Free and fair election

[Shadowy Man]

If Trump truly cared about a free and fair election he would have a plan to ensure one instead of plans to litigate the results.

In a very rare moment of honesty he once admitted that if more people voted Republicans wouldn’t win elections.

That is how you know that Trump and the Republicans don’t actually care about the people. Where is the plan?

 

[James Brown]

Every election, I hear people declare that they don't vote because their vote is meaningless. They're practically proud of it.

But if voting is meaningless, why do so many politicians put up roadblocks to keep people from voting?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Free and fair" is a standard that is undefined and allows Trump to say any election outcome not in his favor wasn't "free and fair" because [echo]voter fraud[/echo].

 

[Keith&Co.]

Every election, I hear people declare that they don't vote because their vote is meaningless. They're practically proud of it.

It is, i think, the same reaction as the conspiracy theorist. Not that they're proud to be powerless, they've 'figured it out,' so they've realized the Truthy Truth. They're smug from being one of the In The Know.

 

[James Brown]

"Free and fair" is a standard that is undefined and allows Trump to say any election outcome not in his favor wasn't "free and fair" because [echo]voter fraud[/echo].

"Heads, I win. Tails, you cheated."

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/23/texas-republicans-greg-abbott-early-voting/

...
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is facing a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature.

In July, Abbott added six days to the early voting period, moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19, citing the coronavirus pandemic. In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the state Supreme Court, Abbott's intraparty critics say the move defied election law that requires early voting to start on the 17th day before the election.
It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott's emergency powers, which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic.
...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Every election, I hear people declare that they don't vote because their vote is meaningless. They're practically proud of it.

But if voting is meaningless, why do so many politicians put up roadblocks to keep people from voting?

It's real simple. There are more registered democrats than republicans nationally. And for whatever reason, republicans tend to vote in greater percentages. So, lower turnout almost always benefits republicans.

 

[bilby]

Every election, I hear people declare that they don't vote because their vote is meaningless. They're practically proud of it.

But if voting is meaningless, why do so many politicians put up roadblocks to keep people from voting?

It's real simple. There are more registered democrats than republicans nationally. And for whatever reason, republicans tend to vote in greater percentages. So, lower turnout almost always benefits republicans.

You didn't address the conditional clause. James Brown isn't asking why politicians put up roadblocks; He's asking whether their doing so is solid evidence that voting isn't meaningless.

Certainly it seems that the politicians are so certain that voting is meaningful that those who benefit from its suppression are prepared to take sizeable legal risks to reduce its prevalence.

 

[Jayjay]

Every election, I hear people declare that they don't vote because their vote is meaningless. They're practically proud of it.

But if voting is meaningless, why do so many politicians put up roadblocks to keep people from voting?

It's real simple. There are more registered democrats than republicans nationally. And for whatever reason, republicans tend to vote in greater percentages. So, lower turnout almost always benefits republicans.

You didn't address the conditional clause. James Brown isn't asking why politicians put up roadblocks; He's asking whether their doing so is solid evidence that voting isn't meaningless.

Certainly it seems that the politicians are so certain that voting is meaningful that those who benefit from its suppression are prepared to take sizeable legal risks to reduce its prevalence.

I don't see a contradiction. Just because voting (or suppression thereof) is meaningful to politicians or a certain party, doesn't mean it's meaningful to the voter.

 

[bilby]

You didn't address the conditional clause. James Brown isn't asking why politicians put up roadblocks; He's asking whether their doing so is solid evidence that voting isn't meaningless.

Certainly it seems that the politicians are so certain that voting is meaningful that those who benefit from its suppression are prepared to take sizeable legal risks to reduce its prevalence.

I don't see a contradiction. Just because voting (or suppression thereof) is meaningful to politicians or a certain party, doesn't mean it's meaningful to the voter.

Sure. But it does imply that it's meaningful to the voters.

 

[Elixir]

You didn't address the conditional clause. James Brown isn't asking why politicians put up roadblocks; He's asking whether their doing so is solid evidence that voting isn't meaningless.

Certainly it seems that the politicians are so certain that voting is meaningful that those who benefit from its suppression are prepared to take sizeable legal risks to reduce its prevalence.

I don't see a contradiction. Just because voting (or suppression thereof) is meaningful to politicians or a certain party, doesn't mean it's meaningful to the voter.

Sure. But it does imply that it's meaningful to the voters.

If the suppressed knew they were being suppressed they'd get mad and vote. That's the difference between a "voter" and an "eligible voter".

 

[Treedbear]

You didn't address the conditional clause. James Brown isn't asking why politicians put up roadblocks; He's asking whether their doing so is solid evidence that voting isn't meaningless.

Certainly it seems that the politicians are so certain that voting is meaningful that those who benefit from its suppression are prepared to take sizeable legal risks to reduce its prevalence.

I don't see a contradiction. Just because voting (or suppression thereof) is meaningful to politicians or a certain party, doesn't mean it's meaningful to the voter.

For politicians voting is the means for getting elected (duh). Voters are largely oblivious to the fact that voting is the means by which they are counted. I vote because I want to be counted. Period. If I had no idea who the better candidate was I'll make a random choice just so I still get counted. Politicians tend to not care as much about the concerns of the folks who don't vote. They can't afford to. Those people don't get their streets paved and better services. It only works when it's a reciprocal relationship.