The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act last week, which will require proof of citizenship when registering to vote for federal elections.
I agree that while Democrats should favor easier voting on principle, they’re fools if they think “easier voting” benefits them politically. Not only dies it fuel the narrative that they want it to be easier to vote fraudulently (“if you need ID to buy beer, why not to vote?”) but Republicans now benefit more from casual voters.
Probably would help Democrats more if they advanced the idea that voting is for chumps and both parties are the same—would that be more likely to convince Republican casual voters to stay home, compared to their Democratic counterparts? Maybe!
1) If you want the voting process to be easy, and you want to encourage wide participation in voting, you are a Democrat.
2) If you are afraid your party will lose if voting is easy and open to all citizens, and you want to impose onerous conditions to make it complicated to vote, you are a Republican.
Which party trusts its citizens and the democratic process, and which party is paranoid and distrustful of its citizens?
It's somewhat more complicated, though, because there's evidence that maybe trusting voters is a bad idea. If wide participation in voting -- especially in our current media environment -- keeps installing fascists, then our system is not just flawed, it's a threat to the more rational global democracy.
I would argue that trusting voters is not what helps to elect fascists. Preventing voting by those who oppose fascism is what elects fascists. Additionally, the constant demonization and fear-mongering about a non-existent problem helps to elect fascists, as well as the otherization of any non-white, non-christian, non-male also does the same.
Having only ever voted in person in MA I have never needed to show ID to vote. Not once. I also don’t have a current passport, though I do have real ID (and my birth certificate, which cost around $75 to have overnighted to me from my home state of NY’s birth registry when I realized the original was nowhere to be found and I needed it for … real ID).
To require people to have a passport given the active hostility this administration shows to other countries and their practically fetishized isolationism is … a take.
Well, it's either vote or do violence. Voting is a concrete thing that effectuates all this after all...because every one in the House had to stand for election. Same with President Klan Robe, he had to stand for election too. All that is better than, well, having gunfights and military juntas and occupying forces.
But wow, look at how the actual truth from Dems (such as AOC's quotation about married women getting disenfranchised) won't get much traction. That definitely sounds like a big problem with the electorate.
So maybe it is going to be another eighty-year wait for the U.S. electorate to upgrade like it had to post-Taney Court 1.0. Maybe eventually racist Americans will learn to shelve their racism and actually vote to stop punching themselves in the face in a frenzy to hopefully hit minorities they hate.
My understanding is that these required forms of ID are for registering to vote, not for actually voting at the polling place. Therefore, if you’re already registered to vote, this part of the SAVE act is irrelevant to your personal situation. Do I have that right?
I think you're right. BUT as always it will depend on the local bigotry of whomever is interrogating you, I suspect. If they can find ways to cause problems and "run out the clock" when you try to vote, that's an end-around for it.
Oh, like if you have your registration and ID when it comes time to vote, and someone challenging you says "Hey you're not really a citizen you can't vote" and you say "I am a citizen" and show your registration and they say "No I don't believe you get out of the line." And enough of this happens and oops voting hours are over!
Thankfully my ID is Real-ID compliant because my birth state does not allow birth certificates to be amended for just a name change, unless issued in error.
Interesting article. I guess I always believed - I still believe despite the evidence presented - that those who didn't vote in 2024 were more likely to vote Democratic. Yes, the percentages for those who actually voted have changed. But even if the people who would be disenfranchised are Republicans, I still believe that citizens 18 years and over should be eligible. And especially since I don't believe we'll have free and fair elections by 2028; perhaps by 2026.
I agree that while Democrats should favor easier voting on principle, they’re fools if they think “easier voting” benefits them politically. Not only dies it fuel the narrative that they want it to be easier to vote fraudulently (“if you need ID to buy beer, why not to vote?”) but Republicans now benefit more from casual voters.
Probably would help Democrats more if they advanced the idea that voting is for chumps and both parties are the same—would that be more likely to convince Republican casual voters to stay home, compared to their Democratic counterparts? Maybe!
The equation is fairly simple.
1) If you want the voting process to be easy, and you want to encourage wide participation in voting, you are a Democrat.
2) If you are afraid your party will lose if voting is easy and open to all citizens, and you want to impose onerous conditions to make it complicated to vote, you are a Republican.
Which party trusts its citizens and the democratic process, and which party is paranoid and distrustful of its citizens?
It's somewhat more complicated, though, because there's evidence that maybe trusting voters is a bad idea. If wide participation in voting -- especially in our current media environment -- keeps installing fascists, then our system is not just flawed, it's a threat to the more rational global democracy.
I would argue that trusting voters is not what helps to elect fascists. Preventing voting by those who oppose fascism is what elects fascists. Additionally, the constant demonization and fear-mongering about a non-existent problem helps to elect fascists, as well as the otherization of any non-white, non-christian, non-male also does the same.
About that...
𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗣 𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗧. 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗪𝗼𝗻.
𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴...
https://hartmannreport.com/p/0ef5118a-d23b-4842-8ebc-da9b578f73fc
𝗘𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗕𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲
FTFY...
Having only ever voted in person in MA I have never needed to show ID to vote. Not once. I also don’t have a current passport, though I do have real ID (and my birth certificate, which cost around $75 to have overnighted to me from my home state of NY’s birth registry when I realized the original was nowhere to be found and I needed it for … real ID).
To require people to have a passport given the active hostility this administration shows to other countries and their practically fetishized isolationism is … a take.
Well, it's either vote or do violence. Voting is a concrete thing that effectuates all this after all...because every one in the House had to stand for election. Same with President Klan Robe, he had to stand for election too. All that is better than, well, having gunfights and military juntas and occupying forces.
But wow, look at how the actual truth from Dems (such as AOC's quotation about married women getting disenfranchised) won't get much traction. That definitely sounds like a big problem with the electorate.
So maybe it is going to be another eighty-year wait for the U.S. electorate to upgrade like it had to post-Taney Court 1.0. Maybe eventually racist Americans will learn to shelve their racism and actually vote to stop punching themselves in the face in a frenzy to hopefully hit minorities they hate.
We fight for universal sufferage. While unruly, is is still better than the other options.
My understanding is that these required forms of ID are for registering to vote, not for actually voting at the polling place. Therefore, if you’re already registered to vote, this part of the SAVE act is irrelevant to your personal situation. Do I have that right?
I think you're right. BUT as always it will depend on the local bigotry of whomever is interrogating you, I suspect. If they can find ways to cause problems and "run out the clock" when you try to vote, that's an end-around for it.
I don’t understand what that means.
Oh, like if you have your registration and ID when it comes time to vote, and someone challenging you says "Hey you're not really a citizen you can't vote" and you say "I am a citizen" and show your registration and they say "No I don't believe you get out of the line." And enough of this happens and oops voting hours are over!
+1. Has happened.
Only four Democrats voted for the bill — Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Henry Cuellar, and Ed Case
primary time
Thankfully my ID is Real-ID compliant because my birth state does not allow birth certificates to be amended for just a name change, unless issued in error.
Interesting article. I guess I always believed - I still believe despite the evidence presented - that those who didn't vote in 2024 were more likely to vote Democratic. Yes, the percentages for those who actually voted have changed. But even if the people who would be disenfranchised are Republicans, I still believe that citizens 18 years and over should be eligible. And especially since I don't believe we'll have free and fair elections by 2028; perhaps by 2026.
Agree. As for free and fair elections, they may go the way of the Whigs, and be replaced with Soviet style elections.