If you have a task you might want to notice how your 200 coworkers and/or competitors are doing it and how it works out. You might be able to figure it out superiorly on your own but it's still a waste of time and you won't even know you've done well.
The us probably has wonderful data on the full spectrum of tools to manipulate elections.
If we're going to claim restricting mail-in voting is an assault on democracy, it's very relevant that the great majority of countries we call democracies also do it.
Your words, posted after my democracy comment: "It's kind of genius - use the one federally-controlled element of voting to disenfranchise your opponents, doing it so late that the courts can't rule in time." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427947
Are you going to issue a correction to that post, that actually it's not disenfranchisement at all, that restricted mail voting is perfectly democratic, and your only objection is that the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?
It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective.
the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?
Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?
I don't care about the correct procedure, I'm only interested in the disenfranchisement angle. So, how does "It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement" square with the overwhelming majority of democracies also restricting mail-in voting? Is it only disenfranchisement when Trump does it?
I'm not making my case "for Trump", I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.
What other countries do is completely immaterial.
I disagree. I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis. In any case, following this change, voters in the US will be no more disenfranchised than voters in France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname), where they have no voting by mail whatsoever.
You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency.
I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic.
Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is.
I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis
If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power.
If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.
I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.
You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly.
Maybe keep your attempts at mindreading to yourself. I'm concerned that secure voting is being treated unfairly.
Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that [disenfranchisement] is his intention.
I couldn't find claims to that effect. All I found was that he claimed it was to secure elections, and his critics claimed it would result in disenfranchisement. Perhaps you could be kind enough to share your source?
Though regardless of what his intent is, the result will be parity with France and Iceland. I support good laws passed for bad reasons, and oppose bad laws passed for good reasons. The state of politics is not so great that I could be so picky to demand good laws also have good intentions behind them. This is the same.
a pedantic argument.
Right, the minor detail that a majority of democracies disallow vote by mail. How silly of me to get hung up on this tiny technicality.
Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery
The method and intent by which a policy is enacted, does not change the effects of that policy. But I'm sure you'll find some clever new way to avoid arguing about the policy itself. But you'll have to argue with someone else, I've humored you long enough.
I come from one of the countries on that list, and from a quick glance mine is one of the more restrictive one. Yet I've voted by mail in ~10 elections and the restrictions haven't bothered me, ever, so based on a sample of one the restrictions have no practical effect. They didn't block me from voting, they didn't even inconvenience me.
Do you think Trump's restrictions will have no practical effect, or are intended to have no practical effect?
Okay, let's be less vague then: Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Romania, Moldova, Mexico, and Egypt have mail voting only for citizens abroad.
France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname) have no mail voting whatsoever. As a glance at the map in the wiki article will reveal, this is not even half of the list.
Are all of them disenfranchising their voters, and failing to live up to the promises of democracy, specifically because of the lack of mail voting?
Do you think Trump's restrictions will have no practical effect
I think even if he bans voting by mail entirely, it would be consistent with the majority of democracies in the world, and would not reduce democracy in any way. In fact it would strengthen it, because one can have more trust in the legitimacy of each vote. I grant that this part is subjective, but the consistency with other democracies is fact.
What does seem unique is the obligation to pay income tax living abroad.
It seems to make no sense to have a say if you aren't going to pay for anything.
My Aunt moved to Australia 60 years ago. She should vote how my tax is spend? She had a very busy life, she should make time to watch dutch propaganda TV? She also doesn't like the idea of being counted as someone who didn't vote.
We likewise have lots of immigrants who vote in their "home" country they don't live in or never did.
I am Norwegian and have voted by mail within the country. Or maybe I didn't vote by mail. I handed in the envelope with the vote form at the post office, if you want to be precise about it. But if you want to argue that Trump is joining a large club of countries that restrict voting, then I think you ought to look at the substance, not the detail. And the substance is that I handed in the form at the post office.
My father does not go anywhere to vote. He fills in his form at home.
The restrictions are such that people can vote, and that's what matters.
It's not the Federal government's job to run elections. That's up to states. It's in the Constitution.
This is all a BS issue anyway because Trump doesn't want to lose control of Congress. It's blatantly obvious what he's doing. Nobody should fall for it.
Comments
Nearly every country in the world restricts mail-in voting (context that is predictably omitted from the article [1]): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
[1] At least from the first six paragraphs that I was able to unpaywall.
What nearly every country in the world does or does not do has absolutely no bearing on this issue in the United States.
If you have a task you might want to notice how your 200 coworkers and/or competitors are doing it and how it works out. You might be able to figure it out superiorly on your own but it's still a waste of time and you won't even know you've done well.
The us probably has wonderful data on the full spectrum of tools to manipulate elections.
If we're going to claim restricting mail-in voting is an assault on democracy, it's very relevant that the great majority of countries we call democracies also do it.
The great majority of countries do not announce tariffs from the office at whim and later roll them back, including many other moronic things.
Step back from the voter disenfranchisement angle and consider how it's being done.
Your words, posted after my democracy comment: "It's kind of genius - use the one federally-controlled element of voting to disenfranchise your opponents, doing it so late that the courts can't rule in time." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427947
Are you going to issue a correction to that post, that actually it's not disenfranchisement at all, that restricted mail voting is perfectly democratic, and your only objection is that the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?
Lol, "are you going to issue a correction!?!"
It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective.
Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?
I don't care about the correct procedure, I'm only interested in the disenfranchisement angle. So, how does "It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement" square with the overwhelming majority of democracies also restricting mail-in voting? Is it only disenfranchisement when Trump does it?
Quite simply because that is both the intent and the effect. What other countries do is completely immaterial.
You mean constitutional procedure. Which is something you out to pretend to care about while you're making your case for Trump.
I'm not making my case "for Trump", I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.
I disagree. I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis. In any case, following this change, voters in the US will be no more disenfranchised than voters in France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname), where they have no voting by mail whatsoever.
You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency.
Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is.
If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power.
I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.
Maybe keep your attempts at mindreading to yourself. I'm concerned that secure voting is being treated unfairly.
I couldn't find claims to that effect. All I found was that he claimed it was to secure elections, and his critics claimed it would result in disenfranchisement. Perhaps you could be kind enough to share your source?
Though regardless of what his intent is, the result will be parity with France and Iceland. I support good laws passed for bad reasons, and oppose bad laws passed for good reasons. The state of politics is not so great that I could be so picky to demand good laws also have good intentions behind them. This is the same.
Right, the minor detail that a majority of democracies disallow vote by mail. How silly of me to get hung up on this tiny technicality.
The method and intent by which a policy is enacted, does not change the effects of that policy. But I'm sure you'll find some clever new way to avoid arguing about the policy itself. But you'll have to argue with someone else, I've humored you long enough.
Lmao imagine not being familiar with the concept of discretion.
I come from one of the countries on that list, and from a quick glance mine is one of the more restrictive one. Yet I've voted by mail in ~10 elections and the restrictions haven't bothered me, ever, so based on a sample of one the restrictions have no practical effect. They didn't block me from voting, they didn't even inconvenience me.
Do you think Trump's restrictions will have no practical effect, or are intended to have no practical effect?
Okay, let's be less vague then: Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Romania, Moldova, Mexico, and Egypt have mail voting only for citizens abroad.
France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname) have no mail voting whatsoever. As a glance at the map in the wiki article will reveal, this is not even half of the list.
Are all of them disenfranchising their voters, and failing to live up to the promises of democracy, specifically because of the lack of mail voting?
I think even if he bans voting by mail entirely, it would be consistent with the majority of democracies in the world, and would not reduce democracy in any way. In fact it would strengthen it, because one can have more trust in the legitimacy of each vote. I grant that this part is subjective, but the consistency with other democracies is fact.
What does seem unique is the obligation to pay income tax living abroad.
It seems to make no sense to have a say if you aren't going to pay for anything.
My Aunt moved to Australia 60 years ago. She should vote how my tax is spend? She had a very busy life, she should make time to watch dutch propaganda TV? She also doesn't like the idea of being counted as someone who didn't vote.
We likewise have lots of immigrants who vote in their "home" country they don't live in or never did.
Those things seem odd if you view a country as a territory and economic zone. But not if you view it as a people, i.e. a nation.
It seems perfectly reasonable to be part of a people but not pay, not vote and not suffer the consequences.
As us citizens do have to pay taxes while enjoying limited benefits it would be much stranger to not let them vote.
I am Norwegian and have voted by mail within the country. Or maybe I didn't vote by mail. I handed in the envelope with the vote form at the post office, if you want to be precise about it. But if you want to argue that Trump is joining a large club of countries that restrict voting, then I think you ought to look at the substance, not the detail. And the substance is that I handed in the form at the post office.
My father does not go anywhere to vote. He fills in his form at home.
The restrictions are such that people can vote, and that's what matters.
It's not the Federal government's job to run elections. That's up to states. It's in the Constitution.
This is all a BS issue anyway because Trump doesn't want to lose control of Congress. It's blatantly obvious what he's doing. Nobody should fall for it.