this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
684 points (94.0% liked)

politics

19603 readers
4379 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"If the purges [of potential voters], challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast."

"[...] Democracy can win* despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.

And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (21 children)

Why don't you ever try and actually meet the other side in good faith?

Opponents of voter ID have a very simple line of argumentation, and very clear issues that would need to be solved. Why do you think proponents of voter ID never attempt to solve these issues?

Why do proponents always insist that voter ID has to be implemented in a way that happens to hurt minority voters disproportionately?

[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Look at Spain. We have been using our IDs for decades and it's a great way to solve that problem. You just go to the voting table, show your ID (DNI) and vote. That's it. And it works for everything related to anything official.

But because of the voting system we don't have gerrymandering (or at least not that much).

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That works great for Spain (and most other countries) because it has a compulsory national ID. This doesn't exist in the US, so introducing such laws shouldn't be done before easy access to such an ID exists for everyone.

[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the US case it should be a federal ID. With a 6 or 7 letters ID should be more than enough. And compulsory at 13 y.o. You can drive, you have an ID.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yep, that would be a good solution. Yet conservatives never advocate for this.

load more comments (17 replies)