Trump outrage of the day

[brandon1827]

I think it would depend on whether or not Republicans retain control of the Senate. If Democrats keep the house and win a majority in the Senate, they could start working on these reforms over Trump's objections should he win reelection

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

If Trump were to win re-election, would this truly be exposed? Would it mean that a governing coalition of states approved this remarkable amassment of power?

By exposed, I'm not meaning that everyone will agree with my point of view. If Trump wins re-election, it is certainly a testament that people at least tacitly endorse this amassment of power. I'm just meaning that he has exposed what can actually happen because of the amassment of power. Bush Jr. took advantage of the extra executive power that was given to him quite a bit. Obama did too, in his own ways. Trump, however, because he's lacked any filters on his actions, has shown that yes, if you give crazy amounts of power to a person, if you get the wrong person in there - he will do crazy things and push the limits until there pretty much aren't any, anymore.

[Travis]

@Travis a lot of people use this kind of "both-sides-ism" as a shorthand to conclude they don't need to worry about this or that issue in politics. My guess is that--like many of us here--you want to take a thoughtful approach to the issues and allow yourself to be persuaded by whichever side seems to have the more coherent argument in each case.

Part of that is attempting to stake yourself in advance to a position based on the logic and principles you wish to bring into these discussions...so, when the dust settles and we have a 2021 government (whoever that may be), which do you prefer: a Senate that serves as the lapdog to our executive, or a Senate that will supervise and check the executive? And why?

I prefer a Senate that is more concerned with fostering healthy debate rather than acting as the standard-bearer of its party platform. The Senate Majority Leader has full control over what is even discussed on the floor and in the last 20 years that I've been closely following politics tends to use this to push his party's agenda to the forefront.  Leadership appointments are either ramrodded or stalled. Legislation that might do some good is put in a drawer if the other party authored it.  If it's their party's idea, to hell with debate, let's get it passed.  And now the Majority Leader serves as a member of an impeachees defense team.  My memories of Reid may be inaccurate since it was a while ago, but I have images in my head of him playing this game during budget battles.  When he and Pelosi took the Congress I watched a series of press conferences that week that appeared to me to be them dancing on the podium reminding everyone that they were in charge now.  Having a legislative plan seemed a distant second.  Fast forward to McConnell taking over the Senate and he flat out says to the reporters that his purpose in life was to make President Obama's second term a nightmare. If that wasn't bad enough, he gave an interview a year ago where he said back in 2016 he didn't like President Trump, but saw how popular he was and felt he had no choice but to bend over and do his bidding. Since then he's given the appearance of doing so wholeheartedly, to hell with his Constitutional obligations or even being productive.  The Senate Majority Leader has devolved into Chief Obstructionist. Once upon a time, Congress would band together against the Executive to protect its power and duties, even against its own President. Those days appear long gone.

[caracarn]

The thing is that Trump's recent failures are different from his past political blow-ups. They're a whole different dimension of populist/near-fascist conduct. So I would think many of the swing voters who might have been persuaded by his policies would now be repelled by his new conduct which has nothing to do with his policies. I have faith that Americans aren't complete populists and that it wasn't solely populism which got him over the line in the first place.

This is basically where I hang my hat.

In 2016 he was an unknown quantity.  Now he has laid bare for the world to see just who he is.  I think that overrides a lot of the incumbent value as he is so vastly different than anything that came before as to nearly render past comparison pointless.  I know his base is solid but it is at best 35% and he barely won in 2016, so I feel a swing of 1-2% of the populace is all that is needed to assure a loss and I feel the swing will be MUCH higher.  Of course no one knows what the next four months will bring, but we are close enough now that I feel more optimistic.  Also everyone knows what happened in 2016 and I trust those mistakes of taking it for granted will not happen and will draw out enough passive voters to cover the 1-2%.  I feel that Trump does not have a pool of diehards to draw from who sat on the sidelines in 2016.  I think all the Trumpsters will turn out again, I just think now the rest of us get that unless we are dead or unable to escape from a locked door in our house that we will move heaven and earth to vote.  I think we've seen it in the primaries where people waited over 5-6 hours to vote. Lastly, Trump has clearly been taking a beating for at least the last two months in all polls, even those typically favorable to him, and still he doubles down.  I think that is because he is incapable of operating in any other way.   If he could, his narcissism would have caused him to change. 

Never say never on this but, I do feel we are very close to never on the chances of continuing this living nightmare. 

I see many more Biden signs than I saw Hilary signs around and I drive quite a bit for my side job.  Trump signs have been up for months and no new ones are appearing, but the Biden signs are springing up like wildflowers with a few more each week.  It bolsters my belief that all the Trump supporters are already there and he is not drawing anyone new in.  I also know in my personal circle about 50% of the people who had voted for him are not and are royally pissed with him at this point, a nod to he is not an unknown quantity now that people can vote for an think "maybe he'll be better than I think".

I am counting the days as I just want the result so I can go forward.  I will be very sad if he gets re-elected but I will do everything I can in the interim to insure he does not.

[partgypsy]

Caracan I appreciate reading this, but the political (voting) landscape is the same or worse as in 2016. This administration did not do anything to prevent interference in the 2020 election. The gerrymandering of voting districts is still largely in place. And there have been record number of people who have been removed from voting rolls. So, many people who show up to vote, will find out they are not registered to vote. The purging of voter rolls are selectively, largely in Democratic precincts. Also the number of voting precincts have been dramatically reduced - also largely in Democratic areas. So I still feel we cannot call this race. The "win at all costs" party is still in power.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Caracan I appreciate reading this, but the political (voting) landscape is the same or worse as in 2016. This administration did not do anything to prevent interference in the 2020 election. The gerrymandering of voting districts is still largely in place. And there have been record number of people who have been removed from voting rolls. So, many people who show up to vote, will find out they are not registered to vote. The purging of voter rolls are selectively, largely in Democratic precincts. Also the number of voting precincts have been dramatically reduced - also largely in Democratic areas. So I still feel we cannot call this race. The "win at all costs" party is still in power.

Gerrymandering wouldn't really matter for Trump, though, right? The rest would certainly be applicable. I also think many more people will use early voting which might negate some of it as well. *shrugs*

[talltexan]

Gerrymandering affects turnout as well as the results.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Gerrymandering affects turnout as well as the results.

Do you really think that's true? I mean, probably for non-presidential elections, but turn out for those is usually significantly smaller as well. I sincerely doubt just because a voter is in an oddly shaped district in a big city that's grouped together so a Republican is more likely to win a representative race that it's really going to impact people from voting in a presidential race. Now, feeling like their vote doesn't count because of the electoral college might, but that's a different animal.

[talltexan]

What about feeling like their vote doesn't count because they're in a safe Republican district for the House?

[caracarn]

What about feeling like their vote doesn't count because they're in a safe Republican district for the House?

I always vote no matter what.  In any election that comes up.  Perhaps it's being born here as a son of European immigrants who themselves did not obtain their citizenship until the late 90s after being here for over 30 years.  I have always been very proud of our system and our country and voting is one of the most important duties a citizen has.  I would be for a national holiday again as they would make it a bit better to counteract the stupid tricks because a lot of people do not vote when they hit a snag because they do not have the time that day to figure it out.  I recall watching a documentary on voting in the last month and it covered a lot of people who help those vote who struggle.  One lady had to drive people around to 4 different polling places before they found the right one.  That's the stuff that is crazy.

We did vote mail-in for the primary and will likely do so for the general as well, but if we all did not vote because it didn't "count" then we'd be self fulfulling the prophecy no? 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

What about feeling like their vote doesn't count because they're in a safe Republican district for the House?

Oh for sure, and I can see it affecting things in a non-Presidential election. Basically I see it like this. There's a good portion of people that vote without really being too involved. They might not even know their district was gerrymandered or care if they did. Then there's the more informed people all the way up to die hards. I could see some of those recognizing their vote doesn't count as much on the national legislative level and not bothering to come out for a general 2 year election. However, if they're that informed, they would probably know that gerrymandering plays no role in whether or not Trump gets elected.

Basically, if you're into it enough to pay attention to gerrymandering as a concept, you will likely know that it won't affect your vote for president (which is the big driving force for voting being as "high" as it is number wise every four years), and you're probably still going to vote.

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I just don't see a lot of people informed enough to understand that road block but not informed enough to know that the road block won't affect Trump v. Biden.

[sherr]

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I just don't see a lot of people informed enough to understand that road block but not informed enough to know that the road block won't affect Trump v. Biden.

It's not just knowing that it doesn't affect the outcome of Trump v. Biden, it affects how disengaged from the whole process you are. Even if we're only talking about a few percent of people that would otherwise have voted but don't because they've observed years of their vote not mattering in their heavily gerrymandered area, that can still make the difference in a battleground state.

[OtherJen]

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I just don't see a lot of people informed enough to understand that road block but not informed enough to know that the road block won't affect Trump v. Biden.

It's not just knowing that it doesn't affect the outcome of Trump v. Biden, it affects how disengaged from the whole process you are. Even if we're only talking about a few percent of people that would otherwise have voted but don't because they've observed years of their vote not mattering in their heavily gerrymandered area, that can still make the difference in a battleground state.

It really does make a difference. I’ve registered high school seniors to vote since 2017 (although not this spring because COVID-19). One of the biggest hurdles is convincing them that voting isn’t pointless. Gerrymandering certainly doesn’t help to convince them to vote in the congressional races, but the winner-take-all electoral college is even more discouraging in presidential races. It would be more fair to have a proportional electoral college vote in each state. Teenagers aren’t stupid; they can see that, and it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a wast e of time.

[Psychstache]

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I just don't see a lot of people informed enough to understand that road block but not informed enough to know that the road block won't affect Trump v. Biden.

It's not just knowing that it doesn't affect the outcome of Trump v. Biden, it affects how disengaged from the whole process you are. Even if we're only talking about a few percent of people that would otherwise have voted but don't because they've observed years of their vote not mattering in their heavily gerrymandered area, that can still make the difference in a battleground state.

It really does make a difference. I’ve registered high school seniors to vote since 2017 (although not this spring because COVID-19). One of the biggest hurdles is convincing them that voting isn’t pointless. Gerrymandering certainly doesn’t help to convince them to vote in the congressional races, but the winner-take-all electoral college is even more discouraging in presidential races. It would be more fair to have a proportional electoral college vote in each state. Teenagers aren’t stupid; they can see that, and it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a wast e of time.

Even better. Scrapped the whole thing damn thing and go with a popular vote.

[OtherJen]

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I just don't see a lot of people informed enough to understand that road block but not informed enough to know that the road block won't affect Trump v. Biden.

It's not just knowing that it doesn't affect the outcome of Trump v. Biden, it affects how disengaged from the whole process you are. Even if we're only talking about a few percent of people that would otherwise have voted but don't because they've observed years of their vote not mattering in their heavily gerrymandered area, that can still make the difference in a battleground state.

It really does make a difference. I’ve registered high school seniors to vote since 2017 (although not this spring because COVID-19). One of the biggest hurdles is convincing them that voting isn’t pointless. Gerrymandering certainly doesn’t help to convince them to vote in the congressional races, but the winner-take-all electoral college is even more discouraging in presidential races. It would be more fair to have a proportional electoral college vote in each state. Teenagers aren’t stupid; they can see that, and it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a wast e of time.

Even better. Scrapped the whole thing damn thing and go with a popular vote.

I completely agree but that seems to be a bridge too far for many US voters.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I just don't see a lot of people informed enough to understand that road block but not informed enough to know that the road block won't affect Trump v. Biden.

It's not just knowing that it doesn't affect the outcome of Trump v. Biden, it affects how disengaged from the whole process you are. Even if we're only talking about a few percent of people that would otherwise have voted but don't because they've observed years of their vote not mattering in their heavily gerrymandered area, that can still make the difference in a battleground state.

It really does make a difference. I’ve registered high school seniors to vote since 2017 (although not this spring because COVID-19). One of the biggest hurdles is convincing them that voting isn’t pointless. Gerrymandering certainly doesn’t help to convince them to vote in the congressional races, but the winner-take-all electoral college is even more discouraging in presidential races. It would be more fair to have a proportional electoral college vote in each state. Teenagers aren’t stupid; they can see that, and it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a wast e of time.

Even better. Scrapped the whole thing damn thing and go with a popular vote.

I completely agree but that seems to be a bridge too far for many US voters.

Those are fair points. You've obviously been more involved in getting people to vote than I have, so I'll trust your take on this.

[Glenstache]

Back to the outrage department. Trump is commuting the prison sentence of Roger Stone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/us/politics/trump-roger-stone-clemency.html

And here is the justification for it as presented by the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-roger-stone-jr/

I hope Susan Collins still thinks he learned his lesson. FFS.

[Travis]

After saying liberals are the enemy (and should be treated as terrorists), now he wants to decide which universities are "liberal" and should be singled out for attack. How dare they look out for the welfare of their students that he wants to deport!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-targets-tax-exempt-status-schools-universities/story?id=71719242

[wenchsenior]

Back to the outrage department. Trump is commuting the prison sentence of Roger Stone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/us/politics/trump-roger-stone-clemency.html

And here is the justification for it as presented by the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-roger-stone-jr/

I hope Susan Collins still thinks he learned his lesson. FFS.

I can't believe I bought into that her 'moderate' b.s. for so many years.  Fuck her.  ALL my donation money is going to try to see her booted up the ass and straight out the door.

[former player]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it? 

[Kyle Schuant]

Because they know their rights.

[MDM]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

[former player]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

[MDM]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

You are welcome to claim that, but only a biased, superficial reading, without understanding of local control of polling places, would draw that conclusion.

[former player]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

You are welcome to claim that, but only a biased, superficial reading, without understanding of local control of polling places, would draw that conclusion.

It's only racist locally?

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Because they know their rights.

Hahahahahha

[LennStar]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

I had to wait once. 12 minutes!!
But I never did not know where to vote. Everyone in Germany needs to have his place of residence registered, and you get send a voting card there with the place and time when the poll is open (on a sunday, of course). For a healthy adult that is always within walking distance except you are living somewhere in the fields in a single family house.
Together with an ID everyone has, you take your card, go to the polling place and vote. Actually they normally don't even bother to look at the ID (which is a pity) and just take your card and make their check besides your name when they hand you the vote paper.

Thanks to this simple voting system and relativly small voting areas, any big meddling is bound to get found out. (And yes, sometimes it happens, and always the conservativs.)

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

You are welcome to claim that, but only a biased, superficial reading, without understanding of local control of polling places, would draw that conclusion.

Strangely, I remember that being the result of a very well educated, knowledgeful and detail-centered study, too.

You may be able to argue that longer wait times based on higher density of populace and blacks living in dense populated areas is not a racist polliong system, but it is still the outcome of a racist income inequality, which is in part fed by polling easyness differences. 

[OtherJen]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

Voter access varies widely by state. The states where you see people waiting for hours to vote are the ones that seem to always report electronic voting equipment malfunctions at key precincts, refuse to expand absentee voting (even in a pandemic) and close or combine precincts at the last minute (see Wisconsin and Kentucky in the recent presidential primaries). Said states are often heavily gerrymandered (which is done along precinct lines), and gerrymandering is often done with racist intent.

Other states, like Washington and Oregon, have entirely vote-by-mail systems (although I think there is still the option to vote at the city/township clerk’s office if one is differently abled or otherwise needs assistance).

Still other states, like mine, have a hybrid option. In 2018, Michigan voters passed a proposal to amend the state’s constitution with respect to voting laws and rights. Among other things, it removed any restrictions on access to the absentee ballot. This means that any voter in Michigan can decide to vote in person at the precinct where they are registered (this is by primary residence) or can apply to receive an absentee ballot. Because of the pandemic, the State government sent out absentee ballot applications to all voters for this year’s elections. In most cities with May election, the turnout was overwhelmingly through absentee voting, and the in-person polls were quiet. Apparently, 1.5 million people have already signed up to vote absentee. I’ve already filled out and submitted my ballot for the Aug. election and am planning to work at a precinct in my city on Election Day, but don’t expect long lines at all.

[RetiredAt63]

It still blows my mind that states control votiing procedures for federal elections.  Here I tick a box on my income tax form that I am a Canadian citizen and yes give my information to Elections Canada.  If you don't file taxes there are other ways to be emumerated, none terribly difficult. 

The number of polling stations is based on number of voters.  There may be a lineup at a voting location but once inside your ID is checked and then you go to your voting station, depending on the area there may be a few or many.  Seniors residences usually have their own polling station, so do large apartments.  Last election I took the elevator to the ground floor, walked down the hall, and voted.  When I lived in the country I drove to the local voting station (usually a school or community center), went in, found the line, and voted.  Usually in and done in 15 minutes or so. 


But the important thing is that a federal election is run by Elections Canada, policies and procedures are consistent across the country, riding boundaries are set by an independent group.  It's not perfect, rural ridings tend to have fewer people (so their votes "count" more) and can be huge.  And your employer has to be sure you have 4 consecutive hours free to vote, so if you normally end work at 6 and your poll closes at 9, you get off work at 5 on Election day.

I remember as a teenager being shocked at how hard voter registration and voting was in the US (the Civil Rights movement) and I'm still shocked at how hard it is made to be, intentionally.  Looking at American voting procedures gives me a bit of understanding as to how Americans can be untrusting of government in general.  In a democracy the government, any government, is there to serve the citizens, and that includes making elections run smoothly and fairly.  If you can't trust your government to run fair elections by setting up standard fair procedures, what else can't you trust?

Sorry this got so long, I'll get off my soap box now.   ;-/

[OtherJen]

It still blows my mind that states control votiing procedures for federal elections.  Here I tick a box on my income tax form that I am a Canadian citizen and yes give my information to Elections Canada.  If you don't file taxes there are other ways to be emumerated, none terribly difficult. 

The number of polling stations is based on number of voters.  There may be a lineup at a voting location but once inside your ID is checked and then you go to your voting station, depending on the area there may be a few or many.  Seniors residences usually have their own polling station, so do large apartments.  Last election I took the elevator to the ground floor, walked down the hall, and voted.  When I lived in the country I drove to the local voting station (usually a school or community center), went in, found the line, and voted.  Usually in and done in 15 minutes or so. 

Oh, mine too. The presidential election is especially ridiculous. It’s the highest federal office, and each state has the option to handle the primary and electoral college processes differently. One would think that out of any election, that one should be standardized. But no, here in Michigan, the candidate who wins 50.1% of the popular vote gets ALL the electoral college votes, whereas in Maine, the same result would award only a slight majority of electoral college votes. (The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished, but that’s a political non-starter in many circles. I’d settle for national reform at this point.)

Otherwise, your description of in-person voting is pretty close to how it works where I live. Precincts are drawn to include a certain number of voters, and places like the retirement community near where I live count as their own precinct. On Election Day, you go to your polling location, find the line for your precinct, check in with the poll workers who cross-check you against their registered voter list and give you a ballot, and then fill it out whenever one of the little booths is open. I’ve only ever had to wait in line longer than 5-10 min if I went early in the morning or late in the afternoon or evening during a big election (e.g., Nov. 2016 or 2018), because people needed to vote before or after work. I expect that with so many people opting for their new right to vote absentee, the lines will be much shorter this year.

[MasterStache]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

You are welcome to claim that, but only a biased, superficial reading, without understanding of local control of polling places, would draw that conclusion.

From your own link:
"There is also wide variability in wait times across different segments of the population. One of the most prominent disparities occurs along racial lines: in elections since 2006, non-whites — and African-Americans in particular — have consistently reported longer wait times to vote. The same research that showed this trend also found that even within the same jurisdictions, areas that trend whiter in population are less likely to experience long wait times than their non-white counterparts. In this sense, the study argues that the racial gap may result from a difference in how election officials handle white and minority precincts, including, for example, in the allocation of resources such as poll workers and voting machines."

More in depth research for the racial disparity in wait times from a link in the article above.

[MasterStache]

Back to the outrage department. Trump is commuting the prison sentence of Roger Stone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/us/politics/trump-roger-stone-clemency.html

And here is the justification for it as presented by the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-roger-stone-jr/

I hope Susan Collins still thinks he learned his lesson. FFS.

Thank the Republicans for this. They have said time and time again Trump is free to do as he pleases. 

[MDM]

it’s hard to convince them that standing in line to vote isn’t a waste of time.

I'm in the UK, I've been voting for over 60 years and I've never had to stand in line, never had to wonder where my polling station is, never had to walk more than two miles from home to get to it (and I've lived in 3 different rural areas as well as in cities), never had any trouble registering to vote, never lived in a gerrymandered district (although some have naturally had large majorities one way or the other others have been marginal or changed between parties).  I'm guessing that is entirely typical of 99% of British citizens. The extent to which the USA is incompetent/corrupt/politicised in allowing its citizens to vote is a never failing source of wonder: why the eff have y'all been putting up with it?

News reports highlight the outliers, not the vast majority who have little difficulty voting.  E.g., see Insights into Voting Wait Time from the 2016 Elections Performance Index | by MIT Election Lab | MIT Election Lab | Medium

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

You are welcome to claim that, but only a biased, superficial reading, without understanding of local control of polling places, would draw that conclusion.

It's only racist locally?

That's actually a plausible statement.  In a country of 300 million people, one can find a few people for many examples of idiotic views.

[MDM]

Ah.  Scrolling down that link shows that your electoral system is significantly racist.  Right, thanks.

You are welcome to claim that, but only a biased, superficial reading, without understanding of local control of polling places, would draw that conclusion.

Strangely, I remember that being the result of a very well educated, knowledgeful and detail-centered study, too.

Yes, the study itself seems to have collected data reasonably.

You may be able to argue that longer wait times based on higher density of populace and blacks living in dense populated areas is not a racist polliong system, but it is still the outcome of a racist income inequality, which is in part fed by polling easyness differences.

Understanding why the wait times are longer is some places should be done before ascribing nefarious attributes to an entire society.  Reasons are likely numerous, including some that would warrant a racist label.  We would also want to exclude "double the wait time" situations that are, say. two minutes instead of one minute.  But the ones resulting from non-racist reasons should also be fixed.

[MDM]

Otherwise, your description of in-person voting is pretty close to how it works where I live. Precincts are drawn to include a certain number of voters, and places like the retirement community where I live count as their own precinct. On Election Day, you go to your polling location, find the line for your precinct, check in with the poll workers who cross-check you against their registered voter list and give you a ballot, and then fill it out whenever one of the little booths is open. I’ve only ever had to wait in line longer than 5-10 min if I went early in the morning or late in the afternoon or evening during a big election (e.g., Nov. 2016 or 2018), because people needed to vote before or after work. I expect that with so many people opting for their new right to vote absentee, the lines will be much shorter this year.

+1

Good description of what is probably the norm.

[MDM]

From your own link:
"There is also wide variability in wait times across different segments of the population. One of the most prominent disparities occurs along racial lines: in elections since 2006, non-whites — and African-Americans in particular — have consistently reported longer wait times to vote. The same research that showed this trend also found that even within the same jurisdictions, areas that trend whiter in population are less likely to experience long wait times than their non-white counterparts. In this sense, the study argues that the racial gap may result from a difference in how election officials handle white and minority precincts, including, for example, in the allocation of resources such as poll workers and voting machines."

More in depth research for the racial disparity in wait times from a link in the article above.

Yes, another good paper on the topic.

From the "DISCUSSION: IS THIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?" summary at the end of the paper:

The more important point is that even if the racial gap is explained by shifts in voter turnout, election officials could be doing a better job of anticipating these shifts. It is difficult to imagine an election official would intentionally decide to provide fewer poll workers or voting infrastructure to a minority precinct, simply because of its racial composition. But prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status individuals are less likely to file complaints with the government, so officials might anticipate more complaints if they underallocate resources to white precincts, where income levels tend to be higher. Additionally, resources such as poll workers and voting machines are scarce and indivisible. If one precinct has 75 voters and another has 100 voters, and there are three voting machines to allocate, the optimal solution is to give one machine to the smaller precinct and two machines to the larger precinct. This will create longer lines in the smaller precinct. Better data on precinct resource allocation rules could assess the extent to which this dynamic may explain the racial gap. I have shown in this article that the racial composition of a voter’s neighborhood is strongly tied to how long he or she will wait in line to vote. A substantial amount of the gap between white and nonwhite wait times is a result of local factors, which provides policymakers a way forward in addressing the problem. Future research could apply the solutions of discrete optimization problems to the topic of resource provision in elections.

[OtherJen]

Otherwise, your description of in-person voting is pretty close to how it works where I live. Precincts are drawn to include a certain number of voters, and places like the retirement community where I live count as their own precinct. On Election Day, you go to your polling location, find the line for your precinct, check in with the poll workers who cross-check you against their registered voter list and give you a ballot, and then fill it out whenever one of the little booths is open. I’ve only ever had to wait in line longer than 5-10 min if I went early in the morning or late in the afternoon or evening during a big election (e.g., Nov. 2016 or 2018), because people needed to vote before or after work. I expect that with so many people opting for their new right to vote absentee, the lines will be much shorter this year.

+1

Good description of what is probably the norm.

Haha, just caught my typo! I meant to type “the retirement community near where I live.” I’m not there yet! Fixed the original post.

[MasterStache]

From your own link:
"There is also wide variability in wait times across different segments of the population. One of the most prominent disparities occurs along racial lines: in elections since 2006, non-whites — and African-Americans in particular — have consistently reported longer wait times to vote. The same research that showed this trend also found that even within the same jurisdictions, areas that trend whiter in population are less likely to experience long wait times than their non-white counterparts. In this sense, the study argues that the racial gap may result from a difference in how election officials handle white and minority precincts, including, for example, in the allocation of resources such as poll workers and voting machines."

More in depth research for the racial disparity in wait times from a link in the article above.

Yes, another good paper on the topic.

From the "DISCUSSION: IS THIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?" summary at the end of the paper:

The more important point is that even if the racial gap is explained by shifts in voter turnout, election officials could be doing a better job of anticipating these shifts. It is difficult to imagine an election official would intentionally decide to provide fewer poll workers or voting infrastructure to a minority precinct, simply because of its racial composition. But prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status individuals are less likely to file complaints with the government, so officials might anticipate more complaints if they underallocate resources to white precincts, where income levels tend to be higher. Additionally, resources such as poll workers and voting machines are scarce and indivisible. If one precinct has 75 voters and another has 100 voters, and there are three voting machines to allocate, the optimal solution is to give one machine to the smaller precinct and two machines to the larger precinct. This will create longer lines in the smaller precinct. Better data on precinct resource allocation rules could assess the extent to which this dynamic may explain the racial gap. I have shown in this article that the racial composition of a voter’s neighborhood is strongly tied to how long he or she will wait in line to vote. A substantial amount of the gap between white and nonwhite wait times is a result of local factors, which provides policymakers a way forward in addressing the problem. Future research could apply the solutions of discrete optimization problems to the topic of resource provision in elections.

I think it's a good summary. It neither confirms nor denies race as a factor. Instead it states that such discrepancies are readily apparent and haven't really been addressed. So the question still remains as to why predominantly white neighborhoods are given more resources, manpower etc. verse predominantly minority neighborhoods. 

[MDM]

From your own link:
"There is also wide variability in wait times across different segments of the population. One of the most prominent disparities occurs along racial lines: in elections since 2006, non-whites — and African-Americans in particular — have consistently reported longer wait times to vote. The same research that showed this trend also found that even within the same jurisdictions, areas that trend whiter in population are less likely to experience long wait times than their non-white counterparts. In this sense, the study argues that the racial gap may result from a difference in how election officials handle white and minority precincts, including, for example, in the allocation of resources such as poll workers and voting machines."

More in depth research for the racial disparity in wait times from a link in the article above.

Yes, another good paper on the topic.

From the "DISCUSSION: IS THIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?" summary at the end of the paper:

The more important point is that even if the racial gap is explained by shifts in voter turnout, election officials could be doing a better job of anticipating these shifts. It is difficult to imagine an election official would intentionally decide to provide fewer poll workers or voting infrastructure to a minority precinct, simply because of its racial composition. But prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status individuals are less likely to file complaints with the government, so officials might anticipate more complaints if they underallocate resources to white precincts, where income levels tend to be higher. Additionally, resources such as poll workers and voting machines are scarce and indivisible. If one precinct has 75 voters and another has 100 voters, and there are three voting machines to allocate, the optimal solution is to give one machine to the smaller precinct and two machines to the larger precinct. This will create longer lines in the smaller precinct. Better data on precinct resource allocation rules could assess the extent to which this dynamic may explain the racial gap. I have shown in this article that the racial composition of a voter’s neighborhood is strongly tied to how long he or she will wait in line to vote. A substantial amount of the gap between white and nonwhite wait times is a result of local factors, which provides policymakers a way forward in addressing the problem. Future research could apply the solutions of discrete optimization problems to the topic of resource provision in elections.

I think it's a good summary. It neither confirms nor denies race as a factor. Instead it states that such discrepancies are readily apparent and haven't really been addressed. So the question still remains as to why predominantly white neighborhoods are given more resources, manpower etc. verse predominantly minority neighborhoods.

And that's a good and relevant question.  Presumably there are some majority-minority precincts under the control of white election officials, and others under the control of nonwhite election officials.  In any case, one ought not have to wait until after the upcoming (or any other) election to examine the "local factors" (e.g., number of registered voters per voting booth (and/or per any of the steps OtherJen described) and distribute resources as fairly as possible. 

[RetiredAt63]

Makes old fashioned paper ballots look good.  Easy to allocate resources when they are are all low tech.

I may be biased, my federal and provincial elections are all low tech.  I voted by computer once in a rural municipal election.

[OtherJen]

Makes old fashioned paper ballots look good.  Easy to allocate resources when they are are all low tech.

I may be biased, my federal and provincial elections are all low tech.  I voted by computer once in a rural municipal election.

We still use paper ballots in Michigan. I think the population would revolt if we lost our election paper trail.

[the_gastropod]

Understanding why the wait times are longer is some places should be done before ascribing nefarious attributes to an entire society.  Reasons are likely numerous, including some that would warrant a racist label.  We would also want to exclude "double the wait time" situations that are, say. two minutes instead of one minute.  But the ones resulting from non-racist reasons should also be fixed.

This confusion, I think, is a major source of frustration between people. To those with left-of-center sensibilities, intent is irrelevant when it comes to systemic racism. If a system disproportionately treats minorities poorly, the system is racist. Those on the right think racism exclusively refers to purposeful discrimination or hate.

Intent is extremely difficult to prove when it comes to individuals. In a complex societal system with hundreds of years of development, it’s nigh impossible. What we do know is black people tend to face larger obstacles to vote than whites. Why does intent matter if we want to fix this system?

[Kris]

Understanding why the wait times are longer is some places should be done before ascribing nefarious attributes to an entire society.  Reasons are likely numerous, including some that would warrant a racist label.  We would also want to exclude "double the wait time" situations that are, say. two minutes instead of one minute.  But the ones resulting from non-racist reasons should also be fixed.

This confusion, I think, is a major source of frustration between people. To those with left-of-center sensibilities, intent is irrelevant when it comes to systemic racism. If a system disproportionately treats minorities poorly, the system is racist. Those on the right think racism exclusively refers to purposeful discrimination or hate.

Intent is extremely difficult to prove when it comes to individuals. In a complex societal system with hundreds of years of development, it’s nigh impossible. What we do know is black people tend to face larger obstacles to vote than whites. Why does intent matter if we want to fix this system?

(Whispers: because some people don’t want to fix it)

[RetiredAt63]

Makes old fashioned paper ballots look good.  Easy to allocate resources when they are are all low tech.

I may be biased, my federal and provincial elections are all low tech.  I voted by computer once in a rural municipal election.

We still use paper ballots in Michigan. I think the population would revolt if we lost our election paper trail.

They certainly make it easier to do recounts.

[RetiredAt63]

Understanding why the wait times are longer is some places should be done before ascribing nefarious attributes to an entire society.  Reasons are likely numerous, including some that would warrant a racist label.  We would also want to exclude "double the wait time" situations that are, say. two minutes instead of one minute.  But the ones resulting from non-racist reasons should also be fixed.

This confusion, I think, is a major source of frustration between people. To those with left-of-center sensibilities, intent is irrelevant when it comes to systemic racism. If a system disproportionately treats minorities poorly, the system is racist. Those on the right think racism exclusively refers to purposeful discrimination or hate.

Intent is extremely difficult to prove when it comes to individuals. In a complex societal system with hundreds of years of development, it’s nigh impossible. What we do know is black people tend to face larger obstacles to vote than whites. Why does intent matter if we want to fix this system?

Theoretically every voter should have the same access and situation, given geographic reality.  If a voter lives in the middle of nowhere they are going to have to drive, like I used to have to do.  On the other hand, in a densely populated urban area the number and location of polling stations should be easy to figure out so voters have fast easy access.  The denser the area the more polling stations.  So intent can be speculated upon, but actual organization can be critiqued and improved.

[MasterStache]

Understanding why the wait times are longer is some places should be done before ascribing nefarious attributes to an entire society.  Reasons are likely numerous, including some that would warrant a racist label.  We would also want to exclude "double the wait time" situations that are, say. two minutes instead of one minute.  But the ones resulting from non-racist reasons should also be fixed.

This confusion, I think, is a major source of frustration between people. To those with left-of-center sensibilities, intent is irrelevant when it comes to systemic racism. If a system disproportionately treats minorities poorly, the system is racist. Those on the right think racism exclusively refers to purposeful discrimination or hate.

Intent is extremely difficult to prove when it comes to individuals. In a complex societal system with hundreds of years of development, it’s nigh impossible. What we do know is black people tend to face larger obstacles to vote than whites. Why does intent matter if we want to fix this system?

+1 Agreed!

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I haven't looked closely at the latest posts, but no one mentioned clemency for Roger Stone?  Isn't this the very definition of a Constitutional Crisis - The Executive Branch has bypassed the Legislative Branch (Congress being lied to on several counts of an investigation in to the Executive Branch, an individual that helped get the President elected) and Judicial Branch (individual then convicted of felonies but granted clemency by the Executive Branch, the President that was elected, in part, by said illegal behavior).

WTF is going on in this country?

[Travis]

I haven't looked closely at the latest posts, but no one mentioned clemency for Roger Stone?  Isn't this the very definition of a Constitutional Crisis - The Executive Branch has bypassed the Legislative Branch (Congress being lied to on several counts of an investigation in to the Executive Branch, an individual that helped get the President elected) and Judicial Branch (individual then convicted of felonies but granted clemency by the Executive Branch, the President that was elected, in part, by said illegal behavior).

WTF is going on in this country?

It's only illegal if your party is willing to throw you under the bus.

[LennStar]

I remember as a teenager being shocked at how hard voter registration and voting was in the US (the Civil Rights movement) and I'm still shocked at how hard it is made to be, intentionally.  Looking at American voting procedures gives me a bit of understanding as to how Americans can be untrusting of government in general.  In a democracy the government, any government, is there to serve the citizens, and that includes making elections run smoothly and fairly.  If you can't trust your government to run fair elections by setting up standard fair procedures, what else can't you trust?

But that would mean Central Government interfering with the people's life! It would infringe on the rights of those racist states to make voting harder for slaves... pardon, descandents of former slaves!

The problem with the US constitution is that is was made with democrats participating in good faith in mind.
Instead there are now 100 million little kings.

Makes old fashioned paper ballots look good.  Easy to allocate resources when they are are all low tech.

I may be biased, my federal and provincial elections are all low tech.  I voted by computer once in a rural municipal election.

We still use paper ballots in Michigan. I think the population would revolt if we lost our election paper trail.

Yeah.
It is simply impossible to have a secret and secure vote with a machine. And that does not even count for the many many holes that were found in the machines themselves or the rest of the IT.
 

This confusion, I think, is a major source of frustration between people. To those with left-of-center sensibilities, intent is irrelevant when it comes to systemic racism. If a system disproportionately treats minorities poorly, the system is racist. Those on the right think racism exclusively refers to purposeful discrimination or hate.

So for a right, if I kill him on accident, he is still alive?

[the_gastropod]

So for a right, if I kill him on accident, he is still alive?

You may be onto something here. For someone on the right, the accusation that someone or something  is “racist” may be akin to a criminal charge, where intent does matter (e.g., murder vs manslaughter). And those on the left tend to think of the result.

The problem with this, in my estimation, is nobody is being charged with anything when we criticize systems with different results for different races. We want to acknowledge the system is flawed as a first step toward improving it.