and others) posts over the past week or so. Arbitrary requirements like voter ID (again, often targeted at specific people) and restricting mail in balloting make it significantly harder for some people, especially poor/black/elderly people, to vote. With no tangible benefit in reducing fraud or anything else. There's no reason to not make voting as easy as possible. The part about forcing people to vote doesn't make sense. There weren't people outside these ballot drop stations making people come in and vote Democrat or something. Nobody was being made to vote if they didn't want to. BUT, if they did want to vote, it was being made easier for them, which may allow people who wouldn't vote otherwise to do so. Again: I'll repeat until I get a straight answer from the people defending (or being apathetic about) Abbot's policy here. How does getting rid of these ballot drop off sites make voting more secure or democracy more representative?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 15:12:09 GMT -5
I provided two cases on voter suppression in Texas from the last few years. Did you read them, or even look into them?
There is plenty of evidence that stricter voting requirements disproportionately affects marginalized groups. When those strict voting requirements have zero actual rationale, it’s voter suppression.
This entire thread has pretty much confirmed that you’re happy to remain ignorant on this. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 15:13:57 GMT -5
Near as I can tell - anyone that wants to vote is able to vote with minimal time and effort. All this talk of suppression is based on people concerned about others. Just not true. Sorry. I don't care about the apathetic, except that that too can be part of voter suppression. Absolutely not true. SOME people are easily able to vote. That is a problem. A lesser problem. And, like you said, not a problem at all if that is truly their choice.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2020 15:31:27 GMT -5
I care way more about the outcome of elections than most people. Really. Aren't you so special? Your attitude is really getting pretty ugly here: 1) You don't care if the votes of other people are suppressed. 2) You keep telling us that votes aren't important. 3) But you claim to care a lot about who wins the election? That makes as much sense as saying that it matters a lot who wins a volleyball match, but since any one point can never be the one that wins the match, it doesn't matter at all whether any points are scored. The only way it really makes sense is if you *like* that certain people, people who aren't like you and don't have the same opinions as you, don't get a say in their own government. It sounds like you would prefer an autocracy, or maybe a theocracy. As long, of course, as the autocrats or theocrats were the Christian conservatives you like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 15:38:11 GMT -5
I care way more about the outcome of elections than most people. I don't have apathy. I am just saying the real 'gain' to me from voting is entirely intangible. There is zero chance that my specific vote will make a difference in an election that matters to me. Now, the cost of voting (my time either voting or learning about who to vote for) is always going to be more than the non-intangible gain from voting. So, in myself, we are talking about someone that is probably in the upper 5% of the people in this country that cares about politics/elections. There is a significant portion of people that don't really give a rip about an election. The vote for those people has more value to others than the person actually voting. Near as I can tell - anyone that wants to vote is able to vote with minimal time and effort. All this talk of suppression is based on people concerned about others. Like they want to 'force' people to vote whether they are interested in voting or not. If they can eliminate 'any' effort, (which includes looking into the candidates and issues, and just voting the way someone else wants them to vote) - have we really accomplished anything? There are people out there that don't care. There are people like me that cares a lot and still decide often times not to vote. People are easily able to vote already. The problem - some people don't really care enough to put in the minimal effort to vote. So if I understand correctly, your ideology says: so long as there has never been an election decided by a single vote, then no single voter can ever alter the outcome of an election, and therefore any tangible gain (or loss, mind you) that could be reasonably said to have resulted from the election, cannot be attributed to whatever decision (including not voting) that voter made.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 15:45:01 GMT -5
I care way more about the outcome of elections than most people. Really. Aren't you so special? Your attitude is really getting pretty ugly here: 1) You don't care if the votes of other people are suppressed. 2) You keep telling us that votes aren't important. 3) But you claim to care a lot about who wins the election? That makes as much sense as saying that it matters a lot who wins a volleyball match, but since any one point can never be the one that wins the match, it doesn't matter at all whether any points are scored. The only way it really makes sense is if you *like* that certain people, people who aren't like you and don't have the same opinions as you, don't get a say in their own government. It sounds like you would prefer an autocracy, or maybe a theocracy. As long, of course, as the autocrats or theocrats were the Christian conservatives you like. I care if the rules for some people to vote is different than others. Votes are important, but one single vote in a vacuum doesn't matter. There are some people that don't care about elections. Near as I can tell - anyone that Wants to vote can vote with minimal effort. If a person cannot easily vote - then I agree that this would be voter suppression. Being able to vote in Harris county take minimal effort.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 8, 2020 15:50:34 GMT -5
Really. Aren't you so special? Your attitude is really getting pretty ugly here: 1) You don't care if the votes of other people are suppressed. 2) You keep telling us that votes aren't important. 3) But you claim to care a lot about who wins the election? That makes as much sense as saying that it matters a lot who wins a volleyball match, but since any one point can never be the one that wins the match, it doesn't matter at all whether any points are scored. The only way it really makes sense is if you *like* that certain people, people who aren't like you and don't have the same opinions as you, don't get a say in their own government. It sounds like you would prefer an autocracy, or maybe a theocracy. As long, of course, as the autocrats or theocrats were the Christian conservatives you like. I care if the rules for some people to vote is different than others. Votes are important, but one single vote in a vacuum doesn't matter. There are some people that don't care about elections. Near as I can tell - anyone that Wants to vote can vote with minimal effort. If a person cannot easily vote - then I agree that this would be voter suppression. Being able to vote in Harris county take minimal effort. The rules for some people ARE different than others. PA allows multiple drop boxes and no-excuse absentee voting. TX does not. If everyone thought one vote in a vacuum didn't matter, then nobody would vote. Maybe you think your vote doesn't matter, but that's because you're a cynical 3rd party voter in a non-swing state. There are plenty of people who aren't as jaded as you and want to have their voices heard. There's no such thing as a cost-benefit analysis for something with intangible subjective value like voting. And again, this "minimal effort thing" is a. not true (again, read my posts from earlier) and b. irrelevant, because for someone who was planning to drop their ballot off at one of these stations, they no longer can. Voting is harder for those people, and with no gain at all for security/integrity/whatever. I'm just gonna copy paste until I get an answer. And go up a font size this time. Again: I'll repeat until I get a straight answer from the people defending (or being apathetic about) Abbot's policy here. How does getting rid of these ballot drop off sites make voting more secure or democracy more representative?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 15:51:11 GMT -5
I care way more about the outcome of elections than most people. I don't have apathy. I am just saying the real 'gain' to me from voting is entirely intangible. There is zero chance that my specific vote will make a difference in an election that matters to me. Now, the cost of voting (my time either voting or learning about who to vote for) is always going to be more than the non-intangible gain from voting. So, in myself, we are talking about someone that is probably in the upper 5% of the people in this country that cares about politics/elections. There is a significant portion of people that don't really give a rip about an election. The vote for those people has more value to others than the person actually voting. Near as I can tell - anyone that wants to vote is able to vote with minimal time and effort. All this talk of suppression is based on people concerned about others. Like they want to 'force' people to vote whether they are interested in voting or not. If they can eliminate 'any' effort, (which includes looking into the candidates and issues, and just voting the way someone else wants them to vote) - have we really accomplished anything? There are people out there that don't care. There are people like me that cares a lot and still decide often times not to vote. People are easily able to vote already. The problem - some people don't really care enough to put in the minimal effort to vote. So if I understand correctly, your ideology says: so long as there has never been an election decided by a single vote, then no single voter can ever alter the outcome of an election, and therefore any tangible gain (or loss, mind you) that could be reasonably said to have resulted from the election, cannot be attributed to whatever decision (including not voting) that voter made. Not an ideology. I am just saying from a practical point of view - the chances of my vote (overwhelming # of people's vote) will not change the outcome of an election. This is a statistical fact. Groups of people or massive blocks of votes certainly can make a difference. This is how the nominees view this. Not to get all cynical on this. My vote's impact on policy is a micro fraction of the impact of some lobbyist spending millions of $'s on a nominees campaign.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 15:56:09 GMT -5
I care if the rules for some people to vote is different than others. Votes are important, but one single vote in a vacuum doesn't matter. There are some people that don't care about elections. Near as I can tell - anyone that Wants to vote can vote with minimal effort. If a person cannot easily vote - then I agree that this would be voter suppression. Being able to vote in Harris county take minimal effort. The rules for some people ARE different than others. PA allows multiple drop boxes and no-excuse absentee voting. TX does not. If everyone thought one vote in a vacuum didn't matter, then nobody would vote. Maybe you think your vote doesn't matter, but that's because you're a cynical 3rd party voter in a non-swing state. There are plenty of people who aren't as jaded as you and want to have their voices heard. There's no such thing as a cost-benefit analysis for something with intangible subjective value like voting. And again, this "minimal effort thing" is a. not true (again, read my posts from earlier) and b. irrelevant, because for someone who was planning to drop their ballot off at one of these stations, they no longer can. Voting is harder for those people, and with no gain at all for security/integrity/whatever. I'm just gonna copy paste until I get an answer. And go up a font size this time. Again: I'll repeat until I get a straight answer from the people defending (or being apathetic about) Abbot's policy here. How does getting rid of these ballot drop off sites make voting more secure or democracy more representative?Of course - voting is different in each state. I was referring within each state. What if we hired 10M people to go door to door and take down everyone's vote? Why doesn't each state do this - it would make it easier for people to vote. There are a million things we could do. I am saying - does the voting in Texas require more than a minimal effort to vote? Maybe getting rid of drop off sites isn't cost effective or efficient? Doesn't really matter - what matters is voting even remotely hard to do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 16:04:04 GMT -5
The rules for some people ARE different than others. PA allows multiple drop boxes and no-excuse absentee voting. TX does not. If everyone thought one vote in a vacuum didn't matter, then nobody would vote. Maybe you think your vote doesn't matter, but that's because you're a cynical 3rd party voter in a non-swing state. There are plenty of people who aren't as jaded as you and want to have their voices heard. There's no such thing as a cost-benefit analysis for something with intangible subjective value like voting. And again, this "minimal effort thing" is a. not true (again, read my posts from earlier) and b. irrelevant, because for someone who was planning to drop their ballot off at one of these stations, they no longer can. Voting is harder for those people, and with no gain at all for security/integrity/whatever. I'm just gonna copy paste until I get an answer. And go up a font size this time. Again: I'll repeat until I get a straight answer from the people defending (or being apathetic about) Abbot's policy here. How does getting rid of these ballot drop off sites make voting more secure or democracy more representative?Of course - voting is different in each state. I was referring within each state. What if we hired 10M people to go door to door and take down everyone's vote? Why doesn't each state do this - it would make it easier for people to vote. There are a million things we could do. I am saying - does the voting in Texas require more than a minimal effort to vote? Maybe getting rid of drop off sites isn't cost effective or efficient? Doesn't really matter - what matters is voting even remotely hard to do? I think the main difference in this case is that it was not just a plan or an idea, to have 12 sites. It was either being setup or was actually implemented, then it was repealed.
The difference with your hypothetical (ie, even the 12 drop-off sites is a "reduction" if you consider hiring lots of people to go to homes to take their ballots, etc.) is that it was never a (near) reality, and then repealed.
Say another way: it would be one thing if Harris was just proposing to have 12 sites, but that hadn't even been voted on to be approved yet (by the committee/council or whatever), and then the gov said they couldn't even vote on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 16:07:51 GMT -5
FWIW, I never got the impression blue was a Christian conservative. He may be, but I don't see that being stressed. My impression is that he just doesn't think there's that big of a difference between the parties, even with Trump. I don't get it, but he's been pretty consistent.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 16:37:23 GMT -5
Of course - voting is different in each state. I was referring within each state. What if we hired 10M people to go door to door and take down everyone's vote? Why doesn't each state do this - it would make it easier for people to vote. There are a million things we could do. I am saying - does the voting in Texas require more than a minimal effort to vote? Maybe getting rid of drop off sites isn't cost effective or efficient? Doesn't really matter - what matters is voting even remotely hard to do? I think the main difference in this case is that it was not just a plan or an idea, to have 12 sites. It was either being setup or was actually implemented, then it was repealed.
The difference with your hypothetical (ie, even the 12 drop-off sites is a "reduction" if you consider hiring lots of people to go to homes to take their ballots, etc.) is that it was never a (near) reality, and then repealed.
Say another way: it would be one thing if Harris was just proposing to have 12 sites, but that hadn't even been voted on to be approved yet (by the committee/council or whatever), and then the gov said they couldn't even vote on that.
Yeah - I think that is a good way of going at this. I mean in the abstract - why is 12 the point where there is no voter suppression? Why not 24 or 1200 drop points. Does only 1 make sense? I think those are good questions. OTH - in my mind, voter suppression occurs when; 1) a person that WANTS to vote is unable to vote without putting forth more than minimal effort, 2) there are different rules for one part of the state compared to another. One could ask - is it fair for Harris County to have 12 drop points and Brewster only 1? Is having 12 in Harris essentially 'voter suppression' for people in Brewster having just 1? I suspect they have a in day polling place in each precinct? Having a drop box for each precinct may be too costly, especially if some form of voter verification is required. Anyway - is anyone in Texas unable to vote w/o minimal effort?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2020 16:50:10 GMT -5
FWIW, I never got the impression blue was a Christian conservative. He may be, but I don't see that being stressed. My impression is that he just doesn't think there's that big of a difference between the parties, even with Trump. I don't get it, but he's been pretty consistent. I am political Libertarian and Christian in my personal life. I usually consider them separate. I generally think of public policy in terms of libertarian and personal behavior as Christian. I probably fail on the 2nd one more often than I would like to admit. As for whether there is a big difference between the parties. I rarely agree with the Democrats. I usually agree with the Republicans, but way less than 100%. As much as I enjoy politics (my entire life) - the fact is that my life isn't going to be materially effected by this (or any other) election. What seems like is going to be a big deal is usually not really a big deal. I personally did fine with Bush and Obama as President. And then the Christian aspect of my personal life - an election really doesn't matter in the big picture. It will change nothing on when I die. Things that seemed like a big deal when I was 25 (Like Thomas confirmation hearing) seemed like a big deal. At 55, I realize that it really didn't materially matter. BTW, I think back to those confirmation hearings. Biden was the fairly young chairman of those committees. Grassley seemed fairly old at the time. And then Strom Thurmond was ridiculously old. And people like Ted Kennedy have long since passed.
|
|