Good point, and just another example of why I'm concerned that someone is going to pass a law disqualifying voters who are not smart enough. I'd be left with nothing to do and nowhere to go on the first Tuesday in November.
Neither I nor McM said "we" had to make that decision. But somebody does.
Sounds like you're with McM on "The King knows best". If autocratic rule produces the best results, why have votes at all? I think we all know that it's because it doesn't produce them. It just produces results where you think they are "better" if they work out the way you want.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
You're engaging in more black-and-white thinking here. One can think that anything less than 100% voting participation for an entire populace results in better decision-making than 100% participation, while also not being in favor of autocratic rule. Put another way, the choice does not have to be between 1 person making every decision or 300,000,000 million. There are a lot of governing options available (see the Dawn of Everything for examples of just how varied these options have been throughout human history) and saying that if someone isn't for 100% voter participation in selecting representatives in a representative democracy then they have to be for autocratic rule is just not accurate.
The more I consider it, the more it seems the current system rewards the polar opposites. If we attract more, they are probably the mushy middle which I suspect would be good.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Would need data to know. I could see it just being more extremes galvanized
In Indiana those are absentee ballots, are they not? And don't you have to request them?
For me, it's basic common sense to state you must show proof of ID to vote. An ID is required for so many basic and fundamental things. Hell, we had to show ID to go to the UNC cancer center for my wife to get treatment. It's a basic and fundamental authentication process. For it to not be required to vote breaths fresh air into elections being fraudulent. In my opinion, this one single item should be mandatory for every election in every state.
I am not familiar enough nor have the time to research all the claims for election fraud. However, regardless of republican or democrat or no party affiliation, let's just say as an American, some things that have been going on in recent elections do not pass the sniff test. Frankly, we would be naive to think it's a new issue. One thing I'd like to think we could all align on is voting integrity. When I went to vote in this past election, I was blown away when they would not require my id to cast my vote. We have lived in, registered to vote and subsequently voted in 5 different states. NC is the first one where an ID wasn't required. It's mind boggling. We also received mail in ballots addressed to us in our mail box and never requested it. We also have had voter registration sent to our home for people who don't live here and never have. We built this house. No one else has ever lived at our address.
Early voting last weeks. The vast majority of the voting population, ie high 90 percentile, have ways and means to get to a polling location. For the others, there are established processes.
I don’t know how my mom would have unless the assisted living center did it. I know they organize and helped seniors vote living there. Just remember my mom showing me two envelopes and saying she got one for dad.
Well, under @BradStevens proposed criteria, people in assisted-living probably won't be able to vote at all, so there's that. Of course, my parents who are 90 probably wouldn't either, but that's not much of an issue since they cancel each other out.
(Note for any oversensitive types...before you fall to your fainting couches, this is a joke. You know, the kind that comedians used to be able to tell before they got all canceled, like Farva claims.)
Well, actually, I'm not registered to vote in NC. I'm registered in Florida.
I'm in Mecklenberg County. I'm not really up on NC politics, but the governor is like Biden, in that he seems like a moderate, but is heavily influenced by leftists.
He's doing a good job in terms of balancing his constituents. It's a high wire act. Truthfully, I do not follow it much. But it's laughable to hear his name mentioned as a presidential candidate. But then again, look who's in office right now!
To protect democracy, election security > expanding the electorate.
It’s more important to restore high-frequency, engaged voters’ confidence in free & fair elections than it is to make it easier for low propensity, less committed voters to cast a ballot
I've yet to hear of a single voter who wanted to vote who was denied the opportunity to vote.
