• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Supreme Court makes it easier to cull voter registrations

SLD

Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
6,446
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
In a 5-4 ruling the court upheld Ohio's process of culling voter roles for people who miss voting in a two year period. They send them a notice and then if they don’t vote over the next four years they remove them. This is how the Rethuglicans get to stay in power. They cull voters in minority districts. They know they are losing the demographic battle. So they stop people from voting. People need to wake up and vote. And they need to put democrats in charge of state legislatures. This is what happens when apathy takes over. Vote every election you can. And vote straight democratic. Even if you disagree with them. Even if you are a conservative. Otherwise you will lose your right to vote.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/supreme-court-husted-ohio/index.html

SLD
 
It's weird that you're not automatically registered to vote like how it is in first world countries.
 
It's weird that you're not automatically registered to vote like how it is in first world countries.

Especially since in most red states the ID requirements to register to vote are less strict than the ID requirements to vote on election day. I don't see how it isn't better to get rid entirely of voter registration. In Georgia, they set up a computer database of who voted, where they voted and where they live, and their ID number. This is sufficient to avoid people voting twice, at least with the same ID. We are well positioned to do election day registration.
 
Elections COULD matter if there was something other than the two party duopoly in power today. Both parties are sold out to rich donors. Democruds have been firmly in power in California for at least 30 years and they have managed to grow a homeless problem and prove themselves worthless over and over again. I voted for Jerry Brown for governor to be even more disappointed with him than with Obama. He is sold out to special interests. In the 80's he had a series of radio programs where he critiqued the corporatocracy on KPFK and other Pacifica stations...where he pointed out how corporations have taken over our government from top to bottom with donation...then he climbed on the gravy train himself. I regard Brown as a traitor to working people and integral to the problems California is experiencing today...not for being "progressive" or "socialist." Oh no! Just plain SOLD OUT.

If we can't get progressives elected, the problem will only get worse. How to do this. I wish I had an answer. To my way of seeing it...elections are just locking in pollution, income disparity, lack of public education, and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.
 
It's weird that you're not automatically registered to vote like how it is in first world countries.

Oregon does, maybe a few others, but not sure. There are some states that I think would never agree to this.
 
It's weird that you're not automatically registered to vote like how it is in first world countries.

Oregon does, maybe a few others, but not sure. There are some states that I think would never agree to this.

The voter rolls in southern states have a paucity of poor people voting for a number of reasons...voter ID laws often require the voter to foot the expense for getting ID's from sources the have to travel to and often have to pay for. If it is a choice between voting between the last two presidential candidates and perhaps buying junior a new pair of shoes, perhaps the choice is for shoes. It is not good to be homeless without shoes.
 
Elections COULD matter if there was something other than the two party duopoly in power today. Both parties are sold out to rich donors. Democruds have been firmly in power in California for at least 30 years and they have managed to grow a homeless problem and prove themselves worthless over and over again. I voted for Jerry Brown for governor to be even more disappointed with him than with Obama. He is sold out to special interests. In the 80's he had a series of radio programs where he critiqued the corporatocracy on KPFK and other Pacifica stations...where he pointed out how corporations have taken over our government from top to bottom with donation...then he climbed on the gravy train himself. I regard Brown as a traitor to working people and integral to the problems California is experiencing today...not for being "progressive" or "socialist." Oh no! Just plain SOLD OUT.

If we can't get progressives elected, the problem will only get worse. How to do this. I wish I had an answer. To my way of seeing it...elections are just locking in pollution, income disparity, lack of public education, and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.

The Democratic party has gone off the rails, but not because they have sold out to corporations. The country has moved to the right. The only Democrats who have won elections are the ones who moved to the right with the country, the DLC, blue dog Democrats. Obama ran as a progressive but governed as a conservative Democrat largely with Clinton's advisers.

The progressive left has been losing in all of the Western Democracies. The only exception is Trudeau in Canada, and I don't think that he is considered to be very far to the left. This is the reality that you have to face, that no matter how progressives organize themselves, a new party or continuing to work inside the increasingly conservative Democratic party, progressives are swimming against the tide of Americans' opinions.

To change this you have to change that reality. In my opinion, you would have to completely abandon identity politics. Conservatives are killing you on identity politics, the only area that progressives are currently willing to battle conservatives on.

You would have to adopt the single most powerful position in survey after survey, tax the rich. Tax the rich to balance the budget. Tax the rich to shore up and to expand Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Tax the rich to provide affordable, high-quality health care for all. Tax the rich to redistribute money down to the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, etc., the economically disadvantaged.

Raise the minimum wage to reduce profits and to make sure that no one who is willing to work has to live in poverty. You would have to learn some economics to do these things. You would have to able to give up the campaign money from Wall Street. You would have to understand why you have lost the workingman when the single Republican policy is to fuck over the workingman to lower their wages to increase profits and the incomes of the already wealthy. You would have to ignore the political people's advice. You would have to stick to these things for years to convince people that you really mean them.

I don't think that our modern progressives have the stomach for consumer level politics. I live in a suburban Atlanta county that voted by a small margin for Clinton in 2016. And yet there was no Democrat running against the Congressman that has represented the district largely made up of this county for more than twelve years. A representative who has been listed as one of the five stupidest in the Congress. A representative who has never worked outside of politics.
 
....and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.

I thought California has that proposition 13 that gives seniority to property owners. And that it gives the older owner a free ride on their taxes at the expense of newer owners moving in? Is that not the case anymore? I would think you could live more tax free as an old time property owner.

But since I dont live there, admittedly this is only what I have read.
 
Elections COULD matter if there was something other than the two party duopoly in power today. Both parties are sold out to rich donors. Democruds have been firmly in power in California for at least 30 years and they have managed to grow a homeless problem and prove themselves worthless over and over again. I voted for Jerry Brown for governor to be even more disappointed with him than with Obama. He is sold out to special interests. In the 80's he had a series of radio programs where he critiqued the corporatocracy on KPFK and other Pacifica stations...where he pointed out how corporations have taken over our government from top to bottom with donation...then he climbed on the gravy train himself. I regard Brown as a traitor to working people and integral to the problems California is experiencing today...not for being "progressive" or "socialist." Oh no! Just plain SOLD OUT.

If we can't get progressives elected, the problem will only get worse. How to do this. I wish I had an answer. To my way of seeing it...elections are just locking in pollution, income disparity, lack of public education, and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.

Progressives aren't going to get elected if progressives won't participate and vote.
 
....and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.

I thought California has that proposition 13 that gives seniority to property owners. And that it gives the older owner a free ride on their taxes at the expense of newer owners moving in? Is that not the case anymore? I would think you could live more tax free as an old time property owner.

But since I dont live there, admittedly this is only what I have read.

I lived for 20 years in the desert in a place I bought for cash (not much cash) and fixed up and Prop. 13 made living there very inexpensive. As you get older these places are a bit isolated and if you might have a medical or other emergency living far from medical assistance becomes more risky with every passing year, so older residents often move to the city at some point and get rented accommodations. I did that and sold my place for cash...and then Prop. 13 was reset for the new owner at current market value. I then lived in North Hollywood for 17 years...and the building and rent seeking speculators moved in on NoHo with old apartments being torn out and new very expensive ones taking their place. To make a long story short, I had a family member came to L.A. to look for a place to rent and we could not find her one. We moved to San Antonio where the rents are far more reasonable. There are oddities in the government here but it seems to have the upper hand against rent speculators...good for us retirees. Younger people with lower incomes cannot find rentals in L.A. and often find themselves on the streets. Check out You Tube...search for Los Angeles homeless and you will see tons of videos of tent cities all over L.A. and O.C. The current city government is on the march to get the rifraff out of town...The problem is that these homeless are not rifraff but merely people without enough income to rent an high priced apartment. The local and state governments are all at the service of real estate speculators and social organization and programs are inadequate to deal with the dislocation of long time residents of the county. Urban renewal has turned these two counties and others in California into outdoor living campgrounds complete with the problems of sanitation and crime. L.A. was great for years. So was the desert in San Bernardino County. But today, we are seeing so much dislocation and poverty it is clear the planners do not have an agenda that fits the average man in these places. Much work is minimum wage. Conditions are not good, but it is not because of immigrants. These homeless are long time residents of the counties involved. Jerry Brown and Garcetti are at the service of commercial and speculative interests and are not delivering good governance.
 
Elections COULD matter if there was something other than the two party duopoly in power today. Both parties are sold out to rich donors. Democruds have been firmly in power in California for at least 30 years and they have managed to grow a homeless problem and prove themselves worthless over and over again. I voted for Jerry Brown for governor to be even more disappointed with him than with Obama. He is sold out to special interests. In the 80's he had a series of radio programs where he critiqued the corporatocracy on KPFK and other Pacifica stations...where he pointed out how corporations have taken over our government from top to bottom with donation...then he climbed on the gravy train himself. I regard Brown as a traitor to working people and integral to the problems California is experiencing today...not for being "progressive" or "socialist." Oh no! Just plain SOLD OUT.

If we can't get progressives elected, the problem will only get worse. How to do this. I wish I had an answer. To my way of seeing it...elections are just locking in pollution, income disparity, lack of public education, and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.

I tire of this attitude. Like you, I wish to see the democratic party move in a more progressive direction. But to state that elections don't matter because both parties are the same is lazy and misleading. This attitude is so easy, and it's everywhere and I think, a major contributor to why people do not vote. Just imagine where we would be right now with President Hillary Clinton. Can you honestly not think of any ways in which things would be better for the US, even this early in the President's cycle? No Neil Gorsuch. The one thing Trump has done well, filling the federal bench with bullshit conservative judges. Obamacare would not be under constant attack. It may have even been improved. The Justice Department? Would it be better off without a fucking klansman at the helm? The border situation? (It was even abysmal under Obama, I know, but it's definitely worse now). That big ass Omnibus bill? The Muslim ban?

Look, the dems need a WHOLE lot of improvement, but at least they still feel pressure from the people. At least some of them ARE good people, trying to help. The GOP and Trump have demonstrated very clearly they will go directly and obviously against the will of the people to pursue their agenda and not give a FUCK. Progressives will NOT get elected at all if the dems do not get a foothold.
 
Elections COULD matter if there was something other than the two party duopoly in power today. Both parties are sold out to rich donors. Democruds have been firmly in power in California for at least 30 years and they have managed to grow a homeless problem and prove themselves worthless over and over again. I voted for Jerry Brown for governor to be even more disappointed with him than with Obama. He is sold out to special interests. In the 80's he had a series of radio programs where he critiqued the corporatocracy on KPFK and other Pacifica stations...where he pointed out how corporations have taken over our government from top to bottom with donation...then he climbed on the gravy train himself. I regard Brown as a traitor to working people and integral to the problems California is experiencing today...not for being "progressive" or "socialist." Oh no! Just plain SOLD OUT.

If we can't get progressives elected, the problem will only get worse. How to do this. I wish I had an answer. To my way of seeing it...elections are just locking in pollution, income disparity, lack of public education, and particularly real estate speculator domination of our state legislature. I am a retiree writing from Texas because I cannot afford to live in my home state where I have lived for more than 70 years.

I tire of this attitude. Like you, I wish to see the democratic party move in a more progressive direction. But to state that elections don't matter because both parties are the same is lazy and misleading. This attitude is so easy, and it's everywhere and I think, a major contributor to why people do not vote. Just imagine where we would be right now with President Hillary Clinton. Can you honestly not think of any ways in which things would be better for the US, even this early in the President's cycle? No Neil Gorsuch. The one thing Trump has done well, filling the federal bench with bullshit conservative judges. Obamacare would not be under constant attack. It may have even been improved. The Justice Department? Would it be better off without a fucking klansman at the helm? The border situation? (It was even abysmal under Obama, I know, but it's definitely worse now). That big ass Omnibus bill? The Muslim ban?

Look, the dems need a WHOLE lot of improvement, but at least they still feel pressure from the people. At least some of them ARE good people, trying to help. The GOP and Trump have demonstrated very clearly they will go directly and obviously against the will of the people to pursue their agenda and not give a FUCK. Progressives will NOT get elected at all if the dems do not get a foothold.

Great post. I totally agree. On the left, we all have different ideas regarding economics and the role of government in the economy. I want a bigger safety net. But probably a smaller safety net than what Arkirk wants. But is that reason to whine and not vote for anyone left of republicans? Here's what we all do agree on: protecting the environment, state and federal parks, less government intrusion in private lives, less US military footprint, more affordable schools, science, gay rights, sensible gun regulation, and etc. Jesus Christ, the republicans pulling out of the Paris accord should motivate anyone left of center to make their vote count next election.
 
Yeah, the US hasn't elected a liberal President since FDR. This idea that the US is just itching for a progressive politician really is ignoring the history. The best Democrats can do is Bill Clinton (right-leaning centrist) and Obama (centrist)... both labeled to the left of Marx by Republicans.

Regarding the SCOTUS ruling, there are a few things to keep in mind. I can understand the need to cull multiple voter registrations for the same person. People move, reregister, and never have an interest in voting twice, as people don't unregister to vote. So the extra names need to be cleaned up. I think the trouble is, not voting in two years... that seems excessive... 4 years absolute minimum, and of course, we know this was by design as some people tend to vote just in General Elections, and more of those people vote Democrat than Republican. Also if you are going to kill voter registrations, people should be allowed to register same day in an election via provisional ballot. No one should not be allowed to vote because they didn't notice a postcard.

I do appreciate the hands off approach of SCOTUS to not intervene in local politics... unlike when they did the opposite when charging a Board in Colorado of being a meanie to a baker and not being neutral enough to his religious view.
 
I don't understand why SCOTUS with the cake case did not (or can not?) rule that both Colorado was in the wrong and that he had to bake the cake anyway. Is there a technical term related to this? Do something like sanction (monetarily) the public officials for being anti religious and still make the guy bake the cake. Slap both of these fuckers in the face. Why does somebody have to win? Let both of them lose if that is more fair.

Could this case be seen as ruling that a non religious law or enforcement about requiring cakes be made for gay marriagesalready is constitutional?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why SCOTUS with the cake case did not (or can not?) rule that both Colorado was in the wrong and that he had to bake the cake anyway.

Is there a technical term related to this?

The Supreme Court does not make advisory decisions. Once a decision is made which is dispositive of the case it stops.
 
Back
Top Bottom