This_person
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;hZcptA4SU7M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=hZcptA4SU7M[/video]
HR1 - Democrat Politician Protection Act
- Thread starter This_person
- Start date
glhs837
Power with Control
awpitt
Main Streeter
What is McConnell afraid of?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/opin...about-democrat-voting-bill-douglas/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/opin...about-democrat-voting-bill-douglas/index.html
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
If you like it McConnell must be right. It's a boost for democrats.
awpitt
Main Streeter
I'm unaffiliated but that's beside the point. Why do you feel that it would be a boost for the Dems?
TCROW
Well-Known Member
It’s pretty telling when the only objection turtle can muster against expanding the ability to vote is that it’s a power grab by your political opposition.
It’s pretty clear he and his ilk don’t have any good ideas on how to sell their ideas. But you’ve got to have ideas in the first place, so there is that.
It’s pretty clear he and his ilk don’t have any good ideas on how to sell their ideas. But you’ve got to have ideas in the first place, so there is that.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Well, let's take some of the advantages from the editorial:
Take automatic voter registration, which is sweeping the nation. The idea is built on a simple premise: When the government already has information about voters, such as through the Department of Motor Vehicles office, it should simply add that information to the voter registration rolls. Voter registration is often an unnecessary barrier to voter participation, and states can eliminate that barrier by automatically registering valid voters in this way.
So, what do we do about illegal aliens who have gotten themselves driver's licenses? Or, people who have moved, and are now more easily registered in two locations? Perhaps the "unnecessary" part of "unnecessary barrier" is not well considered.
Sen. McConnell, your commentary also attacked H.R. 1's plans for campaign finance reform and greater disclosure of who is spending money in campaigns. You claim that with the bill, Democrats would be "coming after free speech." Not so. Though you may oppose disclosure, the Supreme Court has declared that greater disclosure is the way to solve many of the problems of our campaign finance system and, in almost all circumstances, is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.
Not so great for the fourth amendment, though.
As for publicly funded Democracy Vouchers that voters can give to candidates to fund their campaigns -- used successfully in Seattle -- the idea is to insert more money into our political system. But instead of having wealthy interests and groups that obscure their identity flood our airwaves, Democracy Vouchers, as a form of public financing, would allow everyday Americans to have a say in who receives campaign funds and democratize who has the financial ability to run for office.
This now forces people to donate or give up services that government is supposed to perform so we can fund politicians running for office. This would be a complete non-starter for me. So, we're going to give PP hundreds of millions of dollars, tens of millions they give back to democrat politicians, then we're going to give MORE to those same politicians out of the same tax dollars? You don't see a problem with this?
You also suggested it is a power grab to change the Federal Election Commission from its current system of having three members appointed by each political party to having a 3-2 split. Right now the FEC is largely ineffectual, as it often deadlocks on a 3-3 vote (and right now it has only four members, the minimum for a quorum). Having an odd number of commissioners would help the agency actually enforce federal campaign finance laws. And the proposal would simply give an advantage to whichever party is currently in the White House, Republican or Democrat.
The problem is written in by the author as an advantage. That's some severe cognitive dissonance.
For instance, voters are clamoring for independent redistricting commissions, as the results of the five states to vote on the idea in 2018 showed: All five measures passed. That includes both red and blue states, like Utah and Michigan. Americans understand that voters should pick their politicians and not the other way around.
I absolutely could get behind this
The proposed law would also restore the right to vote to felons who have completed their sentences, reversing a policy that harms minority voters in particular and strips millions of the core aspect of their citizenship. Plenty of states all across the country -- including Florida, this past November through a ballot initiative -- have eased their felon disenfranchisement rules.
I have no problem with part of a person's sentence being life-long (or, long after release) restriction on voting. You're a person proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a bad citizen, you probably should lose some of the privileges of being a citizen.
So, the author of the editorial has a book coming out. What a shock. I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with this rant.
But, I wonder why, if they're so sure that the motor-voter issue is so good for cleaning up bad voter rolls why they didn't include a voter ID. I mean, if you're already at the DMV you're clearly capable of getting an ID, so why not just make it a voter ID that shows you actually meet the requirements to vote? It would certainly help ensure the integrity of our election system is better, wouldn't it?
BOP
Well-Known Member
An unaffiliated leftist...that's almost a contradiction in terms.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
If the Democrats proposed it ,it is meant to help them.
They damned sure do not propose anything that would be of any help to republicans.