Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Republican Voter Suppression


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Maybe we should just go back to at-large representation.  It's not like a single person can adequately represent nearly 800,000 people anyway.

 

At large representation clearly benefits whatever "group" is the majority.     (assuming most people's primary criteria for voting is "group" association,  which appears to be the case,  statistically).     This is why CA doesn't allow at large representation;    E.g.   Counties and City have to have districts and those districts need to be made where a minority "group" can have a majority.     E.g.  60% of the county is white,  20% Latino,  15% Black,  5% other.      Back in the 90s At-Large was leading to all white county supervisors.  So 5 districts were created,  with two of them with a majority of Latinos and Blacks.    It still took decades for a Latino to win "their" district,  since their voter turnout was so low.   Anyhow finally the overall group representation was 3 white,  one Latino and one Black.   But as the Asian population grew now they complained and the county is trying to figure out what to do again.   (with the goal being one less white,  since if the Asian was to replace a Latino or Black all hell would break lose)!    BUT this is proving very difficult since Asians here in So Cal tend to live in-multiple-places instead of being highly concentrated in specific hoods.

Thus there is no hope!    (ha  ha);    

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

Maybe we should just go back to at-large representation.  It's not like a single person can adequately represent nearly 800,000 people anyway.

 

At-large would result in the people in large geographic/metropolitan areas having a lock on the representation.   So, the rural and less populated areas could end up with no representation.  Of course, even now almost all districts have at least one large metropolitan area in them.  

S.C.'s Sixth Congressional District is a majority Black district and is represented by Jim Clyburn.  It was intentionally drawn as a majority Black district and has no major cities in it.  It is also the poorest district in S.C.  Charleston, Columbia and Beaufort are all represented by very conservative pro-Trump Republicans.  Although Charleston was briefly represented by a Dem from 2018-2020.

   From Wikipedia: The district's current configuration dates from a deal struck in the early 1990s between state Republicans and Democrats in the South Carolina General Assembly to create a majority-black district. The rural counties of the historical black belt in South Carolina make up much of the district, but it sweeps south to include most of the majority-black precincts in and around Charleston, and sweeps west to include most of the majority-black precincts in and around Columbia. It also includes most of the majority black areas near Beaufort (though not Beaufort itself).

One little known aspect of US Representatives is that  Constitutionally they do not have to live in the district they represent.  S.C. has seven representatives, so theoretically all seven could come from same city.  Has never happened.  In fact, I am not familiar with an instance where a US representative did not live in his/her district. 

Another alternative would be to have at-large voting in entire state, but the representative would have to live in a specific district.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ElCid said:

 

One little known aspect of US Representatives is that  Constitutionally they do not have to live in the district they represent.  S.C. has seven representatives, so theoretically all seven could come from same city.  Has never happened.  In fact, I am not familiar with an instance where a US representative did not live in his/her district. 

That's because there's no concept of a district in the Constitution.  Early Congressional elections were largely done at-large.  The concept of districting came about due to laws passed by Congress (Apportionment Act of 1842).

Some senators don't maintain a home in the strictest sense in their home state.  Hawley (MO) uses his sister's house in Missouri as his legal residence.  He lives in the DC area.  To be fair, though, he is reportedly building a new house in Missouri. 

https://www.hannibal.net/opinion/editorials/hawley-scoffs-at-missouri-residency-requirements/article_abd662f0-1b12-5743-8a7b-803d4984d351.html

I know when co-workers tried to pull these kinds of tricks while on temporary duty (to avoid getting taxed on per diem payments to be used for maintaining a second residence), the IRS didn't look favorably on such arrangements, unless they paid market rate rents.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

That's because there's no concept of a district in the Constitution.  Early Congressional elections were largely done at-large.  The concept of districting came about due to laws passed by Congress (Apportionment Act of 1842).

Some senators don't maintain a home in the strictest sense in their home state.  Hawley (MO) uses his sister's house in Missouri as his legal residence.  He lives in the DC area.  To be fair, though, he is reportedly building a new house in Missouri. 

https://www.hannibal.net/opinion/editorials/hawley-scoffs-at-missouri-residency-requirements/article_abd662f0-1b12-5743-8a7b-803d4984d351.html

I know when co-workers tried to pull these kinds of tricks while on temporary duty (to avoid getting taxed on per diem payments to be used for maintaining a second residence), the IRS didn't look favorably on such arrangements, unless they paid market rate rents.

 

Maybe what we need is for the government to build dormitories for representatives and senators to live in while in Washington.  No family members allowed.  Might cut down on how long it takes them to get things done and get back to home states.  Sort of like what states do.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I was reading Andrea Junker tweet . The first thing that popped into my head the the beginning to Bonanza . The Ponderosa is gaigantic for one family, then there's a little dot for the town which most of the townfolk live.  Plus I have another question some billioniare is buying alot of Hawaii. He wants his privacy. I wonder if you buy enough land could you get your own senator? I only have a high school education and it's been over 35 years ago.so please forgive me . I really trying to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Marysara1 said:

I was reading Andrea Junker tweet . The first thing that popped into my head the the beginning to Bonanza . The Ponderosa is gaigantic for one family, then there's a little dot for the town which most of the townfolk live.  Plus I have another question some billioniare is buying alot of Hawaii. He wants his privacy. I wonder if you buy enough land could you get your own senator? I only have a high school education and it's been over 35 years ago.so please forgive me . I really trying to understand.

Billionaires owning their Senators is nothing new.  That is the way the corrupt system works.

I won't mention her name, but a liberal Senator on CNN said Capitol Hill is swarming with lobbyists at the moment because of the reconciliation bill.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

How The Voting Rights Act Came To Be And How It's Changed

What's changed

In 2013, in a case called Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that a lot of things had changed, that the world had changed since the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

The 5-4 decision effectively derailed the Justice Department's system for preapproving election changes in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, putting a heavy burden on the federal government to identify any such changes and sue to prevent them from taking effect. The high court ruling prompted states to pass new restrictions on voting.

Then, in July, another conservative court majority severely weakened the remaining enforcement tool for the Department of Justice: a provision that gave the federal government the legal authority to challenge voting laws that discriminate on the basis of race, color and language minority status.

 

 

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that some inconvenience to voters would not run afoul of the Constitution. His majority opinion also gave states a powerful defense: They could raise concerns about voter fraud to justify their election changes without having to prove any such fraud existed.

Lawsuits by the Justice Department and civil rights groups over voting changes in Georgia are continuing in the courts. But it's not yet clear what fate they will meet.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1026457264/1965-voting-rights-act-supreme-court-john-lewis

-Sorry,

NOT screaming!!!

(happens if I use Google)

:( 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

-_-

More proof that McConnell has NO intention of cooperating with Democrats except on issues that will hurt Republicans at the polls, e.g. raising the debt ceiling and hard infrastructure money for GOP states.

5 hours ago, Marysara1 said:

Don't forget  about the democrats that went to Washington D.C. instead of voting. 

Those were Texas Democrats.  The post and article are about Republicans in US Senate who are not cooperating.

As for the Texas Democrats, they left TX as a protest because they had NO input in the changes that would suppress the voting in TX even more than currently.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Those were Texas Democrats.  The post and article are about Republicans in US Senate who are not cooperating.

As for the Texas Democrats, they left TX as a protest because they had NO input in the changes that would suppress the voting in TX even more than currently.

BUT Kyle Griffin  said.Republicians walked away. But the dems still walked away. They were the minority. But the knew that it would delay the vote if it didn't have enough people voting. I find it ironic. The dems feel the voters can't vote. But they refuse to vote by going to Washington.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marysara1 said:

BUT Kyle Griffin  said.Republicians walked away. But the dems still walked away. They were the minority. But the knew that it would delay the vote if it didn't have enough people voting. I find it ironic. The dems feel the voters can't vote. But they refuse to vote by going to Washington.

The Republicans did not walk away in Texas.   It was a parliamentary move to protest the vote and to delay it because they had no input in the bills.   NOTE:  they did come back and vote.  

Not at all like suppressing voting in regular elections.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Marysara1 said:

I thought it was the other way around. I  thought the dem went to Washington. from Texas. 

You are confusing a state legislative issue with one involving the US Congress.  Apples and oranges don’t mix because they are two separate things involving separate entities.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marysara1 said:

I thought it was the other way around. I  thought the dem went to Washington. from Texas. 

This is what you posted 7 hours ago and began this discussion:  "Don't forget  about the democrats that went to Washington D.C. instead of voting."

Nothing here about Republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

The Republicans did not walk away in Texas.   It was a parliamentary move to protest the vote and to delay it because they had no input in the bills.   NOTE:  they did come back and vote.  

Not at all like suppressing voting in regular elections.

 

12 minutes ago, ElCid said:

This is what you posted 7 hours ago and began this discussion:  "Don't forget  about the democrats that went to Washington D.C. instead of voting."

Nothing here about Republicans.

It's just if sombody only paid attention to one post. You mentioned Rupublicans. But it wasn't changed to democrat. I know you understood the complete thread(. Talking about Texas)

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ElCid said:

More proof that McConnell has NO intention of cooperating with Democrats except on issues that will hurt Republicans at the polls, e.g. raising the debt ceiling and hard infrastructure money for GOP states.

Manchin is as confusing as hell.   It would be one thing if he just came out and said he is against paid leave but this morning he said he was all for it.  His beef is that it does not belong in a reconciliation bill and should be done on a bipartisan basis with Republicans.  He said this less than a day after the Republicans voted not even to discuss voting rights which he had put forward.  Methinks he is an idiot and he is killing Joe Biden at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Manchin is as confusing as hell.   It would be one thing if he just came out and said he is against paid leave but this morning he said he was all for it.  His beef is that it does not belong in a reconciliation bill and should be done on a bipartisan basis with Republicans.  He said this less than a day after the Republicans voted not even to discuss voting rights which he had put forward.  Methinks he is an idiot and he is killing Joe Biden at the moment.

I don't know what Manchin's problem is.  Perhaps he is enjoying his time in the spotlight and trying to make it as big as possible. 

He and Sinema have been particularly reluctant to come up with a line by line counterproposal to the Progressives.   He may be saying it belongs in a separate bill with bipartisan support because he knows that will never happen.   He should be smart enough to know that the GOPers are not going to support any of the Democratic agenda.  

He does know that there can be only ONE reconciliation bill and there are a lot of Democratic issues to be resolved.   I am no expert, but reconciliation bills are restrictive as to what can be in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

AOC insists the Democrats' 'woke problem' is made up by Republicans and critics wanting party to run away from racial justice and voting rights 

50223509-0-image-a-7_1636407352369.jpg

'One dangerous aspect of thinking there's a 'woke problem' is that Dem chances for re-election or majorities in House, Senate, & WH rely on the racial justice issue of voting rights,' she tweeted.

I would side with Carville on this one.  He knows far, far more about how American politics works than AOC.

As an "older" American, I think AOC is also wrong about the "woke" term.  Appears to me that the younger people started using it first and probably still are, rather than older Americans.  They handed the GOPers another term they could use to hurt Democrats at the polls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...