Comment by rayiner

Comment by rayiner 21 hours ago

No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Society determining that categories of people shouldn’t vote (children, felons, non-citizens, etc.) isn’t voter suppression, it’s simply establishing qualifications for voting. The goal isn’t to get to 0 or try to get as close to 0 as possible. People who should vote should be able to vote, while people who shouldn’t vote shouldn’t be able to vote.

In the modern era, we should probably narrow the franchise, instituting civics tests and restricting voting to natural born citizens. Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.

makeitdouble 14 hours ago

Voter suppression is suppressing voters one way or the other. Your idea of restricting by birth rights is of course another form of it.

It's fascinating to look at that proposition for a country that mostly got rid of its indigenous population.

Reply View 4 replies

rayiner 11 hours ago

Words have meaning. Setting qualifications is different than “suppression.” The former determines who are legitimate voters. The latter is an effort to keep legitimate voters from voting. Conflating legitimate qualification rules with “suppression” is fuzzy thinking in service of propaganda.
Restricting by birth right is simply an extension of the universal practice of restricting voting by citizenship. Every democracy decides who has sufficient stake in and familiarity with the society to be able to vote.

Reply View | 3 replies
- makeitdouble 11 hours ago
  
  > Words have meaning
  Well, yes. At this point we could as well get back to Wikipedia for at least a common interpretation of the concept:
  > The disenfranchisement of voters due to age, residence, citizenship, or criminal record are among the more recent examples of ways that elections can be subverted by changing who is allowed to vote.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
  > universal practice of restricting voting by citizenship
  Citizenship restriction is not universal BTW, and going from a civil status (can be acquired) to a physical one is an incredibly huge leap that is nothing simple.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  xyzzyz 9 hours ago
  
  Look, if you insist on using this term like this, it will make conversation and mutual understanding more difficult. If banning toddlers from voting is "voter suppression", then now we must distinguish between "good voter suppression", like banning votes from toddlers, and "bad voter suppression", like for example tactics to mendaciously make it harder to vote for people who are otherwise eligible.
  The result is that "voter suppression" is no longer understood to be a bad thing. You lose the ability to drop this phrase and expect people to pick up that the implication is negative. For example, you said above:
  > Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college.
  If "voter suppression" as a term now include things that are universally understood as good, like banning toddlers from voting, this sounds incoherent. Democracy very much is about doing voter suppression, and everybody agrees it to be a good thing!
  If you don't like how it sounds, you need to stop including good and proper things under the "voter suppression" label. Rayiner tried to help you with that, by distinguishing between mendacious voter suppression, and good and proper setting of voter qualifications, but you rejected that.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  makeitdouble 41 minutes ago
  
  > we must distinguish between "good voter suppression", like banning votes from toddlers
  Banning votes from toddlers is not as clear cut a point as you make it look like.
  As a thought experiment: imagine an extreme society made 15% of childless adults, 5% of young parents and 80% of toddlers.
  Would it make sense/be fair if the 15% of childless adults could pass laws that remove voting rights for life from anyone that piss their pants in public whatever their age ?
  You could end up in a situation where 20 years later 90% of the adults of the country have no voting rights. Finding a way (setting the 5% of parents as representatives ?) to mitigate these kind of issues is generally important, which is why there's no cut and dry "good" voter suppression, only compromises.
  Your preoccupations seem to be centered on protecting the system from demagoguery and outside influences, which is a valid POV, but that can't be the only angle nor the central focus. Even if 80% of the population was provably dumb, you'll still need a system that takes their voice into account to avoid the country getting overthrown or become a dictatorship.
  > universally
  Honestly I don't like that word, and it removes a lot of nuance that is utterly needed for politics and ruling systems. There is almost nothing universal, especially when it comes to "good" and "bad".
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

myvoiceismypass 11 hours ago

> No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting.

Next you will tell us all how easy it is for all Americans to get drivers ids / similar licensing right?

> Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.

Ah. There it is.

Reply View 3 replies

telotortium 3 hours ago

It's really pretty easy to at least get an ID card in the US. Taking a deep red state's requirements (Mississippi) [0]:
"""
Any persons six (6) years of age or older may apply to the Department of Public Safety for an identification card.
All applicants must provide the following:
- A completed and signed Application.
-Original Birth Certificate or any acceptable document. (No Photocopies Accepted)
- SSN Card or an official government correspondence displaying full 9 digits. (click here)
- Two proofs of Residency.
- Legal Documents are required if going by new name.
"""
These are all very standard. The only ones I could see people having trouble with is proof of residency, but the accepted forms[1] are very numerous (over 20). Anyone that isn't intentionally trying to stay off-grid should be able to provide at least two, especially because you're allowed to use proof for a parent, legal guardian, or spouse as long as you can establish your relationship to them. You can even get your roommates to attest that you live with them to use their proofs of residency.
[0] https://www.driverservicebureau.dps.ms.gov/Drivers/Identific...
[1] https://www.driverservicebureau.dps.ms.gov/node/303

Reply View | 0 replies
xyzzyz 9 hours ago

This "IDs are hard to get by in US" narrative is really funny to anyone who lived in Europe, where IDs are harder to get by than in US, while being required for more purposes and activities. I have yet to see anyone saying that voter ID requirements are voter suppression to also bite the bullet and say that Europe is a totalitarian hellhole compared to the US, the land of the free.

Reply View | 1 reply
- makeitdouble 29 minutes ago
  
  > where IDs are harder to get by than in US
  Is it ? If we're talking national IDs, most EU countries have it mandatory, so there's no requirement other than officially existing as a person.
  If we're talking voting registration ID, many countries auto-enroll their citizen the moment they're adult or naturalize, and procedures are only required when your info changes or you explicitly get barred from voting (I don't even know when that happens, minor offences will not trigger that)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies