How to handle parents who believe fake news?

[Sibley]

I'm so sorry. I don't even know what else to say. It's the middle of the night where I live and I just feel so bad for you. It's easy to call these people "domestic terrorists" but these are ordinary folks, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, who are being misled by their own cult leader/ President.

I know it's been said before, but it deserves to be said again.

Terrorists are all just "normal folk" who have been brainwashed into becoming extremists. That's why the Republican / Trumper / conspiracy theorist brainwashing machine is so dangerous.

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous. But I blame the ringleaders of the brainwashing, in the same way we blame Jim Jones and not the individual cult members. That doesn't mean that the cult members should get away with domestic terrorism, just that they deserve our empathy. A young woman literally took a bullet yesterday for her cult leader that she believed was literally sent by God (based on her social media).

One of the most dangerous things that Americans can do is assume that Trump caused this specific incident (as well as all the negatives associated with MAGA such as refusing to tolerate the election, taking over various government buildings, etc). And that with Trump gone, the problems are also gone.

Exactly. I've heard Conservatives/Republicans talking about how we need voter IDs and tougher voting laws to prevent voter fraud for years, way before Trump was in office. There is no data to show that there has been any significant voting fraud anywhere in the US in... decades. But that's been the drum being beaten - "voter fraud is a huge risk". Refusing to accept election results they don't like is a natural extension of that myth. Add in a willingness for "Second Amendment solutions" proposed by Trump, and an idolatry of the Revolution and Civil War (blech), and yesterday was something that was a long time coming. Anyone who says they're shocked is either hopelessly naive, or lying.

I don't see what's wrong with voter ID laws? I think almost every country in the world except for the US requires (government-issued) ID to vote.

It's a way to keep poor people from voting, since many do not have acceptable ID due to the cost to obtain and regularly renew it.

In the US, as soon as the voting rights act was gutted, certain states simultaneously enacted ID laws and shut down the DMV centers in areas that tend to be heavily minority. If you want voter ID laws, you have to make it a free cake walk to get your ID.

Exactly. Plus, there are persistent issues with obtaining the right kinds of documents. For very poor people, or people from unstable families, this can be a massive hurdle administratively and also monetarily.

I have no problem requiring ID to vote as long as everyone has the practical and reasonable ability to get said ID. The US, as a whole, has failed in that regard. (yes, not all states - but it's enough that I will slam the country as a whole. Sometimes you deserve to painted with the same brush.)

[GuitarStv]

I'm so sorry. I don't even know what else to say. It's the middle of the night where I live and I just feel so bad for you. It's easy to call these people "domestic terrorists" but these are ordinary folks, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, who are being misled by their own cult leader/ President.

I know it's been said before, but it deserves to be said again.

Terrorists are all just "normal folk" who have been brainwashed into becoming extremists. That's why the Republican / Trumper / conspiracy theorist brainwashing machine is so dangerous.

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous. But I blame the ringleaders of the brainwashing, in the same way we blame Jim Jones and not the individual cult members. That doesn't mean that the cult members should get away with domestic terrorism, just that they deserve our empathy. A young woman literally took a bullet yesterday for her cult leader that she believed was literally sent by God (based on her social media).

One of the most dangerous things that Americans can do is assume that Trump caused this specific incident (as well as all the negatives associated with MAGA such as refusing to tolerate the election, taking over various government buildings, etc). And that with Trump gone, the problems are also gone.

Exactly. I've heard Conservatives/Republicans talking about how we need voter IDs and tougher voting laws to prevent voter fraud for years, way before Trump was in office. There is no data to show that there has been any significant voting fraud anywhere in the US in... decades. But that's been the drum being beaten - "voter fraud is a huge risk". Refusing to accept election results they don't like is a natural extension of that myth. Add in a willingness for "Second Amendment solutions" proposed by Trump, and an idolatry of the Revolution and Civil War (blech), and yesterday was something that was a long time coming. Anyone who says they're shocked is either hopelessly naive, or lying.

I don't see what's wrong with voter ID laws? I think almost every country in the world except for the US requires (government-issued) ID to vote.

It's a way to keep poor people from voting, since many do not have acceptable ID due to the cost to obtain and regularly renew it.

In the US, as soon as the voting rights act was gutted, certain states simultaneously enacted ID laws and shut down the DMV centers in areas that tend to be heavily minority. If you want voter ID laws, you have to make it a free cake walk to get your ID.

There's a long history of using 'fraud' to justify targeted voter suppression against black people.  Voter ID laws often disproportionately impact black and latino voters.  Here's some research regarding the racial disparity - https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022822

Just 7% of whites and 10% of Latinos report not having a driver's license, compared to 21% of African Americans. The differences are larger when the three criteria mentioned above (i.e., not being expired, matching the registration address, and matching the registration name) are considered. The rates at which whites do not hold a valid license according to these criteria is 16%, compared to 27% for Latinos and 37% for African Americans.

Typically voter ID laws are very restrictive about what ID is allowed - indicating that identification is much less important than actual voter suppression.  This is what ended up getting Texas voter ID laws thrown out in court (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/20/486776853/u-s-appeals-court-finds-texas-voter-id-law-discriminates-against-minority-voters) as discriminatory.  Then Texas updated their law . . . and it was again found in court to be discriminatory (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/a-court-strikes-down-texass-voter-id-law-for-the-fifth-time/537792/).

[sherr]

I don't see what's wrong with voter ID laws? I think almost every country in the world except for the US requires (government-issued) ID to vote.

It's a way to keep poor people from voting, since many do not have acceptable ID due to the cost to obtain and regularly renew it.

Well first of all the assumption in the top post is wrong, most states DO require ID. Even the ones that don't though all have thorough checks to ensure that only citizens are voting; when you register you have to prove your citizenship and then when you vote you have to demonstrate (eg by citing your name and address, and then the State checks that you are in fact registered and haven't already voted) that you are a registered voter.

But more to your post, it's not really "poor people", it's minorities (especially black people). The US (especially the southern states) has a long and storied past of intentionally passing "okay sounding" voter laws with the intent of denying the vote to black people. There's a bunch of poor rural white Republicans too, the voting laws never target them.

And this is not ancient history. In my state (NC) the day after the Republican Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that required the former Confederate States to pre-clear election law changes with federal authorities, the Republican NC Legislature commissioned a report gathering statistics on how people of different races vote (what types of ID they have, if they used early voting or not, if they used same-day registration, per-registering if you're 17 and will turn 18 by the election, out-of-precinct early voting, etc, everything related). They then passed a "Voter ID Law" restricting/eliminating everything that Black people tended to use, and leaving in place everything White people tended to use.

The law was eventually unanimously struck down by a panel of federal judges (including a Republican appointee) because it "target African Americans with almost surgical precision" to impose "cures for problems that did not exist," but you can still plainly see the intent. After that they simply moved on to more-subtle methods, they didn't stop. Hilariously (and sadly), the actual defense given by the State's lawyers in that court proceeding was "well sure we targeted Black people, but we didn't do it because they're black, that would be racist. Instead we did it because they're more likely to be Democrats, so this should be legal." And I won't even bother talking about all the other racist stuff they did, like unconstitutionally racist gerrymandering that they slow-walked through the courts so long that we've been voting under the unconstitutionally racistly gerrymandered district map for most of the decade anyway.

And this is not unique to North Carolina! This is the underlying trend everywhere, every time Republicans introduce "election security" bills. They are NOT "pro-election security". They are "ANTI-letting anyone else vote (or have their votes matter), especially black people". This is why they are now anti-mail-in-ballots, not because there was "so much fraud" (there wasn't), but simply because non-Republicans tended to use them and they don't want non-Republicans to be able to vote, racist overtones or not.

The US does not have a "national ID", we have collections of many different IDs in each independent State. And the Republicans in the States have thoroughly demonstrated that their goal is to prevent people from voting. These same Republicans who demand Voter ID laws one minute also vehemently oppose the idea of the Federal Government issuing universal free voter IDs, because the point is not to require IDs the point is to do it in such a way that they prevent the undesirables from voting. And that's why we can't have nice things.

[TheContinentalOp]

I am responsibly informed.
You watch fake news.
They are conspiracy nuts.

[Imma]

@sherr thanks for the thorough explanation. As a European I'm well aware of the history but I had no idea it was still ungoing! That's a pretty scary story.

In my country everything is relatively easy. Every citizen can obtain ID, free of charge if you are low-income. You need a valid ID (passport or EU ID card) for nearly everything because it also contains your social security number. Almost everyone had one and if you don't, it's pretty easy to obtain. I worked in the passport office, I helped people who had been long-term homeless of off the grid on purpose and we can still give them back their ID. A driver's license is not an ID in here, only a permit to drive. Lots of people don't have one.

There is an issue with non-citizens from certain countries that want to become citizens. Sometimes the documents they need to prove their old identity to become a citizen are almost impossible to obtain and sometimes it happens that those people can not become citizens and therefore not vote.

Of course it's administratively complicated that the US is a federal state and not a unitary state but I'm not sure other federal states like Germany experience the same problems. It sounds like the issues are mainly cultural / historical. You can't truly make the voting process completely fair until those issues have been dealt with.

In my country, voting districts were abolished in 1918 because they were considered to be unfair to working class and middle class voters (because 1 district could represent 5 country estates or maybe 15.000 factory workers). We've had a one person - one vote system ever since.  Although there are some disadvantages to that - we have dozens of political parties - it does represent the spectrum of political ideologies fairly. Maybe your country needs to get rid of the red/blue divide too. I imagine that if given a choice a lot of people would prefer parties that are lilac or purple.

[SwordGuy]

I am responsibly informed.
You watch fake news.
They are conspiracy nuts.

I'm not sure of your intent with this message, but it's slap-dab in the middle of some very accurate explanations of how Republicans suppress democratic and minority votes thru laws they pretend are for election security.

So, if you were claiming they were making this all up, you are completely wrong.   

If you're referring to something else, ignore my comments.

[sherr]

Maybe your country needs to get rid of the red/blue divide too. I imagine that if given a choice a lot of people would prefer parties that are lilac or purple.

We absolutely do, the problem is that neither party is incentivized to engineer its own undoing. The most obvious way to achieve this goal is to move to ranked-choice voting (or a similar variant), which at least the State of Main has done, so perhaps there is hope.

[SwordGuy]

Maybe your country needs to get rid of the red/blue divide too. I imagine that if given a choice a lot of people would prefer parties that are lilac or purple.

We absolutely do, the problem is that neither party is incentivized to engineer its own undoing. The most obvious way to achieve this goal is to move to ranked-choice voting (or a similar variant), which at least the State of Main has done, so perhaps there is hope.

Tax the bejesus out of citizens who don't vote in the primaries.   This will force the mass of people into the primaries and dilute the power of the radical elements who tend to dominate the candidate selection.   

Right now, the radical elements in each party vote more in the primaries so the more radical candidates get chosen.  This would move us to more centrist candidates.

Also, in the general election, add a "None of the above" option to each partisan race.  If "None of the Above" gets a majority, none of the above gets a majority, none of the above get elected, all of those candidates are forbidden any position of public trust or responsibility for 10 years as having been deemed unfit for office by the electorate, and the political parties who put forth those candidates have to pay the full cost of new, rapidly held election for wasting the electorate's time with such piss-poor candidates.  (Exceptions on the latter to only include those political parties whose candidates automatically qualify to be on the general ballot, those parties that must petition to get their candidate on the ballot are exempt if other parties are freely accepted.)
 

[Adventine]

Alternatively, the US could make voting compulsory for all citizens, like Australia does.

[sherr]

Compulsory voting (in either the primary or the general), while I think is a good idea and will decrease extremism, does not automatically solve the "red/blue only" problem. The problem is that we are not a parliamentarian democracy with proportional representation, each race is purely a competition between individuals where there is one first-past-the-post winner and everyone else gets nothing.

In that environment, the stable game-theory state is that there are two large parties of roughly equal power who are competing. As soon as you introduce a powerful third party they will take more votes from the party that they are most similar to, and the *other* more dissimilar main party will always win by default. Even if there were four or more roughly-equal main parties, there is tremendous pressure for two of them to merge and therefore always win. It always devolves back down to two powerful parties always competing.

To fix that we can either move to a parliamentarian proportional-representation democracy, which requires rewriting large portions of the Constitution and seems completely infeasible right now, or we can fight in each State to move to ranked-choice voting. This is not the end-all of election reforms that we need, I think automatic registration and compulsory voting and such are all good ideas. But we need this too.

[GuitarStv]

I don't think forcing people to vote who don't want to will strengthen a democracy.

[Adventine]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

[sherr]

I don't think forcing people to vote who don't want to will strengthen a democracy.

It reduces extremism, which is the point, because most people by definition are not extremists. The people who get elected are better representations of the average citizen, which doesn't sound so bad to me. And even in Australia you're not required to vote for someone, just you have to turn in a ballot. Turn in a blank one if you want. But it makes people actually go vote, and makes states make voting easy if they don't want their voters to hate them, and makes politicians cater to the average person not the primary extremists.

[OtherJen]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

[Kris]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

Exactly. Not voting as an act of right-wing patriotism would probably be a pretty good outcome at this point.

[Adventine]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

Hah! Not a bad scenario. As @sherr said, you don't have to actually vote for anyone, just turn in a ballot. A blank one, if you like.

How about rebranding '"compulsory" to something much more appealing, like "All-American"? That should do the trick ;)

[SwordGuy]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

I did not suggest we make primary voting compulsory.  THAT would be un-American.

I suggested taxing the bejesus out of them for not fulfilling their civic duty.  :)

[MudPuppy]

A taxation... for those who chose no representation

[Poundwise]

How about opt-out voter registration rather than compulsory voting?  Getting out the vote will still be an issue, but universal registration at least reduces the complexity of voting. Voter registration made sense only at a time when they were trying to prevent undesirables, i.e. propertyless, nonwhite, non-male people from voting.

[sherr]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

I did not suggest we make primary voting compulsory.  THAT would be un-American.

I suggested taxing the bejesus out of them for not fulfilling their civic duty.  :)

Taxing people who don't vote is what compulsory voting is. In exactly the same way as the ACA "required" you to have insurance, because if you didn't you'd have to pay a fine. Unless someone's talking about throwing people in jail for not voting, but I don't think anyone has ever suggested that.

[Psychstache]

How about opt-out voter registration rather than compulsory voting?  Getting out the vote will still be an issue, but universal registration at least reduces the complexity of voting. Voter registration made sense only at a time when they were trying to prevent undesirables, i.e. propertyless, nonwhite, non-male people from voting.

You say that as though there isn't still a large contingent of people who wish to prevent 'undesirables' from voting.

[SwordGuy]

How about opt-out voter registration rather than compulsory voting?  Getting out the vote will still be an issue, but universal registration at least reduces the complexity of voting. Voter registration made sense only at a time when they were trying to prevent undesirables, i.e. propertyless, nonwhite, non-male people from voting.

You say that as though there isn't still a large contingent of people who wish to prevent 'undesirables' from voting.

Yep.   My own GOP state legislature recently got their wrists slapped by the courts multiple times for attempting to do just that.   And I have every expectation they will try again and again until we replace then with better quality people.

[ixtap]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

I did not suggest we make primary voting compulsory.  THAT would be un-American.

I suggested taxing the bejesus out of them for not fulfilling their civic duty.  :)

Taxing people who don't vote is what compulsory voting is. In exactly the same way as the ACA "required" you to have insurance, because if you didn't you'd have to pay a fine. Unless someone's talking about throwing people in jail for not voting, but I don't think anyone has ever suggested that.

I never thought about how it was implemented, but after all the poll taxes (and make no mistake, in the US, voter ID laws tend to be just that) I kind of like the idea of flipping the tables.

What I would really like to see is better civics education. Just saw someone argue that the 25th doesn't have any mechanism for removing a president, only for replacing them if they die. I was as kind as I could be in suggesting that they go read the constitution.

[Plina]

I don’t see the point of registrering for voting. Sounds like a pain in the ass. All eligible voter here receive their voting card in the mail some time before the election date. Then they cab choose to vote beforehand in certain locations, by mail or on electionday. You need an id to vote but everyone got one because if you can’t basically function without one.

[Fomerly known as something]

I don’t see the point of registrering for voting. Sounds like a pain in the ass. All eligible voter here receive their voting card in the mail some time before the election date. Then they cab choose to vote beforehand in certain locations, by mail or on electionday. You need an id to vote but everyone got one because if you can’t basically function without one.

Depends.  In most places you can register when you get your drivers license.  When you change your address with that department they will ask if you want to change your voter registration address.   

[deborah]

It’s a $20 fine if you don’t vote in Australia. After they’ve decided to go through the voters roll and send you a card (this doesn’t always happen), and you’ve been asked to say why you didn’t vote. We also don’t ask for voter id. We don’t actually have a universal id. We voted against it. You also can refuse to be on the voters register.

[calimom]

Compulsory voting? These same people refuse to wear masks because Freedom.

[yachi]

Compulsory voting (in either the primary or the general), while I think is a good idea and will decrease extremism, does not automatically solve the "red/blue only" problem. The problem is that we are not a parliamentarian democracy with proportional representation, each race is purely a competition between individuals where there is one first-past-the-post winner and everyone else gets nothing.

In that environment, the stable game-theory state is that there are two large parties of roughly equal power who are competing. As soon as you introduce a powerful third party they will take more votes from the party that they are most similar to, and the *other* more dissimilar main party will always win by default. Even if there were four or more roughly-equal main parties, there is tremendous pressure for two of them to merge and therefore always win. It always devolves back down to two powerful parties always competing.

To fix that we can either move to a parliamentarian proportional-representation democracy, which requires rewriting large portions of the Constitution and seems completely infeasible right now, or we can fight in each State to move to ranked-choice voting. This is not the end-all of election reforms that we need, I think automatic registration and compulsory voting and such are all good ideas. But we need this too.

Thanks for the Game-theory steady state explanation for our 2 party system.  In Pennsylvania, independents are not allowed to vote in either Republican or Democrat primaries, but I think the option that makes the most sense in choosing a runner is ranked voting.  The republican primaries had 4 or 5 normal candidates and one atypical guy.  I feel like most people to voted for one of the 4 or 5 normal candidates voted against the atypical guy, and would have been happy with any of the normal candidates

[American GenX]

It's more about removing the barriers that make it hard for people who want to vote. A compulsory voting system would help greatly with that.

Yeah, the word "compulsory" will not go over well with the Freeedom crowd (to put it mildly). Of course, that might mean that they all refuse to vote out of protest, and those of us who want a functioning democracy and not a fascist dictatorship could then move forward. Hmm.

I did not suggest we make primary voting compulsory.  THAT would be un-American.

I suggested taxing the bejesus out of them for not fulfilling their civic duty.  :)

Both are terrible ideas.  And these ideas are not going to fly anyway, so keep dreaming.

[TheContinentalOp]

I am responsibly informed.
You watch fake news.
They are conspiracy nuts.

I'm not sure of your intent with this message, but it's slap-dab in the middle of some very accurate explanations of how Republicans suppress democratic and minority votes thru laws they pretend are for election security.

So, if you were claiming they were making this all up, you are completely wrong.   

If you're referring to something else, ignore my comments.

My comment wasn't directed at any particular conversation or argument. Just the observation that no one ever thinks they are the consumer of fake news or are a conspiracy nut. It's always the other guy. Much in the same way that almost everyone believes that they are an above average driver.

[sherr]

In Pennsylvania, independents are not allowed to vote in either Republican or Democrat primaries, but I think the option that makes the most sense in choosing a runner is ranked voting.  The republican primaries had 4 or 5 normal candidates and one atypical guy.  I feel like most people to voted for one of the 4 or 5 normal candidates voted against the atypical guy, and would have been happy with any of the normal candidates

It helps in primaries certainly, but not only primaries! Let's say a particular race is pretty full, and managed to attract a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green candidate. Normally people would correctly conclude that anything other than a Rep or Dem vote would be throwing away their vote, other than to make a statement, and they'd be correct because literally no one else other than the two main parties have a chance to win. But with ranked choice you can truly "vote your conscience" without downside.

Maybe some Dems and Reps would vote Libertarian first, and then Dem or Rep second. Or maybe Green first. Or, once people get used to the idea, a plethora of new parties will spring up. There are legislative barriers designed to keep out new parties certainly, but the biggest barrier currently is the certain knowledge that their efforts are doomed to failure and they'll never win. But with ranked choice voting the sky's the limit, the right candidate with the right message can win, regardless of which party they're from.

It would make 3rd (and 4th and 5th...) parties actually a real thing in the US. I'm hopeful that Mainers will like it and that it will start to catch on everywhere else.

[ixtap]

I am responsibly informed.
You watch fake news.
They are conspiracy nuts.

I'm not sure of your intent with this message, but it's slap-dab in the middle of some very accurate explanations of how Republicans suppress democratic and minority votes thru laws they pretend are for election security.

So, if you were claiming they were making this all up, you are completely wrong.   

If you're referring to something else, ignore my comments.

My comment wasn't directed at any particular conversation or argument. Just the observation that no one ever thinks they are the consumer of fake news or are a conspiracy nut. It's always the other guy. Much in the same way that almost everyone believes that they are an above average driver.

Except that some, most, news can actually be verified with some time and critical thinking skills.

I am on a one person mission to erase that "An active DC police officer posted on a public Facebook page..." meme. Which officer? Where is the post? Nothing? Report it to the proper authorities and walk away. Don't spread hearsay.

[OtherJen]

I am responsibly informed.
You watch fake news.
They are conspiracy nuts.

I'm not sure of your intent with this message, but it's slap-dab in the middle of some very accurate explanations of how Republicans suppress democratic and minority votes thru laws they pretend are for election security.

So, if you were claiming they were making this all up, you are completely wrong.   

If you're referring to something else, ignore my comments.

My comment wasn't directed at any particular conversation or argument. Just the observation that no one ever thinks they are the consumer of fake news or are a conspiracy nut. It's always the other guy. Much in the same way that almost everyone believes that they are an above average driver.

Well, I claim that there was no widescale voter fraud due to the staggering lack of evidence to suggest such an event and more than 60 court cases thrown out for lack of evidence and standing, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Those cases are easily researched and I have read some of the filed decisions.

Someone else claims that North Korea was bringing in boatloads of fake ballots and the voter numbers in Michigan were off by 300%, especially in Edison County (which doesn't exist) because Newsmax said it or they heard it from someone who knows someone who swears they saw the North Korean boats.

If you can't spot any difference here, you might want to check your own critical reasoning skills.

[TheContinentalOp]

I am responsibly informed.
You watch fake news.
They are conspiracy nuts.

I'm not sure of your intent with this message, but it's slap-dab in the middle of some very accurate explanations of how Republicans suppress democratic and minority votes thru laws they pretend are for election security.

So, if you were claiming they were making this all up, you are completely wrong.   

If you're referring to something else, ignore my comments.

My comment wasn't directed at any particular conversation or argument. Just the observation that no one ever thinks they are the consumer of fake news or are a conspiracy nut. It's always the other guy. Much in the same way that almost everyone believes that they are an above average driver.

Well, I claim that there was no widescale voter fraud due to the staggering lack of evidence to suggest such an event and more than 60 court cases thrown out for lack of evidence and standing, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Those cases are easily researched and I have read some of the filed decisions.

Someone else claims that North Korea was bringing in boatloads of fake ballots and the voter numbers in Michigan were off by 300%, especially in Edison County (which doesn't exist) because Newsmax said it or they heard it from someone who knows someone who swears they saw the North Korean boats.

If you can't spot any difference here, you might want to check your own critical reasoning skills.

Of course some of the things you will believe will be correct. It would be pretty amazing if you were 100% wrong about everything.

Here we go: 51% of Republicans probably or definitely believed that the US found active weapons of mass destruction systems in Iraq.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016

And to be fair to the other side: 52% of Democrats probably or definitely believed that the Russians tampered with vote tallies to get Trump elected in 2016.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/815256370958237696/photo/1

It's always very easy to point fingers at how foolish the other guy is. But what are the odds that your own beliefs are 100% correct?

But you do research! Dig deep for the truth! Search out authoritative sources and don't fall for conspiracy theories! Of course you are right. It's the other fellow who is wrong.

Just like the 90%+ of the population that believe they are above average drivers.

[simmias]

Almost half of those people are actually above average drivers, though.

[rosarugosa]

In Pennsylvania, independents are not allowed to vote in either Republican or Democrat primaries, but I think the option that makes the most sense in choosing a runner is ranked voting.  The republican primaries had 4 or 5 normal candidates and one atypical guy.  I feel like most people to voted for one of the 4 or 5 normal candidates voted against the atypical guy, and would have been happy with any of the normal candidates

It helps in primaries certainly, but not only primaries! Let's say a particular race is pretty full, and managed to attract a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green candidate. Normally people would correctly conclude that anything other than a Rep or Dem vote would be throwing away their vote, other than to make a statement, and they'd be correct because literally no one else other than the two main parties have a chance to win. But with ranked choice you can truly "vote your conscience" without downside.

Maybe some Dems and Reps would vote Libertarian first, and then Dem or Rep second. Or maybe Green first. Or, once people get used to the idea, a plethora of new parties will spring up. There are legislative barriers designed to keep out new parties certainly, but the biggest barrier currently is the certain knowledge that their efforts are doomed to failure and they'll never win. But with ranked choice voting the sky's the limit, the right candidate with the right message can win, regardless of which party they're from.

It would make 3rd (and 4th and 5th...) parties actually a real thing in the US. I'm hopeful that Mainers will like it and that it will start to catch on everywhere else.

Unfortunately, Ranked Choice Voting was a ballot question in MA this past election and failed to pass.  I believe this was primarily due to a failure to understand it by most people. 

[Psychstache]

In Pennsylvania, independents are not allowed to vote in either Republican or Democrat primaries, but I think the option that makes the most sense in choosing a runner is ranked voting.  The republican primaries had 4 or 5 normal candidates and one atypical guy.  I feel like most people to voted for one of the 4 or 5 normal candidates voted against the atypical guy, and would have been happy with any of the normal candidates

It helps in primaries certainly, but not only primaries! Let's say a particular race is pretty full, and managed to attract a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green candidate. Normally people would correctly conclude that anything other than a Rep or Dem vote would be throwing away their vote, other than to make a statement, and they'd be correct because literally no one else other than the two main parties have a chance to win. But with ranked choice you can truly "vote your conscience" without downside.

Maybe some Dems and Reps would vote Libertarian first, and then Dem or Rep second. Or maybe Green first. Or, once people get used to the idea, a plethora of new parties will spring up. There are legislative barriers designed to keep out new parties certainly, but the biggest barrier currently is the certain knowledge that their efforts are doomed to failure and they'll never win. But with ranked choice voting the sky's the limit, the right candidate with the right message can win, regardless of which party they're from.

It would make 3rd (and 4th and 5th...) parties actually a real thing in the US. I'm hopeful that Mainers will like it and that it will start to catch on everywhere else.

Unfortunately, Ranked Choice Voting was a ballot question in MA this past election and failed to pass.  I believe this was primarily due to a failure to understand it by most people.

I like the ballot measure that alaska just passed: a single non-partisan primary, top 4 candidates advance to a ranked choice general.

[OtherJen]

In Pennsylvania, independents are not allowed to vote in either Republican or Democrat primaries, but I think the option that makes the most sense in choosing a runner is ranked voting.  The republican primaries had 4 or 5 normal candidates and one atypical guy.  I feel like most people to voted for one of the 4 or 5 normal candidates voted against the atypical guy, and would have been happy with any of the normal candidates

It helps in primaries certainly, but not only primaries! Let's say a particular race is pretty full, and managed to attract a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green candidate. Normally people would correctly conclude that anything other than a Rep or Dem vote would be throwing away their vote, other than to make a statement, and they'd be correct because literally no one else other than the two main parties have a chance to win. But with ranked choice you can truly "vote your conscience" without downside.

Maybe some Dems and Reps would vote Libertarian first, and then Dem or Rep second. Or maybe Green first. Or, once people get used to the idea, a plethora of new parties will spring up. There are legislative barriers designed to keep out new parties certainly, but the biggest barrier currently is the certain knowledge that their efforts are doomed to failure and they'll never win. But with ranked choice voting the sky's the limit, the right candidate with the right message can win, regardless of which party they're from.

It would make 3rd (and 4th and 5th...) parties actually a real thing in the US. I'm hopeful that Mainers will like it and that it will start to catch on everywhere else.

Unfortunately, Ranked Choice Voting was a ballot question in MA this past election and failed to pass.  I believe this was primarily due to a failure to understand it by most people.

I like the ballot measure that alaska just passed: a single non-partisan primary, top 4 candidates advance to a ranked choice general.

Ooh, that’s an interesting idea!

[TheContinentalOp]

Almost half of those people are actually above average drivers, though.

That is true. But at least 44% of the drivers who think they are above average, aren't. People should really be more humble.

Here's another: 90% of college professors think they are above average in teaching ability. And two-thirds rank themselves in the top quarter.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/he.36919771703

[ChrisLansing]

A few stray thoughts on the problem

1.  The govt. lies to us pretty regularly.   I can go back to Nixon.   People a bit older than me can go back to the Gulf Of Tonkin incident.  Older people can go back further.  People bit younger might have to start with WsMD.       Each generation is lied to by the combined forces of govt. and the media, and this breaks down trust in a broad, general way, making the climate ripe of fake news and conspiracy theories.

2. I grew up pre-internet.    There were 3 tv networks and a couple dozen newspapers of recoord.  They all reported more or less the same thing - whether true or false.   It was kind of a bubble, but at least most people were in the same bubble.    The far left/right wacko news sources were so far out that few took them seriously.   We wern't as polarized.  We didn't have to entertain the idea that Polio was a hoax.     

3. Today there are dozens of bubbles.   Many overlap but they have their boundries.   You litterally never have to hear/read/watch news you don'dt agree with.     Fox failing to praise Trump sufficietly?    Go to Newsmax.   NPR not sufficiently tough on Trump?  Go to Rachel Maddow. 

4. The speed of news is such that we feel we have to have a position on every subject with 15 minutes (or is it seconds?)  of first hearing about it.   Many people stake out a position based on where their "community" or "camp" stands w/o the slightest attempt at fact checking.    Trump said it - its true/it's a lie.   Pelosi said it - it's true/it's a lie.  I know where my tribe stands, therefore I know where I stand. 

5.  Having a hissy fit after an election is becomiing an American tradition.    We cannot accept defeat with grace.  We've become a nation of spoiled children having tantrums.    The tantrums don't go on for days or weeks, but for years.     

6.  We're so poloarized that we can't see anything but pure good  or pure evil.   If you have TDS try to come up with one good thing Trump did or at least tried to do.   If you hate the "libtards" say one good thing about AOC.    Many people are simply incapable of doing this.   

I don't have any solutions to the OP's problem.   Frankly I suspect it's a lost cause.

[clarkfan1979]

My mother and brother are really into QANON. For the past two years, they believe that John F. Kennedy Jr. is going to be the Vice President to Trump. He died in a helicopter crash in 1999. While it's possible to believe that someone can fake their death, how does someone believe that other people will vote for that person to be Vice President? Most of their ideas defy logic, so there is no point in debating. They both get really angry and aggressive when you do not agree with them.

They are heavily "investing" in the Iraqi dinar because it's going to go 100x. My brother is also really into buying fake Cryptocurrency that isn't worth anything. He is unable to get any real money for it from the seller. He claims he has over a million dollars in Crypto and tries to make real estate offers with the Crypto. When real estate agents laugh them out of the room, they basically say, "People just don't understand Crypto"

My mother's sister just died of COVID-19 about 3 weeks ago. It was a pretty horrible death. She still refuses to wear a mask and says the whole thing is a hoax.

I honestly do not talk to my brother or mother anymore on the phone. It's not possible for them to have a regular conversation without talking about the conspiracy theories. We see each other for a few days a year in person and don't really talk about much. We just go through the motions. My mother and brother talk about 5 times/day about the current post from QANON.

[Imma]

I'm so sorry for you @clarkfan1979 . I wonder how your family explains away the sad fact of your aunt's death? That seems like pretty clear proof that Covid is a thing. Unfortunately I have experienced a death from Covid in my close family too, and my impression is that the symptoms of severe Covid don't resemble any other disease.

I heard the other day that an acquaintance, a healthy young woman, is in the ICU with Covid. I know her husband is into conspiracies too. I wonder if seeing his wife suffer will change his mind about the Covid "hoax".

[clarkfan1979]

I'm so sorry for you @clarkfan1979 . I wonder how your family explains away the sad fact of your aunt's death? That seems like pretty clear proof that Covid is a thing. Unfortunately I have experienced a death from Covid in my close family too, and my impression is that the symptoms of severe Covid don't resemble any other disease.

I heard the other day that an acquaintance, a healthy young woman, is in the ICU with Covid. I know her husband is into conspiracies too. I wonder if seeing his wife suffer will change his mind about the Covid "hoax".

My mom does believe that her sister died of COVID-19. However, she also believes that Hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 death. When the doctors would not give her sister Hydroxychoroquine, it further strengthened her beliefs that the government is purposefully suppressing effective health treatment for COVID-19.

My mother had a brother die of cancer his early 40's. They spent alot of time together in the last 3-6 months of his life and both concluded that a cure for cancer exists, but there is too much money to be made in chemotherapy, so the real cure will never see the light of day.

If spoke with my mother, which I don't, I would ask her about the vaccine. Her likely response would be the the vaccine is not a real treatment, but some sort of poison or tracking device that is being forced upon the people.

She gives really bad health advice to people and pretty much considers herself to be a self-taught M.D., which is borderline delusional. I am currently about 20 pounds overweight and I have been slowly cutting back on the sweets and alcohol. When my mother noticed this, she made unsolicited comments on the best strategies for me to lose weight. She is 5'6" and about 50 pounds overweight. I really don't understand how someone who is 50 pounds overweight can give unsolicited weight loss advice to someone who is 20 pounds overweight. According to her, I need to be doing what she is doing. No thanks, because I don't want to be 50 pounds overweight.

[Imma]

@clarkfan1979 the world must be a scary place for her - effectively she believes the government murdered two of her siblings.

[FrugalToque]

I don't see what's wrong with voter ID laws? I think almost every country in the world except for the US requires (government-issued) ID to vote.

Canada doesn't and we have ZERO problem with voter fraud.

Of course, the U.S. also has basically ZERO problem with voter fraud, too.  Did you know that?

Voter ID laws are just a way to keep poor people - who don't have driver's licenses, often - from voting.  Pure disenfranchisement, given that - again - there is basically ZERO voter fraud.

Toque.

[FrugalToque]

5.  Having a hissy fit after an election is becomiing an American tradition.    We cannot accept defeat with grace.  We've become a nation of spoiled children having tantrums.    The tantrums don't go on for days or weeks, but for years.     

I won't have a go at your other points, but this is a little too much "both sides" for me.

After Al Gore and George Bush went neck and neck, and the Supreme Court basically cancelled the vote counting, Al Gore conceded for the sake of the nation.
Hillary Clinton conceded.
Donald Trump incited his followers to insurrection and they invaded your seat of government.

Yeah, people were angry about Florida.  People were angry that Clinton got more votes than Trump and they even protested.

But that's nothing compared to what we just saw.

So let's not do "both sides throw hissy fits".  That doesn't fit the evidence and more in the vein of putting Trump's god-awful racism in the same league as Michael Moore trying to get everyone health care.

Toque.

[FrugalToque]

I don’t see the point of registrering for voting. Sounds like a pain in the ass. All eligible voter here receive their voting card in the mail some time before the election date. Then they cab choose to vote beforehand in certain locations, by mail or on electionday. You need an id to vote but everyone got one because if you can’t basically function without one.

Same here in Canada.
When you file your taxes, you check a box to forward your info to Elections Canada.
That updates their files so you get your voter card in the mail for the right address.

[RetiredAt63]

I don’t see the point of registrering for voting. Sounds like a pain in the ass. All eligible voter here receive their voting card in the mail some time before the election date. Then they cab choose to vote beforehand in certain locations, by mail or on electionday. You need an id to vote but everyone got one because if you can’t basically function without one.

Same here in Canada.
When you file your taxes, you check a box to forward your info to Elections Canada.
That updates their files so you get your voter card in the mail for the right address.

Just to add, filing taxes is important for low income people so they can receive HST relief, child benefits, etc., so this one easy way for poor people to register to vote (there are other ways).  2 boxes, first are you a Canadian citizen, second for the info to Elections Canada.  Elections Canada works hard to encourage people to register to vote, and to vote.

[PurpleYogurt]

As to handling parents who believe fake news do you ignore and change the subject or state your position? I'm going to my parents soon and can't handle her take on "that poor, poor man" and "he's only tried to help the people". This one subject could be the thing that ends our relationship. That's how passionate she is about it.

She feels millions of people voted for him and the votes were changed. My stance so far is listening to her go on about this and throw in a few of my own thoughts when I can get a word in. She turns into a dragon defending him. Maybe it's simply not worth saying anything and just let her ramble on. I mean she is entitled to her opinion but my god, this woman loves to go on about politics. Probably why I don't.

Any experiences either way?

[SwordGuy]

As to handling parents who believe fake news do you ignore and change the subject or state your position? I'm going to my parents soon and can't handle her take on "that poor, poor man" and "he's only tried to help the people". This one subject could be the thing that ends our relationship. That's how passionate she is about it.

She feels millions of people voted for him and the votes were changed. My stance so far is listening to her go on about this and throw in a few of my own thoughts when I can get a word in. She turns into a dragon defending him. Maybe it's simply not worth saying anything and just let her ramble on. I mean she is entitled to her opinion but my god, this woman loves to go on about politics. Probably why I don't.

Any experiences either way?

"Mom, I love you.   Trump is criminal scum.   The facts are clear.  You have chosen to live in a land of make-believe about this.  That is your privilege.   I am not going to spend my precious time with you listening to utter crap supporting that criminal scum pour out of your mouth.  Shut up on this topic and we can have a wonderful visit and time together, or we leave.  Your call.  That's what freedom is all about.   Making your choices and living with the consequences.   You need to decide whether you prefer to defend Trump or visit with us. "

Yes, it's harsh.  But folks like this typically just WILL NOT LISTEN otherwise.

Best of luck.   But there's simply no reason to spend precious hours of your life listening to utter drivel based on lies.