Several people have mentioned the dilution of votes in the US Senate, where a state with almost 40 million people has only the same voice as one with 600,000. Until the early 1960s, many states had a similar set up, with the state senate seats aligned with county lines, not population. The US Supreme Court ruled that this violated the concept of one person, one equal vote and all the states had to redraw state senate seats by population. But of course what is unconstitutional for states is no problem with the feds because the US Senate composition is written in the constitution itself. And no state with a smaller population, liberal or conservative, will agree to change it because it would reduce their power.
"I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that?"
Because it's the law? If you successfully pass laws to limit who can vote, and those laws pass constitutional muster, I'm sure our Mr. Tuckums would insist that those disenfranchised obey the law.
Mr. Tuckums? Wasn't he a character in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?
To be sure, the engine of opposition to women's suffrage was the fear of men that with women voting, the bars would be closed and they would have to stay home with their wives at night.
Tuck. Your only political power (besides your irresponsible rhetoric) is your single vote. What you call “dilution” only seems to occur when you vote for the losing side. Trump is the losing side. You are in the minority and always have been.
It's always a good time to talk about ENDING FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT. I wrote the following on FaceBook two years ago.
Yes, prisoners should be allowed to vote, even while in prison. Contrary to popular belief, prisoners do not favor legalizing crime, because they themselves do not want to be the victims of crime. Criminals are people who believe, or who once believed, that the laws don't apply to them; they are not people who believe, or who ever believed, that there should be no laws against crime.
Moreover, criminals, including prisoners, have legitimate interests as human beings. They have the right not to be abused while they are incarcerated. They have the right, while in prison, to avail themselves of classes that enable them to improve their skills and to live crime-free after they leave prison.
Most importantly, wherever they are, prisoners are counted in the census. If prisoners cannot vote, then the non-prisoners who live in prison-heavy districts, which are often sparsely populated, are unfairly overrepresented. This is how white Southerners with the right to vote were overrepresented in the days of slavery, only in those days, nonvoters were counted as only 3/5 of a person.
Today, the misrepresentation created by the disenfranchisement of large groups of people is even worse, because nonvoters are counted as whole people. Moreover, racial prejudice in the criminal justice system against brown-skinned people is still pervasive and may be getting worse under Trump, so that the effect of prisoner disenfranchisement overrepresents white people, underrepresents black and brown people, and generally exacerbates racial injustice.
When we respect the principle of one person, one vote, we become a more democratic society. When we don't, we become a less democratic society and must suffer government that doesn't represent us accurately.
We disenfranchise prisoners not because it is rational to do so, but because our political system was designed by prejudiced white men who regarded their right to deny the vote to others as a natural part of their own privilege. Many of us speak of the principle of one person, one vote as if it were really respected by our electoral system. For many reasons, this principle is not and never has been respected by our electoral system. Many of the Founding Fathers referred to majority rule as "mob rule" and carefully defended their elite status against the majority, both by denying people the right to vote and by giving differing weight to different people's votes, in many ways: by counting nonvoters each as 3/5 of a person when determining the number of US Representatives per state; by privileging elitist states over more democratic ones by giving each state two Senators, regardless of the size of its voting population; and by imposing winner-takes-all rules in the Electoral College, which of course also combines the unrepresentative aspects of nonvoter counting with the distortion of the Senate.
Other republics take the principle of one person, one vote seriously; this is why many other democratic nations allow prisoners to vote. They believe in democracy and believe that government works better when it represents people fairly and accurately without privileging any group of voters over any other. We should, too.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
POST-SCRIPT: Looking over what I wrote, something else occurs to me. I wrote that criminals are people who believe, or who once believed, that the laws don't apply to them. I could also have written that criminals are people who believe the law does apply to them, but who also believe that they can break the law without getting caught. Prisoners are different; they are criminals who now no longer believe that they won't get caught. They have just a little more wisdom than the criminals who haven't been caught yet. So if we deny the right to vote to prisoners, we put them at a disadvantage compared to criminals who have not yet been caught and who still believe that they never will be. These criminals, of course, are not yet in prison and therefore can still vote. What is the proportion of criminals in prison compared to criminals who are not yet in prison? Do we really think it's fair to deny the vote to the former while not denying it to the latter?
i certainly think it's reasonable for the people most subject to our laws to have equal representation in their promulgation and modification. I also think the franchise should be extended to all citizens regardless of age or disability.
As if we didn’t need more proof that republicans only consider votes for their side to be “legitimate.”
Does voting dilution follow the one drop rule? If one black vote is counted, all the white voter are ruined?
DILUTION of voting? What is this: political homeopathy? Actually, I'll go with that--the more votes, the more powerful the democracy.
Several people have mentioned the dilution of votes in the US Senate, where a state with almost 40 million people has only the same voice as one with 600,000. Until the early 1960s, many states had a similar set up, with the state senate seats aligned with county lines, not population. The US Supreme Court ruled that this violated the concept of one person, one equal vote and all the states had to redraw state senate seats by population. But of course what is unconstitutional for states is no problem with the feds because the US Senate composition is written in the constitution itself. And no state with a smaller population, liberal or conservative, will agree to change it because it would reduce their power.
"I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that?"
Because it's the law? If you successfully pass laws to limit who can vote, and those laws pass constitutional muster, I'm sure our Mr. Tuckums would insist that those disenfranchised obey the law.
Mr. Tuckums? Wasn't he a character in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?
So we can not allow even one drop to pollute our government?.
That's just common cents.
I TOLD everyone this maggot is a racist nazi asshole.
To be sure, the engine of opposition to women's suffrage was the fear of men that with women voting, the bars would be closed and they would have to stay home with their wives at night.
Incidentally, they were right.
The honkabillies jest ain't breedin' fast enough.
Tuck. Your only political power (besides your irresponsible rhetoric) is your single vote. What you call “dilution” only seems to occur when you vote for the losing side. Trump is the losing side. You are in the minority and always have been.
Mr. Tumnus the fawn, libel!
Ta, Stephen. I adore Stacey Abrams. Vote, vote, votevotevotevote!
It's always a good time to talk about ENDING FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT. I wrote the following on FaceBook two years ago.
Yes, prisoners should be allowed to vote, even while in prison. Contrary to popular belief, prisoners do not favor legalizing crime, because they themselves do not want to be the victims of crime. Criminals are people who believe, or who once believed, that the laws don't apply to them; they are not people who believe, or who ever believed, that there should be no laws against crime.
Moreover, criminals, including prisoners, have legitimate interests as human beings. They have the right not to be abused while they are incarcerated. They have the right, while in prison, to avail themselves of classes that enable them to improve their skills and to live crime-free after they leave prison.
Most importantly, wherever they are, prisoners are counted in the census. If prisoners cannot vote, then the non-prisoners who live in prison-heavy districts, which are often sparsely populated, are unfairly overrepresented. This is how white Southerners with the right to vote were overrepresented in the days of slavery, only in those days, nonvoters were counted as only 3/5 of a person.
Today, the misrepresentation created by the disenfranchisement of large groups of people is even worse, because nonvoters are counted as whole people. Moreover, racial prejudice in the criminal justice system against brown-skinned people is still pervasive and may be getting worse under Trump, so that the effect of prisoner disenfranchisement overrepresents white people, underrepresents black and brown people, and generally exacerbates racial injustice.
When we respect the principle of one person, one vote, we become a more democratic society. When we don't, we become a less democratic society and must suffer government that doesn't represent us accurately.
We disenfranchise prisoners not because it is rational to do so, but because our political system was designed by prejudiced white men who regarded their right to deny the vote to others as a natural part of their own privilege. Many of us speak of the principle of one person, one vote as if it were really respected by our electoral system. For many reasons, this principle is not and never has been respected by our electoral system. Many of the Founding Fathers referred to majority rule as "mob rule" and carefully defended their elite status against the majority, both by denying people the right to vote and by giving differing weight to different people's votes, in many ways: by counting nonvoters each as 3/5 of a person when determining the number of US Representatives per state; by privileging elitist states over more democratic ones by giving each state two Senators, regardless of the size of its voting population; and by imposing winner-takes-all rules in the Electoral College, which of course also combines the unrepresentative aspects of nonvoter counting with the distortion of the Senate.
Other republics take the principle of one person, one vote seriously; this is why many other democratic nations allow prisoners to vote. They believe in democracy and believe that government works better when it represents people fairly and accurately without privileging any group of voters over any other. We should, too.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
POST-SCRIPT: Looking over what I wrote, something else occurs to me. I wrote that criminals are people who believe, or who once believed, that the laws don't apply to them. I could also have written that criminals are people who believe the law does apply to them, but who also believe that they can break the law without getting caught. Prisoners are different; they are criminals who now no longer believe that they won't get caught. They have just a little more wisdom than the criminals who haven't been caught yet. So if we deny the right to vote to prisoners, we put them at a disadvantage compared to criminals who have not yet been caught and who still believe that they never will be. These criminals, of course, are not yet in prison and therefore can still vote. What is the proportion of criminals in prison compared to criminals who are not yet in prison? Do we really think it's fair to deny the vote to the former while not denying it to the latter?
i certainly think it's reasonable for the people most subject to our laws to have equal representation in their promulgation and modification. I also think the franchise should be extended to all citizens regardless of age or disability.
Who the fuck is this Sterling Asshole trying to delude with this unsullied "diluting the vote" bullshit?*