DGS49
Diamond Member
The New York Times has unsurprisingly posted a totally devious and misleading characterization of the current voting rights disagreement (in Congress), and since it is not terribly complicated I thought I would put my take - the correct take - down in this forum.
There are two ways to approach a Presidential election. The first way - the traditional way that prevailed through 2016 - allowed the States to manage their own piece of the Presidential election, and for most states at played out as follows: All voters except those who truly could not come to the polls on Election Day were required to come to the polls when they were open on Election Day, establish their identity, and vote. Those who could not, filed an "Absentee Ballot," which had several security measures in place (copy of ID, witness signature, etc.) that varied from state to state. But the traditional method was fairly secure, and fraud was at least theoretically possible to discern. Usually it took the form of stuffing ballot boxes with "in-person" ballots.
Each state, in effect, held a popular election for President within that state, and the State's Electoral Votes were all given to the candidate who won that popular election. But again, it is up to the states, and they could decide to apportion their Electoral Votes, or even to award them to the Presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. Democrats are keen to take this step, since the Democrat usually wins the national popular vote, but unfortunately for them, most of the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans.
The second way, ushered in by both rational and irrational fears of infection with the Corona Virus, added various ways, manners, and times of voting, supposedly to enhance voter safety. Votes could be cast by mail, in advance, WITHOUT the precautions that had previously been required for Absentee Ballots. Ballots could be cast at Drop Boxes distributed throughout the voting district, with few real controls on how those Drop Boxes were managed, collected, and the votes counted. Also, in some states the hours for in-person voting were expanded. On top of all this, Democrats introduced the nefarious practice of "ballot harvesting" in which third party (not government-authorized) partisans could float around the voting district, passing out, and collecting ballots, and - presumably - "helping" voters to fill out their ballots. Since these people were ALWAYS Democrat partisans, the practice has garnered outrage among all people who want a fair election for any number of possible abuses, including discarding the votes of those who do not vote as the "Harvester" desires.
Like it or not, this second way introduced a mountain of opportunities for fraud. Without the precautions that had been in place for Absentee Ballots, it was simply too easy to cast votes for non-voters, and those ballots would be indistinguishable from legitimate votes, and thus the fraud could never be proven. This is the evil genius behind the practices of the Second Way.
Simply put, Joe Biden won the 2020 election under the second way described above, and he would not have won under traditional rules.
So the Democrats in Congress want to ensure that those loose, unsecure rules prevail EVERYWHERE, FROM NOW ON. They have introduced legislation to that effect, and are pushing as hard as they can to get it passed.
The Constitution is not as clear as it should be on the matter, seeming to leave elections in the hands of the States (under the philosophy of "Federalism'), but leaving the door open for Congress to modify state rules.
The secondary (or primary) impact of these rules is that, regardless of how minimal the formal voting requirements are, the fewer the rules, the more Blacks vote. If you impose a mandatory government photo ID - even if you provide them FREE from the state - fewer Blacks will vote. If you confine voting to Election Day, fewer Blacks will vote. And Blacks vote 95% of the time for Democrats.
So the Republicans want to revert to the 2016 rules, including requiring a photo ID, and having THE SAME security controls on Mail-In votes as for Absentee Ballots, and Democrats want, figuratively speaking, the "wild, Wild West," with no rational restrictions at all.
If there is any intellectual defense for the Democrat position it is the fallacy of "disparate impact," which states that any initiative that has the RESULT of treating "minorities" differently from "white" folks is presumptively discriminatory.
And there you have it.
It is unlikely that the Democrats can get their "Voting Rights" legislation to Joe Biden's desk, because it would require the elimination of the Senate's filibuster rule, and at least one Democrat Senator is on record saying he won't go along with that. Barring even more nefarious action by the Schumer fellow, it would take 60 votes to eliminate the filibuster, and that ain't happening.
There are two ways to approach a Presidential election. The first way - the traditional way that prevailed through 2016 - allowed the States to manage their own piece of the Presidential election, and for most states at played out as follows: All voters except those who truly could not come to the polls on Election Day were required to come to the polls when they were open on Election Day, establish their identity, and vote. Those who could not, filed an "Absentee Ballot," which had several security measures in place (copy of ID, witness signature, etc.) that varied from state to state. But the traditional method was fairly secure, and fraud was at least theoretically possible to discern. Usually it took the form of stuffing ballot boxes with "in-person" ballots.
Each state, in effect, held a popular election for President within that state, and the State's Electoral Votes were all given to the candidate who won that popular election. But again, it is up to the states, and they could decide to apportion their Electoral Votes, or even to award them to the Presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. Democrats are keen to take this step, since the Democrat usually wins the national popular vote, but unfortunately for them, most of the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans.
The second way, ushered in by both rational and irrational fears of infection with the Corona Virus, added various ways, manners, and times of voting, supposedly to enhance voter safety. Votes could be cast by mail, in advance, WITHOUT the precautions that had previously been required for Absentee Ballots. Ballots could be cast at Drop Boxes distributed throughout the voting district, with few real controls on how those Drop Boxes were managed, collected, and the votes counted. Also, in some states the hours for in-person voting were expanded. On top of all this, Democrats introduced the nefarious practice of "ballot harvesting" in which third party (not government-authorized) partisans could float around the voting district, passing out, and collecting ballots, and - presumably - "helping" voters to fill out their ballots. Since these people were ALWAYS Democrat partisans, the practice has garnered outrage among all people who want a fair election for any number of possible abuses, including discarding the votes of those who do not vote as the "Harvester" desires.
Like it or not, this second way introduced a mountain of opportunities for fraud. Without the precautions that had been in place for Absentee Ballots, it was simply too easy to cast votes for non-voters, and those ballots would be indistinguishable from legitimate votes, and thus the fraud could never be proven. This is the evil genius behind the practices of the Second Way.
Simply put, Joe Biden won the 2020 election under the second way described above, and he would not have won under traditional rules.
So the Democrats in Congress want to ensure that those loose, unsecure rules prevail EVERYWHERE, FROM NOW ON. They have introduced legislation to that effect, and are pushing as hard as they can to get it passed.
The Constitution is not as clear as it should be on the matter, seeming to leave elections in the hands of the States (under the philosophy of "Federalism'), but leaving the door open for Congress to modify state rules.
The secondary (or primary) impact of these rules is that, regardless of how minimal the formal voting requirements are, the fewer the rules, the more Blacks vote. If you impose a mandatory government photo ID - even if you provide them FREE from the state - fewer Blacks will vote. If you confine voting to Election Day, fewer Blacks will vote. And Blacks vote 95% of the time for Democrats.
So the Republicans want to revert to the 2016 rules, including requiring a photo ID, and having THE SAME security controls on Mail-In votes as for Absentee Ballots, and Democrats want, figuratively speaking, the "wild, Wild West," with no rational restrictions at all.
If there is any intellectual defense for the Democrat position it is the fallacy of "disparate impact," which states that any initiative that has the RESULT of treating "minorities" differently from "white" folks is presumptively discriminatory.
And there you have it.
It is unlikely that the Democrats can get their "Voting Rights" legislation to Joe Biden's desk, because it would require the elimination of the Senate's filibuster rule, and at least one Democrat Senator is on record saying he won't go along with that. Barring even more nefarious action by the Schumer fellow, it would take 60 votes to eliminate the filibuster, and that ain't happening.
