CPAC 2021

[Resume]

If the uniformed shouldn't vote, that would eliminate Q-nuts and those who believe the 2020 election was stolen.

Be careful what you wish for there Kavanaugh.

 

[Norman Alexander]

At least one Republican (a state legislator in AZ) has come right out and said pretty much the same thing (Business Insider)- that "everybody shouldn't be voting":



I would say that, first, Republicans pretend they're "concerned about fraud," but, in the absence of any evidence for meaningful fraud, that's only pretense- what they really don't mind is imposing "security measures" that do nothing for the security of the electoral process in the hope that it will do more for their own party's security.

Secondly, if someone is so uninterested in the issues that he won't want to vote, he won't vote- nothing about making it easier to vote forces anybody to do so. And making it harder doesn't automatically exclude only people who aren't interested- someone who might be as totally interested in and informed on the issues as Kavanagh himself isn't, by definition, going to be someone who can pass the "quality" hurdles he wants to set up.

His whole argument is a convoluted exercise in begging the question, an assumption that a "quality" that can't be counted or even really objectively defined needs to come first, and is a more realistic and desirable aim than a simple count of quantity from which a quality is extracted.

The only "quality" that matters to Kavanaugh would seem to be the quality of "being rich and white".

 

[turingtest]

The only "quality" that matters to Kavanaugh would seem to be the quality of "being rich and white".

How much money people have (at least) certainly does seem to affect the views of some Republicans (at least) as to the quality of the average American citizen. Some in the GOP were arguing against the stimulus bill on the presumption that the type of person who might need the extra money and extended unemployment benefits would be the type who would, by definition, take advantage of those features and stop looking for work. But when it came time to pass tax cuts which disproportionately advantaged the corporations and the rich, the presumption was that those corporations and the rich would eagerly pass along the benefits of their gains to the people who worked for them, when, of course, they largely just used them for stock buy-backs and more exclusive toys for themselves.

So, yeah...the GOP's views of how well people will act given any particular situation does seem to depend on how much money they have.

 

[Mumbles]

I would say that, first, Republicans pretend they're "concerned about fraud," but, in the absence of any evidence for meaningful fraud, that's only pretense- what they really don't mind is imposing "security measures" that do nothing for the security of the electoral process in the hope that it will do more for their own party's security.

Secondly, if someone is so uninterested in the issues that he won't want to vote, he won't vote- nothing about making it easier to vote forces anybody to do so. And making it harder doesn't automatically exclude only people who aren't interested- someone who might be as totally interested in and informed on the issues as Kavanagh himself isn't, by definition, going to be someone who can pass the "quality" hurdles he wants to set up.

His whole argument is a convoluted exercise in begging the question, an assumption that a "quality" that can't be counted or even really objectively defined needs to come first, and is a more realistic and desirable aim than a simple count of quantity from which a quality is extracted.

Not a new argument, either - here's Paul Weyrich discussing the same at a conference with segregationists Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan (incidentally, Weyrich was the guy who told the two to switch from overt white supremacism as their major issue to abortion restrictions):



And of course, suppressing black/Native voters has been a long tradition since then, which is why many states were still covered under preclearance requirements when it was gutted in the absurd Shelby vs. Holder decision - it was always possible to get out from preclearance by simply not actively trying to suppress voters for a span of 10 years, but the states and discricts still covered simply never managed to do this (Some districts did manage this, so it was not impossible).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not a new argument, either - here's Paul Weyrich discussing the same at a conference with segregationists Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan (incidentally, Weyrich was the guy who told the two to switch from overt white supremacism as their major issue to abortion restrictions):



And of course, suppressing black/Native voters has been a long tradition since then, which is why many states were still covered under preclearance requirements when it was gutted in the absurd Shelby vs. Holder decision - it was always possible to get out from preclearance by simply not actively trying to suppress voters for a span of 10 years, but the states and discricts still covered simply never managed to do this (Some districts did manage this, so it was not impossible).

Good grief! These guys have no shame.

 

[RolandRat]

Who gets to determine these filters?

An independent voting commission.

OK, what is your criteria for who should have the franchise?
Problem is that every time I see this suggested it ends up being "I want only those who agree with me to vote".

I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with me and I most definitely would not want to disenfranchise people simply for holding different political views.

 

[gnome]

An independent voting commission.

That just kicks the can--someone has to select the voting commission.

I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with me and I most definitely would not want to disenfranchise people simply for holding different political views.

I don't see how it can become anything but. Despite your intentions, this would provide the power to do exactly that.

 

[RolandRat]

That just kicks the can--someone has to select the voting commission.



I don't see how it can become anything but. Despite your intentions, this would provide the power to do exactly that.

It doesn't kick the can at all. In the UK we have an independent electoral commission which seems to work well. Yes, the power is there to disenfranchise those who don't think as I do., Our electoral commission though doesn't seem to misuse their power.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We also have an independent body that sets the size of constituencies and their boundaries to ensure there are roughly the same number of voters in each one so there is no opportunity for gerrymandering.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We also have an independent body that sets the size of constituencies and their boundaries to ensure there are roughly the same number of voters in each one so there is no opportunity for gerrymandering.

That sounds like, how shall I say it, un-American.

 

[gnome]

It doesn't kick the can at all. In the UK we have an independent electoral commission which seems to work well. Yes, the power is there to disenfranchise those who don't think as I do., Our electoral commission though doesn't seem to misuse their power.

But do they have the power to disenfranchise voters based on their opinions or how they have advocated? I think an independent commission can act on more objective criteria, but it would be dangerous to have the authority to disenfranchise based on the acceptability of someone's statements.