Because that would lead to fair elections. And if elections were fair republicans would never win any.
Why would Democrats not simply extend and expand the Voting Rights Act when they have a Congressional majority? Dems had this in 2021 when Biden took office - both branches, plus the White House. They had it back in 2009 as well, when the House had two dozen votes to spare and the Senate enjoyed a 60 vote supermajority.
Why not send down more financial and legal aid, as Howard Dean championed back in 2008 when he was head of the DNC and delivered one of the largest landslide majorities in the party’s history? Why not use federal money and manpower to amp up Mississippi state election offices?
I imagine it’s because the Republican party is “absolutely evil turds” and the Democratic party is “everyone else”. Unfortunately, “everyone else” includes some farts and sharts, too.
It would be if everyone entitled to could easily vote. The GOP is running on policies far too unpopular to win without voter suppression and on never changing those policies no matter what.
The problem for the Dem leadership is that, just like the GOP can only win by disenfranchising people, right wing Democrats can only dominate a party that has drifted left without them if voters are scared of the greater evil that is a Republican with any chance of winning.
THAT’S the real reason. Voting being representative hurts the power base of the center right to right wing Neoliberals in charge of the Dems almost as much as it does the fascist Republicans.
It would be if everyone entitled to could easily vote
Well, that is like saying “in a perfect world…”. Today Americans do not live in a democracy where everyone entitled to could easily vote. And there are MANY reasons for that, not just one type of obstruction.
No. It’s like saying “cumulative return on investment”. If you pass laws that enable more people to vote, and those voters vote for you, then you win more elections and can pass more new laws that allow more people to vote.
Why would Democrats not simply extend and expand the Voting Rights Act when they have a Congressional majority? Dems had this in 2021 when Biden took office - both branches, plus the White House.
Because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused, so Democrats didn’t have a senate majority. Both have now quit the party and sit as independents.
The Supreme Court has already placed strict limits on federal intervention in state elections. So it probably wouldn’t go anywhere although I would support an attempt at least.
The issue with (the most important parts of the) voting rights act was that it only applied to states with a history of racism. Expand it to cover all states and in theory the argument of the SC breaks down. Of course, they may well come up with a different line of reasoning, but a Democratic congress should at least try.
Because Voter Suppression usually comes in the form of laws and judgements, and legislators can’t be arrested for passing unjust laws, and judges can’t be arrested for passing unjust rulings, partly because…well who the fuck could even prosecute such a case without risking biased prosecution?
The supreme court is ordinarily supposed to be the check for when the law itself is unjust, but that ship has sailed and it ain’t coming back until, IMO, we institute a sortitionate bench, IE the judges for any given case before the supreme court are selected at random from the pool of all federal judges who don’t have a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one, on the case.
But then with how partisan judges are now, you would get completely random rulings. Better than what we have now I guess, but in theory you could have two landmark cases against, for example, Roe v Wade, and the SC might handle these challenges completely differently depending on composition.
Why not have more severe consequences for voter suppression?
Because that would lead to fair elections. And if elections were fair republicans would never win any. So they block any attempt to fix elections.
Why would Democrats not simply extend and expand the Voting Rights Act when they have a Congressional majority? Dems had this in 2021 when Biden took office - both branches, plus the White House. They had it back in 2009 as well, when the House had two dozen votes to spare and the Senate enjoyed a 60 vote supermajority.
Why not send down more financial and legal aid, as Howard Dean championed back in 2008 when he was head of the DNC and delivered one of the largest landslide majorities in the party’s history? Why not use federal money and manpower to amp up Mississippi state election offices?
Don’t Democrats want to win in Mississippi?
I imagine it’s because the Republican party is “absolutely evil turds” and the Democratic party is “everyone else”. Unfortunately, “everyone else” includes some farts and sharts, too.
That, and the judiciary is usually GOP appointed where it matters.
Because such majority is not guaranteed forever and whenever they come close to something like that, the Republicans threaten to implode the country.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/03/16/mcconnell-threatens-100-car-pile-up-in-senate-if-democrats-nuke-filibuster/
It would be if everyone entitled to could easily vote. The GOP is running on policies far too unpopular to win without voter suppression and on never changing those policies no matter what.
The problem for the Dem leadership is that, just like the GOP can only win by disenfranchising people, right wing Democrats can only dominate a party that has drifted left without them if voters are scared of the greater evil that is a Republican with any chance of winning.
THAT’S the real reason. Voting being representative hurts the power base of the center right to right wing Neoliberals in charge of the Dems almost as much as it does the fascist Republicans.
Well, that is like saying “in a perfect world…”. Today Americans do not live in a democracy where everyone entitled to could easily vote. And there are MANY reasons for that, not just one type of obstruction.
No. It’s like saying “cumulative return on investment”. If you pass laws that enable more people to vote, and those voters vote for you, then you win more elections and can pass more new laws that allow more people to vote.
Because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused, so Democrats didn’t have a senate majority. Both have now quit the party and sit as independents.
The Supreme Court has already placed strict limits on federal intervention in state elections. So it probably wouldn’t go anywhere although I would support an attempt at least.
The issue with (the most important parts of the) voting rights act was that it only applied to states with a history of racism. Expand it to cover all states and in theory the argument of the SC breaks down. Of course, they may well come up with a different line of reasoning, but a Democratic congress should at least try.
Did you even read the comment you replied to?
That would require Dems actually doing something for a change.
You mean trying to do something without the entire republican party stopping them at every single turn including threatening govt shutdowns over it?
Because Voter Suppression usually comes in the form of laws and judgements, and legislators can’t be arrested for passing unjust laws, and judges can’t be arrested for passing unjust rulings, partly because…well who the fuck could even prosecute such a case without risking biased prosecution?
The supreme court is ordinarily supposed to be the check for when the law itself is unjust, but that ship has sailed and it ain’t coming back until, IMO, we institute a sortitionate bench, IE the judges for any given case before the supreme court are selected at random from the pool of all federal judges who don’t have a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one, on the case.
Really like the thought of the Supreme Court being pulled from a random pool of Federal judges for each case. Fuck this appointed for life shit!
But then with how partisan judges are now, you would get completely random rulings. Better than what we have now I guess, but in theory you could have two landmark cases against, for example, Roe v Wade, and the SC might handle these challenges completely differently depending on composition.