Democrats Can Beat a GOP Filibuster Without Wrecking Senate Rules
Senate Democrats should avoid taking the easy, undemocratic way out.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris want Congress to pass two voting rights bills presently stuck in the Senate. Biden and Harris blamed Republicans for preventing the Senate from debating the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. And they called on Democrats to change the Senate rules to overcome Republicans' obstruction if necessary to pass these two bills.
In forceful remarks delivered at historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, Harris said Democrats should do whatever it takes to stop Republicans from "exploiting arcane rules" that allow senators to filibuster to block the Senate from debating voting rights legislation. Biden argued that Democrats have no choice but to change those rules to eliminate the filibuster if the Senate will safeguard Americans' right to vote.
Notwithstanding the merits of their views on election policy, Biden and Harris are wrong to claim that Republicans are the culprit behind the Senate's failure to debate voting rights legislation. And their denunciation of the Senate's "arcane rules" leaves out that those same rules empower the Democrats to begin debate on voting rights legislation over Republican objections. The Senate's existing rules and practices empower a majority to vote on a motion to proceed over a minority's objections. In short, the rules aren't the problem; Democrats are.
Senators must vote to proceed to voting rights legislation before debating either bill on the Senate floor. And motions to proceed are debatable under the Senate's rules in most instances. That means that Republicans can filibuster them and, by extension, prevent the Senate from passing the Freedom to Vote Act or the Voting Rights Advancement Act indirectly.
Democrats tried to invoke cloture (i.e., end debate) on a motion to proceed to each bill. But they were unsuccessful because the cloture rule requires "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (typically 60) must vote for cloture. As a result, the Senate rejected Democrats' efforts to end debate on the question of taking up each voting rights bill on a party-line vote.
These two votes are why Biden and Harris call on Democrats to use the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster (i.e., the cloture rule's super-majority requirement to end debate on a motion to proceed to legislation). They want Democrats to ignore, circumvent, or otherwise change the Senate's standing rules in direct violation of those rules.
Biden and Harris—both former senators—did not acknowledge in their remarks that Democrats can use other Senate rules to begin debate on the voting rights bills. For example, any Democratic senator—or Harris, as the Senate's presiding officer—can limit a Republican filibuster of voting rights legislation by enforcing rule XIX. This rule bars senators from speaking "more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate."
The Senate begins a new legislative day whenever it convenes after voting to adjourn. Consequently, a legislative day may last up to two years because Democrats can vote not to adjourn the 50-50 Senate with Harris' tie-breaking vote (if they all vote together). And former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.), kept the Senate in the same legislative day for weeks in 2013 to pressure Republicans to go along with Democrats' plan to reform the Senate rules. Reid announced his plans on the Senate floor on the first day of the 113th Congress. "It is my intention that the Senate will recess today, rather than adjourn, to continue the same legislative day."
Using rule XIX to end Republicans' filibuster instead of rule XXII requires Democrats to keep the Senate in the same legislative day until the Republican senators who are willing to mount a physically demanding filibuster have exhausted their ability to speak on the motion to proceed to voting rights legislation. Then, the Senate votes on the motion when the Republicans committed to filibuster it have delivered the two speeches they are allowed by the rule. At that point, the Senate's presiding officer can "put the question," or call for a vote on adopting the motion to proceed to the legislation.
If no senator seeks recognition (i.e., no longer wants to, or can, speak), the Presiding Officer must put the question. The Senate's rules and practices say that "when a Senator yields the floor, and no other Senator seeks recognition, and there is no order of the Senate to the contrary, the Presiding Officer must put the pending question to a vote." And it only takes a simple majority of senators (typically 51) to adopt the motion to proceed.
Using rule XIX to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act and the Voting Rights Advancement Act with 51 votes takes more effort on the part of Democratic senators—and Republican senators, which is why their filibuster cannot last indefinitely—than invoking cloture on a motion to proceed to each bill with 60 votes. But Biden and Harris left little doubt in their remarks that Democrats are ready to work hard to advance these two bills.
Democrats could have begun debate on these voting rights bills if they took the time to make the Republicans filibuster them. They haven't because they want legislating to be easy, convenient. The president referred in his remarks to the election officials and voters who do "the hard work of democracy." But his career in public service—in the Senate—should have taught him that "the hard work of democracy" does not stop when the polls close. Democracy also happens in-between elections in places like the Senate. Therefore, senators must be willing to do "the hard work of democracy" if they want to make democratic self-government work.
Otherwise, what's the point of working hard to elect them?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Never thought I'd see reason give advise on how to pursue a federal takeover of elections.
And legislative day has been twisted to mean simply gavel in and gavel out. And likewise doesn't require those voting to remain in the senate during a filibuster, essentially making this a way to burden only one side of a debate.
More of that libertarian thought you come to Reason for.
Turns out that contrary to what JesseAz and other commenters think, 'liberarian' actually is distinct from 'far auth-right partisan Republican'.
Lol. What have I said that was authoritarian or far right?
Let me guess. Youre a philosophy major in a deep blue area.
Not Republicans trying to force you to get vaxxed or bring some sort of proof of vaccination to do anything outside of their own homes.
I know, that's just "looking out for you" and not "incredibly authoritarian"...
Never thought I'd see reason give advise on how to pursue a federal takeover of elections.
Really? Reason has been on this trend for a while now.
Thankfully Mitch still has a microphone.
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL: Twelve months ago, this president said we should see each other not as adversaries, but as neighbors. Yesterday, he called millions of Americans his domestic enemies. Twelve months ago called on Americans to join forces, stop the shouting, lower the temperature. But yesterday, he shouted that if you disagree with him you're George Wallace."
George Wallace? If you don't pass the laws he wants, you're Bull Connor. If you oppose giving Democrats untrammeled one-party control of the country, well you're Jefferson Davis."
Twelve months ago, this president said disagreement must not lead to disunity. But yesterday he invoked the bloody disunion of the Civil War. The Civil War!"
Listen to this, he compared a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traitors. How profoundly, profoundly unpresidential."
"I've personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday. The American voters did not give the president a mandate for very much. You've got a tied Senate, negative coattails in the House, the narrowest majorities in over a century.
The president did not get a mandate to transform America.
But he did arguably get a mandate to do just one central thing that he campaigned on. Here is what that was: Bridge a divided country, lower the temperature, dial down the perpetual air of crisis in our politics, one job citizens actually hired him to do. It is the one project that would have actually been consistent, consistent with the Congress, [with what] the voters elected.
Ah, but President Biden has chosen to fail his own test. The president's rant, a rant yesterday was incoherent, incorrect, and beneath his office. He used the phrase Jim Crow 2.0 to demagogue a law that makes the franchise more accessible in his own state of Delaware.
He blasted Georgia's procedures regarding local elections officials while pushing national legislation with almost identical language on that issue. The president implied things like widely popular voting ID laws are, listen to this, totalitarian. Totalitarian?
Ironically, on the same day the Washington, D.C. Mayor said to bring a photo I.D. And vaccine card any time they leave the house.
The president repeatedly invoked the January 6th riot, while himself using irresponsible, delegitimising rhetoric that undermines our democracy. The sitting president of the United States compared American states to totalitarian states.
He said our country will be an autocracy if he does not get his way. If he does not get his way.
So the world saw our commander in chief propagandize against his own country, his own country, to a degree that would have made Pravda blush. There was no consistent standard behind anything the president said. He trampled through some of the most sensitive and sacred parts of our nation's past. He invoked times when activists bled and when soldiers died, all to demagogue voting laws that are more expansive than what they have on thebooks in his own home state.
"if you disagree with him (Biden) you're George Wallace."
Someone needs to remind him that George Wallace was a Democrat. So were Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis.
Someone should point out he thought George Wallace was swell.
Fuck Joe Biden in racist ass.
Musk did.
Dissed Senile Joe Good n Plenty.
Fuck Joe Biden and his Ho Harris.
I don’t know if daddy is into that, but Hunter is.
This is hardly new. Over a decade ago he claimed Republicans want to return black Americans to slavery. Biden and the rest of the Dems have always been hate filled demagogues.
Reason suffers from Jonah Goldberg disease - an inability to be associated with anyone who associates with Trump. Goldberg left Fox because he didn't want to be associated with Tucker Carlson, who likes conspiracy theories that he can't substantiate. Goldberg could have stayed and argued against Carlson's ideas, but instead he ran away as if Fox was a leper colony. You could almost hear Goldberg screaming "Unclean, unclean!"
Too bad, Goldberg once had the guts to take on the left with his book "Liberal Fascism". His guts have faded in the last 18 years since LF was published.
He got a taste of the establishment and liked it.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/legacy-lies-trump-weaponized-mistruths-presidency/story?id=75335019
Why are you covering up his lies? He couldn't care less about you or anyone else? He cheated on all 3 wives and then claims he has NEVER done anything he should apologize for. I thought Jesus was the only one who could pull that off.
Sport, this isn't about Trump. This is about ensuring our republic functions as intended, and dead people voting wasn't part of the plan. That's the mistake leftists make. Biden has been lying & cheating as a Senator since he took office. He sided with segregation minded Southern Dems in favor of the Boston busing debacle in the late 70's in order to keep racists in Massachusetts happy. He smeared Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas with Chappaquidick Teddy Kennedy in some of the most vicious, hateful behavior ever displayed in the Senate. The racism inherent in Biden's actions versus Thomas pale in comparison to any behavior you fools attribute to Trump. Biden's 2005 speech on the value of the filibuster in ensuring that "51% doesn't destroy our democracy" was one of the few instances of him speaking truthfully about how our Senate works. Now liberals act as if a 50-50 tie is a 65 seat mandate. The people have spoken, yes. The Dems won no majority, just a tie. Your own party members recognize the ignorance of the POTUS's behavior. Hell, it isn't even Biden, but Klain, Kerry, and every leftover Obama sycophant who are running the executive branch. The louder I hear Schumer and Pelosi scream about voting rights, the more they expose the fact that this is a power grab pure and simple. Reid used the "nuclear option" in '13, and Trump stuck it up the Democrat ass with 3 SCOTUS seats that ensure originalist control for a generation. Try it again and see what happens, because every ballot harvester and dead person voting won't stop the GOP from taking the Congress this November.
"The subsequent siege on the Capitol left at least five people dead"
Ironic that they include a big lie while whining about lies.
Cool story, brah.
Goldberg wasn't "taking on the left" with that book. He was taking advantage of a market opportunity - cobbling together a series of well recognized and widely discussed ideas into a mass market product.
Or they are just informing their readers of this procedural possibility. If the Ds have to resort to Reason for their understanding of the vagaries of congressional procedures; well I don't even know where to start - other than to welcome them to the libertarian level of political power (that would be near absolute zero).
Then the article is fairly useless as the majority here understand how the non standing filibuster works.
And I would buy that wouldn't that this is merely educational if they wrote this article for one of the 320 filibusters raised last year. I dont remember then doing so, do you?
I would but that this is merely*
After their support of Biden in 2020 election and subsequent whataboutism to cover up his many failures, it isn’t that surprising. Disappointing? Yes. But not surprising.
I'm going to be generous to Reason.com article writers and suggest that they weren't "for" Biden but rather "frothing-at-the-mouth" against Trump. They paid little attention to Biden and had no clue to his past nor his mental current state. The only Reason staffer who said he would reluctantly vote for Trump and why he was a better choice than Biden was Robert Poole, co-founder in 1978 of Reason Foundation. But Poole has a genuine background in reducing government (and not merely bloviating) and happens to have an engineering background, meaning he actually has training in problem-solving and ability to weigh trade-offs, unlike the bulk of Reason.com writers.
It’s pretty sad that this is the generous explanation of events.
suggest that they weren't "for" Biden but rather "frothing-at-the-mouth" against Trump.
So, pretty much why I voted for Trump. I wasn't "for" Trump at all, but I was 100% frothing-at-the-mouth against Sec. Clinton, and Biden/Harris.
And I was able to toss a vote Trump's way without much regret because the L party ticket those elections were absolute crap...Gary "I agree with Bernie Sanders 78% of the time" Johnson? Bill "Gun Control" Weld? Jo 'I Think We Should Support the BLM Protesters' Jorgensen?
And I had forgotten this: Jo Jorgensen praised a company for firing an employee who wrote "All Lives Matter" on the employee's personal Facebook page. Jorgensen referred to the posting as an example of the "systemic racism" that will not be tolerated in the private sector.
Even worse, the author of this article works for R Street, which used to be a free market lobbying firm. Does Eli Lehrer still run R Street?
"how to pursue a federal takeover of elections"
Constitution, Article V:
If this goes through I would bet the call for a constitutional convention would be thundering.
The Amendment would probably include eliminating Conventions of the States.
Be careful what you wish for. Remember that these same racist, power-hungry Donkeys would be very active in demagoguery in any Con Con. Do you trust them, or the Ted Cruz’s of the world, with the writing of a Constitution?
You are a fool if you do.
If they ultimately break our current republic with shame election takeovers, things are already broken. I would trust s convention of states over a controlling entity deciding how they can remain in power with rule changes.
as the donkeys ignore that there's the guy that asked ........ WHEN D0 WE GET TO USE OUR GUNS?
thst takes time and work and agreement from The States.
Demonazis aint into any of that.
Its all ' their way now.'
If they take over elections, the filibuster won’t matter anyway.
I call bullshit on his column, if it was that easy to break a filibuster, you think McConnell wouldn't have done that 2017-2018?
How about the time he cites Reid going for that gambit? Did he get anything passed?
I'll bet the Senate Parlementarian shot it down and was upheld.
This is the same clown a week or two ago that said Schumer could pressure the GOP to cave just by threatening to nuke the filibuster, that they didn't really have to nuke it to have the leverage. Well that's true, if you have the votes to nuke it in the first place. Schumer doesn't.
I don't care what this guy's credentials are supposed to be he is spouting bullshit.
Look at the details. The method described would grind all business to a halt for over a month if Republicans didn't give up. If they each get 2 turns, it could go into 2-3 months.
Republicans don't have any policies they actually care about passing that can't be passed via reconciliation. Certainly not enough to stand there talking for months on end. But a bill that stops their voter suppression endeavor... that they'd care about.
Yeah, requiring an ID to vote is much worse than requiring a vaccine card to leave your home. The ID law would ‘suppress’ those 5% of blacks who don’t have IDs, but requiring the vax card would only suppress the 40% of blacks who aren’t vaxed.
illegal aliens get ID cards, why cant " black folk?"
Unless they, too, are here ILLEGALLY.
Everyone illegally invading the US aint brown
Voter suppression.. the terms used by the ignorant and idiot left despite record turnouts in areas tbey accuse of being suppressed.
Find me one voter that was ever suppressed. I'll wait.
wah obviously believes ...... the TRUTH BE RAYCISS ........
There's this guy...
I had my:
• valid driver's license
• student ID
• voter registration card
• a copy of my birth certificate
• my lease
and that still wasn't enough. I couldn't vote.
And then we get the rest of the story...
When I was preparing to vote in 2016, my wife and I were living in north Nashville while I was playing football at Vanderbilt University. We registered to vote—that went off without a hitch, because Tennessee has online voter registration. We found that very convenient and we didn’t really think too much more of it. We had valid Georgia IDs, and assumed we could use those at the polls to satisfy Tennessee’s voter ID law. My wife was born in 1995 and I was born in 1996, so we were both really excited to participate in something bigger than a local primary for the first time.
My wife and I were the a strange situation of being young and married, but still somewhat financially dependent on our parents. Our vehicles were registered in our parents’ names, and we had Georgia driver’s licenses. Registering the vehicles in Tennessee would have incurred a pretty significant tax burden, and getting a Tennessee driver’s license, we were led to believe by our insurance agents, would be a problem for us to since then we’d be listed as drivers on our parents’ cars without Georgia licenses. So we were in this space where we feared losing our transportation or having to incur a significant financial burden if we tried to get Tennessee driver’s licenses. By the time we figured this out, it would have cost hundreds of dollars to rush a passport just for the purposes of voting. We were young undergraduates. I was trying to survive on the NCAA’s poverty stipend—I had to give up my meal plan to be able to afford rents in that city.
On Election Day, my wife did not go to the polls, but I did. I had my valid Georgia driver’s license. I had my Vanderbilt University student ID. I even had my voter registration card, a couple of utility bills, my lease, and a copy of my birth certificate. I have doubts about the prevalence of in-person voting fraud and therefore the necessity of voter ID laws—but there are three reasonable components to test for: identity, citizenship, and residency, which I felt I was able to supply with everything I had with me.
However, that did not meet the legal standard to vote in Tennessee. So I had to cast a provisional ballot, which was ultimately not counted.
As I saw on one site:
This guy’s problem was not voter suppression by the state, his problem is that he’s equal parts stupid and self-entitled. He’s obviously never had to obey any rules and is nonplussed when he finds that he’s actually not a special snowflake. This goof had multiple options open to him, like not defrauding his insurance company by giving them a false address, or getting a Tennessee ID for $12, or driving home to vote, or voting by an absentee ballot. He chose to do none of the above even though he knew what the law required.
The guy most likely checked a box in the online form to affirm under oath that he was a legal resident of the state of Tennessee, without first checking to see what the requirements for that were.
Strange how Reason authors do not hold allegations of "voter suppression" to the same standards they demand when talking about voting irregularities.
Almost as if one side is perpetually given every benefit of the doubt while the other side is not.
If it weren't for double standards Reason wouldn't have any.
Anything for a 1-party solution?
food fight!
These must be the policy discussions you are always aiming you make.
Sober up, progshit.
The democrats prefer to break the rules rather than follow them.
Those wild and wacky webels know how to party like it's 1861!
its the demosKKK way .............
The other tact that would be good for the senate to end is the voice vote. It allows a subset of congress to do votes by voice without counting the actual votes. Even though both yay and nay is present. There is no actual counting of the votes.
MTG started requiring a counting of the votes after she was booted off committee which pissed off parties of both senators as they would have to leave committees or lobby lunches to actually go vote because not enough members were present during voice votes.
Any senator or representative can request a full vote on any measure, they don't do it because they don't want to.
I'd limit that to bills and not procedural votes, but yeah. The Constitution says you need a majority for a quorum, but the Senate currently flouts that rule (the most egregious example being a 3-0 vote a few decades ago.) If you can't get to a majority with the yeas, nays, and "presents", then lack of a quorum should be presumed, and they shouldn't be able to do anything important.
Why do democrats want to give all this power to McConnell?
Joe states that filibuster is evil because it was used to thwart civil rights legislation.
Biden should know, as it was his contemporaries, all with a D after their names who used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation in 1957 and unsuccessfully in 1964; Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell....
The filibuster was defeated(70 votes ultimately) and legislation passed by both parties.
We don't have to go all the way back to the 50s and 60s. If he really thinks the filibuster is evil, then why didn't he vote to eliminate it in, say, 2020, when the Democrats were in the minority and he was actually in position to cast a vote on it?
Schumer on MSNBC.
"They're saying things like ‘I'll lose my election if the legislature is allowed to do this in my state’”
His comment is in regards to voter integrity laws.
Preventing as many people as possible from voting because of imaginary claims about fraud, making it possible for partisan officials to overturn elections because of imaginary claims of fraud, making the wait 10 minutes in rural areas and 10 hours in cities to make the time cost of voting dramatically higher for liberal areas = voter integrity?
More inane garbage from the biggest auth-right jackass on the site.
Voter fraud is real, if minimal, but partisan officials overturning elections is purely imaginary, failfailalone.
Find one person that was ever prevented from voting.
Do you just say idiotic things because you believe them or because you're paid to?
My daddy says that republicans keep lots of people, from voting. Foreigners, dead people, pets. Daddy has an imaginary friend, and I bet those mean republicans wouldn’t let him vote either!
look at YOU ........... proving Gruber's point about donkeys
You don't have to make fresh socks to pick a fight, Mike.
And changing your name will not garner better responses, because you're still posting imbicilic progtwaddle.
Why are Delware's voting requirements more harsh then Texas? I thought we were supposed to follow Europe which have much harsher?
Show us voter suppression? Please stop whining. Don't you need to go change a vote count at 3 a.m.
“Democrats Can Beat a GOP Filibuster Without Wrecking Senate Rules”
This assumes Democrats care at all about not wrecking Senate rules.
Facts not in evidence?
Daddy did a good job wrecking the senate for decades, and he’s president now!
well hes a- fuckin that up at Light Speed!
Yes, we have to make sure that Xie and Vlad pay daddy up front. We don’t know how many years he has left.
don't matter ......... as long as he gets his 10%
The goal is not to beat the gop the goal is to destroy america
Redundant.
Why not have a single national standard for federal elections?
Reasons that I can see in favor:
- A single national standard benefits or restrains all candidates equally, across the country.
- Having rules at the state level permits a local majority to unjustly disenfranchise voters, i.e., Jim Crow. A single national standard can potentially reduce that problem.
- A single national standard will cut down on unintentional "voter fraud" when voters think they are following the rules but are simply unaware of specific voting laws in their current location.
- Shouldn't the layer of government being elected be the one to decide how its own elections should be run?
Because we are a country built on federalism shithead.
What California's want isnt what Idaho wants.
There is no reason for a one size fits all policy except to benefit a single party. It is the same woth all aspects of federalism. Allow different states to try different things and accept the most productive.
But you have always been an authoritarian elitist who believes in essentially intelligent design. You are anti market believing a grand controller is better than competing ideas.
Youre an idiot statist.
Noooooo……. He’s the greatest libertarian here! He says so!
chemjeff, you are no radical individualist if you are advocating for federal oversight of all elections. Change your name immediately.
No no. Let the party currently in power have free reign of future elections. That will never end badly.
He's arguing for a radical, individual solution to the problem. One election official to rule them all.
I had not considered that aspect.....you're right.
Still though, I have extreme dissonance reconciling a 'radical individualist' with a statist solution. He should immediately change his name to 'chemjeff wannabe statist'.
Wait til you read its other comments
He is an "individualist" who is openly against state laws that simply say "you cannot treat an individual differently or assign them group characteristics based on their skin color".
So an individualist...in the same way that Bruce Jenner is a woman
I didn't say "all elections", I said "federal elections". And you didn't address any of my arguments.
And I'm not an anarchist if that is what you mean.
Please, change your name immediately to something that more closely reflects you. 🙂
What is your response to the arguments that I presented?
Conducting free and fair elections is one of the few responsibilities that a government is supposed to meet. Why are the individual liberties of voters better protected by 50 different sets of rules, which protect the right to vote to greater or lesser degrees, than one uniform standard?
chemjeff wannabe statist....dude, are you serious? The states and not the Federal government, under the constitution, are responsible for elections. This is US Civics 101.
Now, I live in the People's Republic of NJ, and we like to do things our way. Like we did in Paterson NJ last year. We don't need some asshole senator from the land of fruits and nuts (Yeah, the People's Republic of CA) telling us how to
fixconduct an election. Capiesce?Article I, Section 4:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
So the states have the power to run elections, but that power is not unlimited.
And I appreciate that the people of New Jersey want to do their own thing. But why should I, as someone who is not a resident of New Jersey but who nonetheless is affected by the votes that NJ representatives and senators cast, be convinced that you are conducting your elections *for federal office* in a proper manner? The Senate is 50:50. Each one of your state's two senators will be the deciding vote. Why should I accept the results of those votes if I don't think NJ elections are on the up-and-up?
Did you bother to read actual jurisprudence of that clause. Means and manner has been almost exclusively related to the states. General rules have been interpreted as to who can vote.
And if you want to know why a centralized government choosing a means and manner, look to Venezuela dumbass.
Youre an authoritarian.
" But why should I, as someone who is not a resident of New Jersey but who nonetheless is affected by the votes that NJ representatives and senators cast, be convinced that you are conducting your elections *for federal office* in a proper manner?"
My job isn't to convince you, Chemjeff. My job is to have a fair and free election in the way that my state determines. Maybe my state is in a very hot area, so we have certain accommodations that make sense. Maybe my state is more rural than yours, so my money is better spent accommodating drivers than pedestrians. If you believe we aren't having a fair and free election, there are oodles of Federal Alphabet Agencies empowered to police us.
As for this "Your choices affect me too" nonsense, please stop. If you want people in Kansas to stop affecting your life, the first step is to stop rendering every damn decision to the federal government. It is that desire that is causing your angst.
And besides all that, color me skeptical that you will remain consistent in your application of which decisions "that affect others in the country" ought to be rendered to the federal government.
He's talking about the principle of the matter.
For the life of me I can't fathom why some cousin-fucking redneck in Idaho gets 50 times the say over our government as a Californian.
That’s not how any of this works.
It’s not our fault you don’t understand federalism.
To be fair. He doesn't understand the senate doesn't represent the people but instead the states.
cuz that fine person in Idaho, that you despise, feeds you and all your mexican voters .......... someone has to keep all you gimmedats and criminal invaders in your rightful place ...........
My job isn't to convince you, Chemjeff. My job is to have a fair and free election in the way that my state determines.
Oh no no no no no. We have millions of STOP THE STEAL idiots running around demanding that Trump be reinstated as President because the state governments of Pennsylvania and Georgia and Arizona did not convince them sufficiently that the elections that they ran in their states was sufficiently fair and free. So based on this standard it is absolutely the obligation of the state government of New Jersey to persuade even the most hardened skeptics that their elections were fair and free. The alternative of course is to dismiss outlandish claims from paranoid morons, but I've been told that that is impermissible elitist snobbery, and we can't have that now.
As for this "Your choices affect me too" nonsense, please stop. If you want people in Kansas to stop affecting your life, the first step is to stop rendering every damn decision to the federal government. It is that desire that is causing your angst.
I am absolutely in favor of reducing the size of the federal government, but it's not going to be reduced to zero, and so even a federal government based on the minarchist's dreams will still be making decisions that affect the entire country.
I think a better rebuttal to this claim is that in our system of government as originally conceived, the states are supposed to be the real sovereign units, and the federal government is supposed to be subservient to the will of the states. That is why the states ought to control how elections are run for federal offices, regardless of how many people federal decisions affect.
And see my comment below. I never said I was in favor of a single national standard, although I can see arguments in its favor. I do think we are in a moment of transition in our system of governance. We have a certain dissonance in how our government is set up - the states are supposed to be sovereign, but in reality, the federal government is the real sovereign entity and the states are subservient to it. I think sooner rather than later this dissonance will be resolved one way or another, and however it is resolved will determine how elections are run in this country.
"Oh no no no no no. We have millions of STOP THE STEAL idiots running around demanding that Trump be reinstated as President because the state governments of Pennsylvania and Georgia and Arizona did not convince them sufficiently that the elections that they ran in their states was sufficiently fair and free."
So what? I am no more beholden to them than you. States are no more beholden to them than you.
And seriously this is your logic? "All those crazy trumpers don't believe the election so we need to federalize it to...somehow convince those trumpers that the Democrat-written laws made everything fair?" That's what you are going with?
"but in reality, the federal government is the real sovereign entity and the states are subservient to it."
Yeah that is because people keep giving lip service to a restrained federal government while then going and saying "But in the case of [elections] it's different."
And seriously this is your logic?
I am mocking the MASSIVE FRAUD crowd. If the government should have to investigate the MASSIVE FRAUD allegations *only* on the basis that so many people believe in them, then the same logic should apply to every other hare-brained idea that any large enough group of people believe in, regardless of evidence or logic.
And Jeff breaks down because he realized he was an uneducated idiot.
Why aren't you a lefty again jeff?
So, Jeffy supports federalizing election laws because Orange Man Bad.
ahhh ... jeffie be triggered ........he needs his safeplace ....
"And I appreciate that the people of New Jersey want to do their own thing. But why should I, as someone who is not a resident of New Jersey but who nonetheless is affected by the votes that NJ representatives and senators cast, be convinced that you are conducting your elections *for federal office* in a proper manner? "
How are election results from states other than your own any business of yours?
CA votes for morons as a rule. I do not care if they keep doing so. Make it bad enough and the people might eventually want a change.
And when are you going to respond to the arguments that I presented above?
chemjeff wannabe statist....You need to accept the fact that we live in a Federal Republic. You don't like the separation of powers between Feds and State? Take it up with the Founders.
The system we have is: states conduct elections, their way. Your citation perfectly proves my point (thanks for that).
If you want to change it chemjeff, then draft a constitutional amendment and get cracking...because you'll need to persuade a lot of people to your POV to get it enacted. I personally think if you can persuade JesseAZ on the merits of whatever amendment you propose, then it is a lock.
We already took it up with the Founders, and the states-righters lost the debate.
Turns out what states-rights really care about is the freedom to enslave and otherwise oppress black people.
No Tony, states rights don’t matter anymore because daddy is in charge. When Trump was president, states right mattered. Just like Uncla Andrew in NY said.
Okay, so you're just arguing from authority.
You just claims states don't have a say because they are subservient to the feds.
Thats completely idiotic blather from a leftist.
The constitution was a pact of the states dividing powers between a central limited government and the individual states.
You and fafalone are competing for dumbest lefty here.
No, he's explaining reality. Catch up.
The US Constitution which allows the states to set their own rules for elections, including federal elections. No other arguments needed. Don't like it amend the constitution, but you know you don't have the votes for that. So you and your ilk whine instead.
See above for what the Constitution actually says.
But why do you believe the Constitution is correct on this matter?
The constitution says what he just said it did shit weasel.
What do you think means and manner means?
The quote you provided proves my point not yours. Having federal standards would negate the first clause all together. It isn't hard to figure that out for anyone with basic reading comprehension and logic. Why do you think the Federal government felt it necessary to change the Constitution to give every male citizen the right to vote, to give women the right to vote and to lower the voting age to 18? Because to enact any national standard required a constitutional amendment. And one thing the federal government is strictly forbidden from doing is changing place of elections, i.e. making mail in ballots federal law, because that changes place of voting. Which your quote specifically forbids. Once again you proved yourself wrong.
Okay, it very well may be that the Constitution forbids the federal government mandating universal mail-only balloting. I'm not an expert on the particular jurisprudence on that subject. I merely point out that the states' power to run elections is not unlimited.
But even if we grant your premise that the Constitution does forbid it, why do you think the Constitution is correct on this matter?
"why do you think the Constitution is correct on this matter?"
unfortunately, I'll bite...
because the constitution is THE rule of law document with a feature for it to be amended if we feel it does not work the way we want it to now...
the constitution, if i follow your logic, while not having to be right, must be followed (and amended using the documented process) - otherwise, why follow any of it?
I understand the Constitution is the law of the land. I understand the procedures for amending the Constitution. That is not what I'm asking.
Let me just be more blunt, then...
I am asking you to consider the Constitution NOT as some Holy Inerrant Word Of God, but as a document written by men - a very important document, of course, but still, just a document - that has some ideas on how to govern a nation. Many of the ideas are very good ideas, but some are bad ideas. I am asking whether you think *this particular* idea, as embodied in Art. 1 Sec. 4, is a good idea or not.
Youre not an expert in anything except specialty oreo flavors.
"I am asking you to consider the Constitution NOT as some Holy Inerrant Word Of God, but as a document written by men - a very important document, of course, but still, just a document - that has some ideas on how to govern a nation. Many of the ideas are very good ideas, but some are bad ideas. I am asking whether you think *this particular* idea, as embodied in Art. 1 Sec. 4, is a good idea or not."
There is a way to change it.
You just do not want to go thru the effort to do so.
And you know it would die a quick death as you wouldn't get 40 states to go along.
Your assumption that a uniform standard would protect the right to vote to a GREATER degree. There has never been any historical precedence in human history as far I as know that would support this assumption.
It would mean that people that want to compromise the right to vote would only have to concentrate on ONE place to get their wishes met.
Uniform standards would be one of the GREATEST risks to insurance the right to vote!
Your assumption that a uniform standard would protect the right to vote to a GREATER degree. There has never been any historical precedence in human history as far I as know that would support this assumption.
Jim Crow
Jim crow was an action of government to force business and people to enact their measures. His point stands that if the pro Jim crow people were given the reigns of a single federal rule, they could have implemented it nationwide you retarded fuck.
Also those rules were from your party of the left. Just a reminder.
Thank you Jeff! The collective needs more drones like you. It helps keep my Daddy in office. And Hunter appreciates it too. It really keeps the checks rolling in from my Daddy’s bosses in Beijing and Moscow. Hunter would surely starve to death if he had to work to get money.
How was the shower?
Daddy washed me very thoroughly, but I think I blocked parts of it out. He had to wash me carefully, because he said Hunter had gotten me so dirty. I don’t remember that part too well.
Because you can choose to live where you want, ie federalism. There will always be at least one state that suits your wishes.
This is basic stuff you moron.
What about "one person one vote"? If the state of California runs sloppy elections with massive fraud, but the state of Idaho runs strict, clean elections with minimal fraud, aren't the relative worth of those two votes different?
The only shared election states have is the presidency. All others belong to those that reside where they are. Their relative worth is nothing but a red herring.
“And I'm not an anarchist if that is what you mean.”
Umm, that’s not at all what you’re being called.
Why not have a single national standard for federal elections?
Why would you? POTUS is the singular office that is awarded by national election. Residents of CA don't vote for WY Senators. Why should the residents of WY allow the Senators from CA to dictate how WY elects its Senators?
Here is the rebuttal you clearly so desperately crave:
- A single national standard would inevitably favor the party that currently holds both the House and the Senate. Despite slander about repressing the vote, this is the reason the Republicans refuse to participate.
- Having rules at the state level permits the national majority to unjustly disenfranchise voters, i.e., Jim Crow. 50 individual state standards guarantee hedge against that problem.
- A single national standard will increase unintentional "voter fraud" when unelected federal judges apply the rules arbitrarily within their jurisdiction.
- Shouldn't the People be the ones to decide how their own elections should be run at the city, county, state and federal level?
Every one of your suggestions decreases freedom. You have significantly impugned your claim to be a libertarian with this post.
Wait til you read its other posts!
Finally, someone decided to actually address the arguments that I put forth. Everyone else decided to simply jump into their defensive crouches and spout their reasons to keep things as is without even paying attention to what the other arguments are. That is part of the problem with discourse today. We don't even listen to other arguments.
- A single national standard would inevitably favor the party that currently holds both the House and the Senate. Despite slander about repressing the vote, this is the reason the Republicans refuse to participate.
That would depend on the standard, wouldn't it? For example, one of the provisions in the current bill would dictate a certain duration of early voting. That provision per se doesn't inherently benefit any specific party, anyone is perfectly capable of encouraging voters to vote early. Now I do agree that there are some proposed standards that are designed to try to rig the vote in one direction or another, and I don't support those.
- Having rules at the state level permits the national majority to unjustly disenfranchise voters, i.e., Jim Crow. 50 individual state standards guarantee hedge against that problem.
Historically, though, it has gone both ways.
- A single national standard will increase unintentional "voter fraud" when unelected federal judges apply the rules arbitrarily within their jurisdiction.
Well sure, if you assume that judges are incompetent, then all laws are worthless and meaningless because they will never be enforced properly. Can we try to stay away from being overly cynical about this? And the problem of judges having too much discretion with applying rules is to not construct sloppy ambiguous rules.
Shouldn't the People be the ones to decide how their own elections should be run at the city, county, state and federal level?
At the city, county, and state levels? Absolutely. But at the federal level? I think that is a different matter entirely. Because the federal level involves governance of the entirety of The People, maybe the entirety of The People should set the standards for the elections to those offices.
And by the way. I did not say that I was in favor of a single national standard. I merely asked "why not?" and gave some plausible reasons in favor. In truth I am undecided. I can see arguments both ways. I don't support Team Blue's proposal as written because there are certain provisions in there that I absolutely oppose (like banning voter ID), but in principle I think there could be a national standard that would be acceptable. It should probably be minimal, setting a baseline of acceptable behavior, and not trying to dictate every aspect of every election. And it should only apply to federal elections.
I was hoping to have a discussion on the matter, I guess around here the responses that did occur was as to be expected.
That’s a lot of words.
It is a lot of him distracting from the actual discussion and him claiming his arguments aren't for what he wants because he knows they aren't libertarian and he wants to keep lying about being one
"And by the way. I did not say that I was in favor of a single national standard. I merely asked "why not?" and gave some plausible reasons in favor."
Disingenuous shitweasel.
tl/dr ....fos
That would depend on the standard, wouldn't it?
No. As sharply partisan as this has become, I can confidently assert that the Democrats have packed the bills to favor their party. They have failed to convince a single Republican that their proposal is fair. And what is 'early voting' anyway? Fraud is like entropy, the opportunity only increases over time.
Well sure, if you assume that judges are incompetent, then all laws are worthless and meaningless
I didn't assume anything. Federal laws are ruled on by federal judges who are appointed from DC. Federal laws are inherently less libertarian than local laws because the judges are unelected and unaccountable to the local citizens.
Because the federal level involves governance of the entirety of The People, maybe the entirety of The People should set the standards for the elections to those offices.
You just restated your prior argument in more words without additional support. There is no rebuttal to my assertion. Federal law governing the election of WY's federal representation being legislated by CA's 55 delegates against the wishes of WY's 3 delegates is far less libertarian than it being decided by the People of WY?
No. As sharply partisan as this has become, I can confidently assert that the Democrats have packed the bills to favor their party. They have failed to convince a single Republican that their proposal is fair. And what is 'early voting' anyway? Fraud is like entropy, the opportunity only increases over time.
Huh. Interesting how you framed this. So it's your contention that the proof that the Democrats are not being fair is that if they had been fair, then those fair-minded Republicans would have endorsed it? That they haven't, that is proof that Democrats are not being fair?
Maybe Democrats are being fair, and Republicans are just being obstinate and partisan dick-weasels. How do you know? Have you actually read the proposal? Here is an explainer on what's in the two bills that Democrats want to pass. So, you can decide for yourself who is being fair (if anyone) and who is just being partisan assholes (probably both).
https://www.businessinsider.com/freedom-to-vote-act-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-explainer-2022-1
I think there are good parts and bad parts to it. I can see why Team Red would oppose it based on the bad parts. But I don't think it is so bad that not even some compromise can be worked out. That is personally what I am hoping for.
Federal laws are inherently less libertarian than local laws because the judges are unelected and unaccountable to the local citizens.
I am not sure where you got the idea that populism is inherently libertarian, but it isn't. In my view anyway, libertarianism is about defense of liberty. Sometimes, the people do a better job at defending liberty than the state. But sometimes, the state does a better job than the people. So yes I am totally fine with "unelected and unaccountable" Federal judges overruling the mob in defense of liberty.
Federal law governing the election of WY's federal representation being legislated by CA's 55 delegates against the wishes of WY's 3 delegates is far less libertarian than it being decided by the People of WY?
Well, the votes of those 55 delegates from California and the 3 delegates from Wyoming affect me, who doesn't live in either California or Wyoming. Why shouldn't I have input on how those delegates are selected, so that I am confident that they were chosen according to rigorous standards?
Reasons opposed:
It violates both the 9th and 10th amendments.
Shouldn't the layer of government being elected be the one to decide how its own elections should be run?
Maduro nods his head in approval.
In addition to trying to push a nakedly partisan federal takeover of elections being repulsive on the part of Reason, this argument is just plain stupid. It's trying to finagle procedural gimmicks to get around a simple fact - much of the country simply opposes this legislation. And the absurd finagling falls on its face when you realize that both Sen. Manchin and Sen. Sinema would have to sign on board with the maneuver. And bear in mind, both have announced that they're opposed to filibuster "reform" and skeptical of the federal election takeover. But, I'm sure couching the entire matter in manipulative political stunts will totally change their minds on the matter.
At this point, you guys are just embarrassing yourselves.
Actually, majorities support many of the provisions in the voting rights bill.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/21/monmouth-poll-americans-back-both-early-voting-voter-id-requirements/7774904002/
Backs some provisions does not mean that they back the entire bill. This kind of bullshit is what gets you labeled as a prog.
Note that over 80% of voters back voter ID, which is probably the biggest thing this bill is trying to kill in the first place.
I didn't say that majorities back the entire bill. That is why I said "some provisions" not "entire bill". It is not my fault that you cannot read.
And I am totally fine with voter ID.
We aren't talking about what you prefer moron. We are talking about the bill in place.
This is why people call you fucking dishonest.
Progs gonna prog.
My daddy calls it being a good democrat. Without the little people like Jeff, families like mine might have to get real jobs! We can’t have THAT. And it’s just great that Jeff supports us even though he will probably have a lower standard of living, along with the rest of the little people, once we get everything our way.
I didn't say that majorities back the entire bill.
Then what the hell is your point?
That parts of it are nonetheless popular.
That there is a compromise to be had here.
And when did the democrats offer compromise shit weasel?
Yes there is Jeff. We get everything, and the republicans give up everything.
This is basically like arguing that the forest fire wasn't bad because it didn't burn down all the houses.
Why should there be compromise?
Because there are parts that strong majorities do support?
Poll: do you want free shit?
Poll: do you want to raise taxes to get free shit?
Jeff: see, people want free shit, pass BBB!
We can just pass parts of it! Free shit and no new taxes if we just keep printing huge amounts of money!
And what does the bill do for voting ID requirements jeff?
It would force states to implement automatic voter registration, early voting, same-day registration, and no-fault absentee balloting. It would require states to allow ballot harvesting, ban voter ID laws nationwide, and limit access to federal courts for anyone who challenges such legislation.
Ignorant shit weasel.
11000 illegal aliens found on voter rolls for Pennsylvania.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/pennsylvania-finds-thousands-non-citizens-voter-ashe-schow
It would ban witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots; force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/the-facts-about-hr-1-the-the-people-act-2021
Support for some provisions isn't the same as support for the legislation. And the fact of the matter is that much of the country, whether a majority or not, of the country is opposed to the legislation in its entirety. Trying to ramp from one to the other is akin to saying that because chemjeff likes motherhood and chemjeff likes apple pie, clearly chemjeff likes motherhood apple pie and Stalin.
"Actually, majorities support many of the provisions in the voting rights bill."
Which is non responsive to Delasio's statement that "much of the country simply opposes this legislation".
It isn't Delasio's fault that you cannot read. Maybe if you are going to make these arguments, you should learn to do so.
There has been bipartisan opposition to this, much to the chagrin of Reason editors.
>>JAMES WALLNER is a resident senior fellow at the R Street Institute and a former Senate aide.
stop with the pointers please.
Why should we care about these abstruse details of Senate rulemaking, why are we giving advice to the Democrats on how best to rig elections in their favor, and why are we chiding them for not having their pinkies out as they hold the teacup?
Reason is really showing where their allegiance lies with this article.
If Team D nukes the filibuster, it will change everything in the Senate overnight. When Senator McConnell says that 'everything stops' he is not kidding. Most, hell nearly all Senate business is conducted by unanimous consent. No more consent.
Oh, you want to open a session? Have a vote...time off the clock.
Oh, you want to start debate? Have a vote....time off the clock
Oh, you want to revise and extend remarks? Nope, have a vote...time off the clock
Oh, do you have a quorum on the floor? More time off the clock
The Senate in the 1848-1860 time period was poisonous. You should read up on it. It will happen again if Team D does away with the filibuster.
What resources do you recommend if I would like to read up on the antebellum Senate?
The Congressional Records themselves (the records of debate). There is nothing better than the words they themselves spoke. The Congressional Globe after 1851 is where I would start looking in the Congressional record. Go forward to 1860, and then go back pre-1851. Why then? The records of proceedings are a lot better after 1851 (more detailed coverage of debate). Historians? I'd start with Ambrose and McPherson and go on from there (if you want to). Their work will give you good context.
I remember the 1851 Globe, thay was a good read.
Its easier to read now with electric lights.
We had to use oil lamps or burn black people for light back then.
Sounds like an admission that McConnell uses the filibuster to prevent the majority from legislating, as well as that he's a petulant asshole.
Democrats don’t actually have a majority.
Didn't see such complaints from you 2017 and 2018. Wonder why.
"Democrats could have begun debate on these voting rights bills if they took the time to make the Republicans filibuster them. They haven't because they want legislating to be easy, convenient."
They also know they get far more mileage out of controversy than they get from solutions. If they actually cared about voting rights they'd force the "talking filibuster" and then pass the bill, but right now they think the ammunition this will give them in the midterms is more valuable (and even if they lose, they'll still have the ammo for 2024 and beyond)
Very true^^^
Slogans “Racist” are safer than actual debate. If black people were prevented from voting, it would be all over the MSM, including black conservatives -Scott, all day every day. Yelling “Racist” prevents details of no ID votes exposed. No ID voting polls very poorly. Pivoting to “Racist” also eliminates the momentum of press coverage of FBI involvement in
1/6.
Voting by mail and the lack of a single voter registration database based on an unduplicated identifier such as your SS# and confirmed at the time of vote with ID is a combination ripe for fraud.
Example: when I left Oregon, a vote by mail state for 20 years, I sold my house. My signature and my wife's were required on the documents that transfer ownership. I left the state and never changed my voting registration address. Why would that even occur to me until the next election? So the person currently living in that house had my signature and received my ballot in the mail when the election came around. If the ballot was filled out, signed, and dropped off, there would be no evidence of voter fraud. Even if there was, once the signature envelope is separated, it is impossible to distinguish that vote from any other.
You could generate enough fraudulent votes on moved residents alone to have thrown the last election. Even if the buyer of my home didn't want to commit fraud, easy enough to just hand it over to someone with no qualms.
You know who else was perfectly well aware that I had moved and probably had access to my signature, SS#, and driver's license # at one point or another? Google and Facebook. Remember those hundreds of millions of dollars that Zuckerberg donated to getting out the vote?
See a problem?
- disclaimer - I know there would be no point in stealing my vote in the deeply blue Oregon, but how about all of those states for which 2020 was the first time for vote by mail? When they sent out ballots to every registered voter, they also sent them out to those who had moved, gone to retirement homes, etc., and never changed their address or asked to be removed.
Conservatives are making a grave mistake focusing solely on fraud here.
Zuckerberg showed that he could swing a national election by pouring money into 5 competitive cities. That's it. Paying $100,000 per vote can get him all the legal votes he needs.
The problem for Zuck is that which cities are "in play" will shift year over year. As long as the laws allow him the appropriate latitude to spend endless dollars helping to voters of heavily blue precincts while leaving rural or less blue precincts to flounder with ancient, underfunded voting infrastructure, he can win election after election without a single fraudulent vote.
If the GOP were smart they would be legislating "disproportionate impact" legislation that made it illegal for activists to fund individual precincts and instead require them to provide equal support for precincts around a state. Unfortunately, as usual, the Stupid Party is so wrapped up thinking about fraud that they probably will lose the next key elections for exactly the same reasons.
It is turning out in GA that money was used for illegal ballot harvesting which is fraud as well.
I think it's less inflammatorily called "ballot collecting," and the only reason you could possibly be against it is because you think it's better when fewer people vote.
No. It is ballot harvesting. Even Jimmy Carter called it that and the UN has referred to it as such.
And it isnt counting every vote when it is the most susceptible vector for fraud, why the above 2 have openly been against it in other countries.
But you've never been honest Tony.
If you make voter fraud a serious enough felony, you could incentivize against almost any attempt. And it is a pretty serious felony.
If you're so down with reducing people's liberty in order to prevent unlikely crimes, tell me which guns (potential murder weapons, all) you want to take away from everyone, and we can get together and start harvesting them.
It doesn't matter how serious you make the penalty if you refuse to investigate or pursue convictions Tony
Ga found 3000 double voters and refused to pursue in any manner.
Good Tony! Keep up the support. Without the little people, like you, my Daddy’s friends wouldn’t ever have been able to do the ballot harvesting necessary to shore up the vote in those swing states.
I wonder how many college students are registered in two places?
A State House seat in PA was determined by 27 votes after the Dems did a large voter registration drive at the local college. Those students are long gone but the Dems remain the incumbent party in that district.
I'm sure a lot of college students are *registered* in two places, but I doubt many will go home on a Tuesday to cast an illegal second vote. On the other hand, I bet a lot of states don't even check for that sort of thing.
the lack of a single voter registration database based on an unduplicated identifier such as your SS#
Hmm, are you making the case for a single national standard for voter registration?
Not sure a database has to be National just because it uses your social as an identifier.
Control your erection, statist.
Hmm, are you making the case for a single national standard for voter registration?
No. The state DMV databases all talk to each other and it is now incredibly difficult to have a valid driver's license in multiple states. You don't need a national database if you require ID to vote.
Example: when I left Oregon, a vote by mail state for 20 years, I sold my house. My signature and my wife's were required on the documents that transfer ownership. I left the state and never changed my voting registration address. Why would that even occur to me until the next election? So the person currently living in that house had my signature and received my ballot in the mail when the election came around. If the ballot was filled out, signed, and dropped off, there would be no evidence of voter fraud. Even if there was, once the signature envelope is separated, it is impossible to distinguish that vote from any other.
So, this type of hypothetical fraud, if carried out, would be no worse than in-person voting fraud while showing up to the polls with a fake ID.
In fact, the type of hypothetical fraud that you describe, is easier to prevent than in-person fraud with a fake ID - just be more vigorous in updating the voter registration rolls. That is a (in principle) simple bureaucratic matter within the government. Whereas, to try to prevent in-person voter fraud with fake ID's, you'd have to try to create even more secure ID's or train grandma volunteer poll workers to spot those fake ID's. Generations of teenagers will tell you that the odds are in their favor, not the government's.
So what you've described isn't actually an argument against mail-in voting - it's an argument against doing it stupidly. Which I can totally get behind. I am absolutely opposed to having stupid voting systems.
Showing up in person woth fake government documents is actionable as the person puts themselves at risk. Mailing a ballot in has no risk at all as officers don't hang around mailboxes all day.
You really are not an intelligent person.
^this
That’s what makes him such a good democrat. People like Jeff are very useful to keep daddy’s commission checks coming in.
The Zuckster cared so deeply about the last election and his fellow Americans ability to vote that he only helped put in a handful of cities in battleground states.
That is not true. Here is a better article about how Zuck's money was used:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mark-zuckerbergs-election-funding-donations-fuel-gop-suspicion-and-new-election-rules-01628454907
He did not *only* help large cities. OF COURSE more money went to larger cities, because elections in big cities are more expensive to run, particularly while trying to meet COVID preventative measures.
But here is the real problem. Election offices are underfunded and needed the money particularly when they were asked to make big changes in their election procedures due to the coronavirus. It's been my experience that municipal governments tend not to make administration of elections a top priority on their agendas - it's not sexy, no one will ever win a re-election campaign on a record of "we upgraded the ballot boxes!". So I am not surprised that a bunch of offices pursued Facebook money to try to help run their elections.
If the government wants to ban private donations to election offices, then fine, but it then also has to provide the funds that are actually needed to conduct the election.
"Here is a better article about how Zuck's money was used:"
All that article says is that "But many election officials say that...there is no sign of favoritism in the distribution of the grants"
That is the proof of your article. They say "Republican-leaning areas were already discouraged from accepting election grants" and for proof point to a STATE WIDE ban on grants in Louisiana. That is not an example of Republican leaning areas refusing grants. It is an example of a State refusing grants to Republican AND Democrat strongholds.
Note that the FGA- the think tank that did research on this- found that contrary to the claims of "many officials", the grants in Pennsylvania were not increased merely due to increased population. "counties won by Biden in 2020 received an average of $4.99 Zuckerbucks per registered voter, compared to just $1.12 for counties won by Trump."
https://thefga.org/briefs/zuckerbucks-pennyslvania/
Note that the FGA- the think tank that did research on this- found that contrary to the claims of "many officials", the grants in Pennsylvania were not increased merely due to increased population. "counties won by Biden in 2020 received an average of $4.99 Zuckerbucks per registered voter, compared to just $1.12 for counties won by Trump."
Let's just assume for the moment that this statistic is true. If so it is just a manifestation of what I said - more money going to more populous areas. More populous areas tend to vote Democratic. It is correlation, not causation. Zuckerberg didn't give more money to Philadelphia BECAUSE he thought it would vote Democratic, he gave more money to Philadelphia because it has more people, and running elections in places with more people tends to be more expensive; it is also the case that places with more people tend to vote Democratic. And your statistic simply demonstrates this correlation. If you want to prove causation, you have to find some piece of evidence that directly speaks to this proposed cause.
So you don't believe in equal application of laws in voting. Rural areas often need more help due to the low density of their voting districts. Voters have to drive further to vote. Yet your
r fine with every dem County being advantaged. And in places like ATL there are pockets of areas where similarly populated areas recieved varying amounts
You do not believe in equal protection or application when it helps democrats. Full stop.
One of the other findings is that election offices that recieved these dollars were often the ones that changed election rules or illegally cured ballots like in Wisconsin.
He didn't get his talking points on this. In TX, there is much whining and crying how rural areas are disproportionately affected by the current voting laws because those rural areas have large minority populations among farm workers.
The need for reformation is somehow magically exclusive to areas where Democrats think they can get more votes.
I didn’t specify large cities.
Here in the 2000s, the filibuster exists only to block legislation proposed by Democrats. When it blocks legislation by Republicans, it is ignored. There is zero reason to keep a historical practice, that is not in the Constitution, that blocks actions by one party only.
Bizarre that the Democrats used it so many times when the Republicans held the senate in the 2000s, then.
Bowf Sidez
Most voters support voter ID requirements. This bill bans voter ID requirements nationwide. Therefore, this bill is not democratic, and the Democrats should have to rename themselves.
They should have a vote for their new name. And then ignore the result and pick whatever the DNC wants anyway.
Stop lying.
It requires pre-clearance for any voter ID law stricter than the 2002 HAVA law. It bans nothing.
The law requires states to allow people without an issue to vote. Whatever you want to call it, it’s not the voter Id law this country wants.
Why quibble when clearly your only motive here is to give Republicans as much of an undemocratic advantage as they can get their kiddie fucking hands on?
One: this isn’t about me.
Two: you’re supposed to care about democracy
Three: they’re republicans. They don’t work at CNN.
The longtime Republican speaker of the House was a kiddie fucker. The last Republican president of the United States is a kiddie fucker. Republicans lost their majority under Obama due to a kiddie fucker in their ranks. And those are the ones who've done it on the public record.
Your obsession with pedophilia has nothing to do with how popular voter ID requirements are and how undemocratic it is for democrats to ban them.
But I do understand why you want to change the subject.
I'm against all policy that gives affirmative action to a party positively stuffed with kiddie fuckers and science deniers. But I'm just an old-fashioned pragmatist.
I touch children.
The Pope told me to stop but I said " make me, Bitch!"
He wears a dress, how tough is that?
You touched me too daddy! After you watched Hunter finish with me.
If you were designing a legislature, would you require a 60% supermajority for beginning debate on any issue? Would it even occur to you in a million years?
Nobody designed the filibuster at all. It just happened. Anti-freedom forces exploited it to keep rights away from the wrong sorts of people. That's its sole purpose. And Republicans are hardly abiding by the spirit of democracy by passing all these actually insane state-level laws to insulate Republicans from democracy.
Republicans can go the way all tyrants go. So can their defenders.
The legislature designs itself dummy. They created the rule.
Not on purpose.
Yes they did dummy.
They just stumbled upon it by accident? That's your belief?
“ Nobody designed the filibuster at all.”
Narrarator’s voice: And he was completely wrong again.
"Originally, the possibility to filibuster was accidentally introduced as a side effect of an 1806 rule change which eliminated the ability to end debate in the Senate by a simple majority vote. Thus, the minority could extend debate on a bill indefinitely by holding the floor of the Senate, preventing the bill from coming to a vote. However, the filibuster was used relatively rarely until the civil rights era. Senator Strom Thurmond..."
Citation needed.
Gold, Martin (2008). Senate Procedure and Practice (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 49.
Provide a link to the copy you’re cutting and pasting from.
Stop moving the goalposts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
I dont see the citation attached to the paragraph of Wikipedia you’re cutting and pasting. How this determined to be the source of this passage?
Your cite is attached to this passage:
But Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated, which was done in 1806, after he left office.[7]
You’re are cutting and pasting uncited passages from Wikipedia, and then pretending they have cites that don’t go with them.
You suck at this. You’re just a big joke then?
I thought this was common knowledge.
And you want to dictate what schools teach children in history class?
Then you shouldn’t have to make up a cite.
You’re definitely right to bow out of the teaching kids conversation.
It’s really stupid to cut and paste from Wikipedia and then pretend you were citing a serious written work.
You might as well say “Here: let me show you how much of a mendacious cunt I am: here’s proof!”
My citation was mocking you. It was a joke. Now I've had to explain that to you of all people, who seem physically incapable of not commenting disingenuously.
The fact that the filibuster was an accident of history is common knowledge. Same with the fact that it was only rarely used until southern racists exploited it to stall civil rights laws. Same with the fact that only since the Bush years has it been exploited regularly as a matter of daily life.
The idea that it's a time-honored tradition is a lie. It's a lie Republicans tell, which makes it much the same as everything else that comes out of their faces.
What do all leftist idiots have in common here? They claim sarcasm or mocking when their lies and idiocy gets exposed.
If I were designing a legislature, it would take at least a 66% yea vote to pass any law, a 35% yea vote to repeal any existing law, and all laws would automatically sunset after ten years.
Sounds retarded as fuck.
That carries an eternal bias in favor of the status quo, which could be anything.
Narrator’s voice: and no one knew what he was talking about, again.
Sorry I can't lock in to the timeless wisdom of the sentiment "laws are bad, derp."
If they're good, they'd be renewed.
If they're bad, they wouldn't be.
Tony: "Bad laws are actually good"
You tell him Tony! My daddy always said pillow biters like you are a huge asset to The Party. You always say what you’re told to and never question anything.
You’re a good democrat.
Sing like a birdie, Sweetie, just dont point on the Therapy Doll where Daddy touched you.
Shumer would probably lose that vote 48-52, since neither Manchin nor Sinema are particularly interested in the legislation. And they may not be the only ones.
And Team Blue would scream about the death of Democratcy when they lost a vote with only 48% voting yea.
https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1481414890116075522?t=tDVs5MEOunsVW0jI9Gpfag&s=19
.@ChadPergram, do you know why the White House is erecting a perimeter concrete blast and security fence directly around the building?
[Links in thread]
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/12/biden-administration-erecting-concrete-blast-and-security-wall-around-white-house/
He promised a transfer of wealth for votes. Now that the bill is put on hold, it’s the recipients of the promised transfer —Antifa, prison wives, illegals. Otherwise known as The Sanders Wing
****THE PURGE****
the Senate
I'm wondering if they're thinking they might need it soon.
I wonder what they might do to precipitate such a response.
End the secret ballot now.
People should choose whether to expose themselves to murder by Trump supporters. That's what lawn signs are for.
I’m sure Antifa would behave themselves.
Depends, are there any fascists about?
Im that!
Whats a fascist?
Who am I?
Can I touch you Tony? Youd like it...
You’re still here, so….
Can you define "Fascism", Tony?
Outside of "people I do not care for"
I made the mistake of reading some of Tinys comments.
They were all just " no it isnt- your fault"
Tiny needs a Checkup from the Neckup.
Other way around. My daddy told me his people have the little people like you teaching those Trump supporters a lesson for having Trump signs. Aren’t you already doing that Tony? If you’re not you need to be a good democrat and start.
ou should get your Daddy out of the White House. He's senile.
Hes screwed things up so badly that Kamala couldnt possibly make it worse.
Aw Christ, Buttigegs down the hall blasting 'YMCA' at full volume. How am I supposed to get any sleep here?
Pete’s actually in the office? When he and daddy were talking he laughed and said he was going to milk the whole maternity leave things as long as possible. Daddy laughed too.
The United States of America is becoming The People’s Republic of America inch by inch with every move by the Donkeys.
Simple problem. Simple solution.
States rights.
The South warned us.
Succeed to Secede.
The DC Disaster is beyond fixing.
Just make as much Global Warming as possible and turn it back into a swamp. The Swamp Creatures there should like it.
"Biden and Harris are wrong to claim that Republicans are the culprit behind the Senate's failure to debate voting rights legislation"
49 Republicans could decide today that they want to debate and vote on the legislation. Heck, 49 Republicans could find 11 Democrats to pass the bills. But they don't. So yeah, Biden and Harris are right. Nice try with the rhetorical tricks.
“find 11 Democrats to pass the bills”
Where? Havana? Caracas? Moscow?
"49 Republicans could decide today that they want to debate and vote on the legislation."
Failure to surrender makes all problems yours. Got it.
Its real simple, esp with Manchin hopping aroubd, his Foot still loged in Bidens hinney-
Dont negitiste with Dem Terrorists.
.Hard line.
They want Unity?
Give it to them.
Straight vote. Vote everything the Left want down.
Biteme cant decide on " no"
He cant decide who he is or " applesauce or pudding".
Ha ha so is this a libertarian guide to how to making elections under federal control?
Reason should just wave their Commie flag high and give up any pretense of being libertarian
There offshoots are just Marketing outreach by the DNC / Soros.
Package the message for the intended audience.
Message!
Divide!
Fail!
Camel Toe Harris. Photo above
+1 " Id do that"
-1 " no way in hell, Bro"
As I said...
corporations need to tell Biten to piss off.
Canadian Truckers industry has had enough of President Eyebrows crap.
https://news.trust.org/item/20220113034627-2356h
You have to love it when somebody opposes a move made by "exploiting arcane rules."
Is not the Senate itself now being called 'arcane.'?
Tony and Chem and other lefty's - every vote counts, unless it's against my person. It's ok for 50 Democrats to pass a law without one Republican because they are my team. No matter that if you can't get one person to cross the idle it's a bad law.
Vote harvesting is good because it helps my team. Let's get rid of the Electoral College so small pops don't have a say in government.
Trump and Russia. Did I miss anything?
You guys need this so you can win, that's all there is. You also feel you'll never be out of power again ever. It's not about Voter suppression. Our laws are not even has strong as Europe. You say this is for the people, but only ones who want this are democrats. Independents are against it.