**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

First off, I never said that blacks aren't being targeted. They can easily be targeted for a decline in vote turnout without their rights being infringed upon.

Targeting voters because they belong to a particular racial group is infringing on their rights. That's why the law got overturned.

Still, it's probably best to avoid that frame. If the majority of bad policy regarding voting happens in black districts, it is wrong to frame cleaning that up as targeting blacks.

If you want to argue that the state's motivation was to 'clean up' bad policy that just happened to incidentally involve making it harder for blacks to vote, you really are reaching.

There's a balance that would yield low turnout among those who vote for the worst reasons and high turnout among those who vote for the best reasons.

Democracy is fundamentally about everyone having the same right to vote. It's not about someone else deciding who is worthy of the right to vote, depending on whether they have good or bad reasons to vote in your eyes.

[wufwugy]

Targeting voters because they belong to a particular racial group is infringing on their rights. That's why the law got overturned.

I could have been more clear. I'm talking about the right to vote, which necessarily includes reasonable opportunity to vote, not stuff like discrimination. A lot of which falls under discrimination doesn't effectively deter the right to vote. A lot does.

A lot of this stuff is outdated, in part by ease of access to absentee by every citizen.

If you want to argue that the state's motivation was to 'clean up' bad policy that just happened to incidentally involve making it harder for blacks to vote, you really are reaching.

I have no idea what the motivation was and I don't care.

Democracy is fundamentally about everyone having the same right to vote. It's not about someone else deciding who is worthy of the right to vote, depending on whether they have good or bad reasons to vote in your eyes.

And North Carolinians have that regardless of the court ruling you mentioned.

Also, don't assume that democracy is as great as its touted to be. There are many ways in which the vote has been expanded that have been terrible for society. If you want to be a democracy perfectly, go ahead and have everybody vote. But if you want a better society, you're not gonna want to have everybody vote.

[Poopadoop]

I could have been more clear. I'm talking about the right to vote, which necessarily includes reasonable opportunity to vote, not stuff like discrimination. A lot of which falls under discrimination doesn't effectively deter the right to vote. A lot does.

A lot of this stuff is outdated, in part by ease of access to absentee by every citizen.

The Supreme Court ruling was in the summer of this year. So they hardly felt it was outdated.

I have no idea what the motivation was and I don't care.

The circuit court judge argued it was motivated to hinder blacks from voting. I bet you would care if the law had the same effect on republicans.

And North Carolinians have that regardless of the court ruling you mentioned.

Again, that is your view, not the view of the courts.

Voter rights are not just about it being possible to vote if you jump through a bunch of hoops and then stand in line for four hours, while someone else doesn't have that problem. It's about everyone having the same opportunities to vote.

Also, don't assume that democracy is as great as its touted to be. There are many ways in which the vote has been expanded that have been terrible for society. If you want to be a democracy perfectly, go ahead and have everybody vote. But if you want a better society, you're not gonna want to have everybody vote.

It's a question of principle though isn't it? Either you stand for the right of everyone to be treated equally under the law, including having the same opportunity to vote, as in a democracy, or you stand for something else. It doesn't matter whether YOU think that something else would be better than what the principle of democracy holds, its the creed of your country that its democratic.

If it were only up to the people with power to decide who votes, you'd essentially have a situation where those in power would stay in power until they were overthrown. It's like Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have ever been tried."