Republican Vote Suppression in Action

[silverscreenselect]

Over the weekend, the Alaska Republican party cancelled its Presidential primary for 2020, joining Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina, which earlier cancelled caucuses or primaries. The stated reason was that the primary would serve no useful purpose since Trump is now President. Of course, this overlooks the fact that three other Republicans have announced for the office, including Bill Weld, who just publicly accused Trump of treason for his actions in the Biden/Ukraine affair. Now, it's doubtful that these guys or any other possible challengers would have won any primary, but even a significant showing could be embarrassing for Trump.

The longer Trump stays in office, the more he resembles his buddies Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. I don't think they face any opposition in their parties either.

https://time.com/5683340/alaska-cancels-gop-primary/

[earendel]

Realistically speaking, none of the three contenders has a snowball's chance of dethroning Trump, so I can see why states might want to save money not holding a primary.

[BackInTex]

Over the weekend, the Alaska Republican party cancelled its Presidential primary for 2020, joining Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina, which earlier cancelled caucuses or primaries. The stated reason was that the primary would serve no useful purpose since Trump is now President. Of course, this overlooks the fact that three other Republicans have announced for the office, including Bill Weld, who just publicly accused Trump of treason for his actions in the Biden/Ukraine affair. Now, it's doubtful that these guys or any other possible challengers would have won any primary, but even a significant showing could be embarrassing for Trump.

The longer Trump stays in office, the more he resembles his buddies Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. I don't think they face any opposition in their parties either.

https://time.com/5683340/alaska-cancels-gop-primary/

LOL. That's the best you got? That's jaywalking compared to the outright murder committed by the DNC against Sanders in the last election cycle. But keep the comedy coming. It will make next November that much more enjoyable.

[Bob78164]

Realistically speaking, none of the three contenders has a snowball's chance of dethroning Trump, so I can see why states might want to save money not holding a primary.

I believe it's the state parties, not the states themselves, that pay for (and decide whether to hold) a primary election. Not sure I'm right about that, though. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

Colorado will hold two separate primaries, one for President, one for Senate, House, County Commissioner, etc.

So far, no rumblings from Republicans about canceling their Presidential primary.

[flockofseagulls104]

Over the weekend, the Alaska Republican party cancelled its Presidential primary for 2020, joining Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina, which earlier cancelled caucuses or primaries. The stated reason was that the primary would serve no useful purpose since Trump is now President. Of course, this overlooks the fact that three other Republicans have announced for the office, including Bill Weld, who just publicly accused Trump of treason for his actions in the Biden/Ukraine affair. Now, it's doubtful that these guys or any other possible challengers would have won any primary, but even a significant showing could be embarrassing for Trump.

The longer Trump stays in office, the more he resembles his buddies Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. I don't think they face any opposition in their parties either.

https://time.com/5683340/alaska-cancels-gop-primary/

William Weld?
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-pri ... lty-2019-9

That would be something for you, executing trump for treason. It would get record ratings on TV. Would it be by hanging?

You want to talk voter suppression?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -up-steam/

Do any of you democrats have ANY idea what the Electoral College is for?



Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas. Of course, it's mostly democrat controlled states that want to change the rules to benefit their party. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about how alaska doesn't want to waste time and money to give Weld, Sanford and the other creep their 15 minutes and have to count the 5 votes they will get between them.

[silverscreenselect]

Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas.

Areas don't vote. People vote.

[silverscreenselect]

You want to talk voter suppression?

And with this post, Flock announces his candidacy for the Presidency of Whataboutistan. Whether Weld is right or whether the proposed compact is right doesn't really have anything to do with what the Republicans are doing. They are denying members of their own party in four states (with possibly more to come) the right to choose their Presidential candidate.

[BackInTex]

Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas.

Areas don't vote. People vote.

Neither do congressional districts but you'd agree that how they are drawn can have an impact.

[Estonut]

Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas.

Areas don't vote. People vote.

Neither do congressional districts but you'd agree that how they are drawn can have an impact.

His agreement depends on who said it...

[flockofseagulls104]

You want to talk voter suppression?

And with this post, Flock announces his candidacy for the Presidency of Whataboutistan. Whether Weld is right or whether the proposed compact is right doesn't really have anything to do with what the Republicans are doing. They are denying members of their own party in four states (with possibly more to come) the right to choose their Presidential candidate.

What about? The conservatives on this bored don't regularly post bat phone propaganda out of the blue like this one. The vast majority of the political arguments come from leftists whines and tweaks at trump originating from the bored's resident useful idiots. You should be thankful that we don't. If we did, all you would be doing is posting your whatabouts and bat phone responses to our posts.

Whataboutism is another leftist construct that let's them criticize anything their opponents do without having to justify what they have done. Pretty useful tool, ain't it? It got the troll out of having to justify this ignorant thread.

[Bob78164]

Over the weekend, the Alaska Republican party cancelled its Presidential primary for 2020, joining Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina, which earlier cancelled caucuses or primaries. The stated reason was that the primary would serve no useful purpose since Trump is now President. Of course, this overlooks the fact that three other Republicans have announced for the office, including Bill Weld, who just publicly accused Trump of treason for his actions in the Biden/Ukraine affair. Now, it's doubtful that these guys or any other possible challengers would have won any primary, but even a significant showing could be embarrassing for Trump.

The longer Trump stays in office, the more he resembles his buddies Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. I don't think they face any opposition in their parties either.

https://time.com/5683340/alaska-cancels-gop-primary/

William Weld?
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-pri ... lty-2019-9

That would be something for you, executing trump for treason. It would get record ratings on TV. Would it be by hanging?

You want to talk voter suppression?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -up-steam/

Do any of you democrats have ANY idea what the Electoral College is for?



Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas. Of course, it's mostly democrat controlled states that want to change the rules to benefit their party. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about how alaska doesn't want to waste time and money to give Weld, Sanford and the other creep their 15 minutes and have to count the 5 votes they will get between them.

Electing the President by popular vote doesn't suppress anyone's vote. It just means that the vote of each and every person gets equal weight, no matter where they live. Given the structural advantages rural and conservative voters have enjoyed for the last couple of decades, resulting in political power out of proportion to their population, I can understand why they would find that prospect uncomfortable.

But that's not suppression. It's fairness. It's coming. Better get used to it. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Over the weekend, the Alaska Republican party cancelled its Presidential primary for 2020, joining Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina, which earlier cancelled caucuses or primaries. The stated reason was that the primary would serve no useful purpose since Trump is now President. Of course, this overlooks the fact that three other Republicans have announced for the office, including Bill Weld, who just publicly accused Trump of treason for his actions in the Biden/Ukraine affair. Now, it's doubtful that these guys or any other possible challengers would have won any primary, but even a significant showing could be embarrassing for Trump.

The longer Trump stays in office, the more he resembles his buddies Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. I don't think they face any opposition in their parties either.

https://time.com/5683340/alaska-cancels-gop-primary/

William Weld?
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-pri ... lty-2019-9

That would be something for you, executing trump for treason. It would get record ratings on TV. Would it be by hanging?

You want to talk voter suppression?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -up-steam/

Do any of you democrats have ANY idea what the Electoral College is for?



Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas. Of course, it's mostly democrat controlled states that want to change the rules to benefit their party. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about how alaska doesn't want to waste time and money to give Weld, Sanford and the other creep their 15 minutes and have to count the 5 votes they will get between them.

Electing the President by popular vote doesn't suppress anyone's vote. It just means that the vote of each and every person gets equal weight, no matter where they live. Given the structural advantages rural and conservative voters have enjoyed for the last couple of decades, resulting in political power out of proportion to their population, I can understand why they would find that prospect uncomfortable.

But that's not suppression. It's fairness. It's coming. Better get used to it. --Bob

It is anything but fair. Do you see any large city that is not blue? The people who don't live in a big city do not especially want to be ruled by what the population centers want. That's tyranny. But, it's tyranny in favor of the democrats, so of course it's ok with you.
The Constitution's framers did not come up with this idea just for grins. It was their best remedy for this exact situation. The only reason the dems want to cheat it is because it works against them. Those damn deplorables in flyover country shouldn't even be allowed to vote, right BWBJ?
It requires a constitutional amendment, but, dammit, that's too hard. Let's figure out a way around it.

[Bob78164]

William Weld?
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-pri ... lty-2019-9

That would be something for you, executing trump for treason. It would get record ratings on TV. Would it be by hanging?

You want to talk voter suppression?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -up-steam/

Do any of you democrats have ANY idea what the Electoral College is for?



Thank God we had the Electoral College that did not suppress the votes of the red areas. Of course, it's mostly democrat controlled states that want to change the rules to benefit their party. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about how alaska doesn't want to waste time and money to give Weld, Sanford and the other creep their 15 minutes and have to count the 5 votes they will get between them.

Electing the President by popular vote doesn't suppress anyone's vote. It just means that the vote of each and every person gets equal weight, no matter where they live. Given the structural advantages rural and conservative voters have enjoyed for the last couple of decades, resulting in political power out of proportion to their population, I can understand why they would find that prospect uncomfortable.

But that's not suppression. It's fairness. It's coming. Better get used to it. --Bob

It is anything but fair. Do you see any large city that is not blue? The people who don't live in a big city do not especially want to be ruled by what the population centers want. That's tyranny. But, it's tyranny in favor of the democrats, so of course it's ok with you.
The Constitution's framers did not come up with this idea just for grins. It was their best remedy for this exact situation. The only reason the dems want to cheat it is because it works against them. Those damn deplorables in flyover country shouldn't even be allowed to vote, right BWBJ?
It requires a constitutional amendment, but, dammit, that's too hard. Let's figure out a way around it.

It's called majority rule. And when it breaks down, our government ceases to become a government that rules by consent of the governed. It becomes a government that rules by fiat of a well-located minority.

So you're damned right that I don't want a minority of the country trying to tell my state that we can't continue to enforce the air-quality rules that have moved us away from the days when my eyes routinely burned on summer days. You're damned right I don't want a minority of the country trying to separate families who may well be my friends and neighbors. You're damned right I refuse to passively accept a system that has allowed a minority of the country to steal my vote for the person I wanted appointing Justices to the Supreme Court until January 20, 2017.

And as for your constitutional concerns about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (say it with me now, this is a well-worn theme), you're simply wrong. The Constitution gives state legislatures plenary power to appoint electors in any way they see fit. Most of them have seen fit to award all of their state's electoral votes to the candidate achieving a plurality in their states, but there's nothing in the Constitution to require that. And the Constitution expressly authorizes interstate compacts. So if and when the requisite states adopt the Compact, everything will be by the book. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Bob, you're so cute. Constitutional republic much?

[Bob78164]

Bob, you're so cute. Constitutional republic much?

Only works as long as an empowered minority is willing to show some respect to the views of the majority. "Too bad, so sad," by an empowered minority is an invitation to change the rules. Particularly when that minority is using its temporary control in a very real effort to entrench its ability to maintain control notwithstanding its minority status. And in this case, it's not even all that hard to do so within the Constitution's framework. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Bob's doppelgänger.

[Beebs52]

Bob, you're so cute. Constitutional republic much?

Only works as long as an empowered minority is willing to show some respect to the views of the majority. "Too bad, so sad," by an empowered minority is an invitation to change the rules. Particularly when that minority is using its temporary control in a very real effort to entrench its ability to maintain control notwithstanding its minority status. And in this case, it's not even all that hard to do so within the Constitution's framework. --Bob

King George yada yada

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob, you're so cute. Constitutional republic much?

Only works as long as an empowered minority is willing to show some respect to the views of the majority. "Too bad, so sad," by an empowered minority is an invitation to change the rules. Particularly when that minority is using its temporary control in a very real effort to entrench its ability to maintain control notwithstanding its minority status. And in this case, it's not even all that hard to do so within the Constitution's framework. --Bob

It's intentionally difficult to change the Constitution. It protects all of us from potential tyrants like you, who want the power to control everyone else. Like I keep telling you. We are NOT a democracy, thank God. You don't seem to get that fact.

[earendel]

Bob has a point.

According to a working paper from researchers at the University of Texas, the Electoral College favors Republican presidential candidates in close elections. Analyzing election results from the past 30 years, the found that a hypothetical Republican who won 49% of the popular vote would win the EC 27% of the time, while a Democrat with the same share would win only 11% of the time. If the vote total is increased to 49.5%, the Republican has a 46% chance of winning, while the Democrat only has a 21% chance. And if the vote should split exactly 50-50, the Republican has a 65% chance of winning. They did an analysis of 92 different models and all of them came out the same. This, the researchers said, is due to the nature of the EC - since each state gets 2 EC votes for its two senators, lightly-populated states have more "weight" than heavily-populated ones.

[Bob78164]

Bob, you're so cute. Constitutional republic much?

Only works as long as an empowered minority is willing to show some respect to the views of the majority. "Too bad, so sad," by an empowered minority is an invitation to change the rules. Particularly when that minority is using its temporary control in a very real effort to entrench its ability to maintain control notwithstanding its minority status. And in this case, it's not even all that hard to do so within the Constitution's framework. --Bob

It's intentionally difficult to change the Constitution. It protects all of us from potential tyrants like you, who want the power to control everyone else. Like I keep telling you. We are NOT a democracy, thank God. You don't seem to get that fact.

You don't seem to understand the historical meaning of what you're saying. The Founders used that phrase to distinguish the representative government they were forming from direct democracy, such as New England town meetings, where the entire populace votes directly on laws. No one ever thought it was a good idea to permanently empower a minority with enduring political control over a majority of the country.

Fulminate all you want. But when the Democrats do take control (whether in 2021 or later), I'll be pushing them to use all of the tools available to them to end, or at least ameliorate, this overrepresentation of interests so reactionary that they are perfectly willing to overlook clear criminal abuse of power by the guy in the Oval Office, as long as he's their guy. Compare the treatment of David Vitter, who got to keep his Senate seat and was even reelected, to the treatment of Eliot Spitzer, who was quickly forced from office. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Cute. Like I said.

[Beebs52]

https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-ha ... -president

[silverscreenselect]

You don't seem to understand the historical meaning of what you're saying. The Founders used that phrase to distinguish the representative government they were forming from direct democracy, such as New England town meetings, where the entire populace votes directly on laws. No one ever thought it was a good idea to permanently empower a minority with enduring political control over a majority of the country.

If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections.

It's interesting that, in 2000, when the polls indicated that Bush might win the popular vote and Gore the electoral college, Republicans actually mapped out a strategy to try to get around that possibility.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/it- ... s-in-2000/

[Beebs52]

You don't seem to understand the historical meaning of what you're saying. The Founders used that phrase to distinguish the representative government they were forming from direct democracy, such as New England town meetings, where the entire populace votes directly on laws. No one ever thought it was a good idea to permanently empower a minority with enduring political control over a majority of the country.

If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections.

It's interesting that, in 2000, when the polls indicated that Bush might win the popular vote and Gore the electoral college, Republicans actually mapped out a strategy to try to get around that possibility.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/it- ... s-in-2000/

You're cute, too.