OK, now we descend into the STOLEN election

[TRS-80]

I couldn't agree more and people won't develop critical thinking by watching their TV.

Your #1 should have been MSM because that controls the narrative.

From that narrative they use fear as a weapon.

You mean LBFNMSM.

I could take a guess at what some of these letters mean, but I have become fond of the term "Legacy Corporate Media" as I think it's short enough and more accurate.

[ajkula66]

but I have become fond of the term "Legacy Corporate Media" as I think it's short enough and more accurate.

Yep, that's the term that I'm gravitating to these days myself.

In other news, inflation is slowly being introduced back into the game by Fed, meaning that the folks dependent on their saving accounts and/or fixed income will get ****ed royally...

[dr_st]

I couldn't agree more and people won't develop critical thinking by watching their TV.

Your #1 should have been MSM because that controls the narrative.

From that narrative they use fear as a weapon.

There was an interesting story on this exact point a few weeks back, which I'm sure most members haven't heard of.

Apparently, there used to be a LinkedIn online class by the dumb racist Robin DiAngelo, who was delivering "diversity training" by telling people to be "less white", and that "being white" means a whole lot of bad things, and conversely being non-white - a lot of good things. Nothing unexpected if you know this person, but that's not the point.

Seems that the Coca-Cola company offered this class to its employees through their corporate LinkedIn account, and may have even encouraged them to take it. When that leaked, people expressed understandable dissatisfaction that such garbage was, apparently, forced on the employees. All in all the story created enough noise for Coca-Cola to publish a clarification that it was just a course they took from LinkedIn, and it was only part of their offerings, it was never forced, and they are discontinuing it, and LinkedIn even removed it, and whatever, but that is not the point either.

The story was carried in real-time by a few small-ish outlets - NY Post, the enterpreneur, and eventually Fox Business and Fox News too. Quite a few outlets outside of the US have covered it as well.

The key statement comes from here if you scroll down a bit: Who didn't cover the story? Who didn't say a word about it? NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC... You know, the "serious" mainstream outlets. As far as they are concerned - it never happened, or wasn't worthy of even a small piece alongside the mountains of gossip and general crap that, in the opinion of their editors, people should know.

And that is the crux of it, which many people just don't fully understand. There is no news anymore. No one reports news. There are only narratives, and everyone is only reporting things that support their narratives. All those "honest reporters" with their "journalist ethics" may not report downright lies, but they will only tell you what they want you to hear and will make sure to bury anything they don't want you to hear.

From my experience, this applies pretty equally to every venue, regardless of country, political affiliation or how long they've been around. But, while most people know better than to trust the likes of Breitbart and RT as "the source of the truth", they still tend to think that the "mainstream" ones are trustworthy. You know, maybe a little biased, but still trustworthy.

No. They are not. They may have been, somewhat, at one point, a long time ago. Not anymore. Definitely not in the US, definitely not since Trump's 2016 election. One person (not on the forums) whose insights I value greatly put it like this:

The mainstream media saw themselves as guilty in not taking Trump seriously enough, and once he won, they have decided to do everything in their power so that such "mistakes" do not happen again. And this shaped every single bit of their reporting from that moment forward. There was only one goal - publish only things that makes Trump look bad and his opponents (whoever those are) good, and nothing that can suggest the contrary.

Now that they have achieved their goal, I don't see why they would change the approach that got them there.

People that keep up the expectation that they would get, no, not even "completely true", but even "moderately accurate" picture of the world, from this "mainstream media", are bound to be led astray and make wrong decisions, time after time, like, I dunno, thinking that electing Biden is good for them, or for the average Joe, or for the US as a whole.

[Ibthink]

Seems that the Coca-Cola company offered this class to its employees through their corporate LinkedIn account, and may have even encouraged them to take it. When that leaked, people expressed understandable dissatisfaction that such garbage was, apparently, forced on the employees. All in all the story created enough noise for Coca-Cola to publish a clarification that it was just a course they took from LinkedIn, and it was only part of their offerings, it was never forced, and they are discontinuing it, and LinkedIn even removed it, and whatever, but that is not the point either.

False: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca- ... ess-white/

"In a news release published on Feb. 20, Coca-Cola stated that “Confronting Racism” “was not part of the company’s curriculum,” meaning it was not something Coca-Cola obliged its employees to view. Rather, the company said, its training involved use of LinkedIn Learning, and the course was accessible there.

So a company employee could log into a Coca-Cola LinkedIn account in order to watch videos that are part of their mandatory diversity training, but then navigate, within LinkedIn Learning, to “Confronting Racism,” which need not be required viewing in order for them to access it."

So, no, Coca Cola didn't "take" anything, nor was it "part of their offerings".

That story is another great example for the right-wing fake news machine reporting something only to create outrage for their culture-war. Which apparently is the only thing that can sustain them, taking the faux outrage over "Mr. Potatohead" or "Dr. Seuss" into account.

Which begs the question: Why should anyone report on such a non-story that comes from places like 4chan? Because with Coca Cola taken out of this, there isn't anything left here besides "there are people doing diversity training I disagree with".

[mpcook]

Seems that the Coca-Cola company offered this class to its employees through their corporate LinkedIn account, and may have even encouraged them to take it. When that leaked, people expressed understandable dissatisfaction that such garbage was, apparently, forced on the employees. All in all the story created enough noise for Coca-Cola to publish a clarification that it was just a course they took from LinkedIn, and it was only part of their offerings, it was never forced, and they are discontinuing it, and LinkedIn even removed it, and whatever, but that is not the point either.

False: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca- ... ess-white/

"In a news release published on Feb. 20, Coca-Cola stated that “Confronting Racism” “was not part of the company’s curriculum,” meaning it was not something Coca-Cola obliged its employees to view. Rather, the company said, its training involved use of LinkedIn Learning, and the course was accessible there.

So a company employee could log into a Coca-Cola LinkedIn account in order to watch videos that are part of their mandatory diversity training, but then navigate, within LinkedIn Learning, to “Confronting Racism,” which need not be required viewing in order for them to access it."

So, no, Coca Cola didn't "take" anything, nor was it "part of their offerings".

That story is another great example for the right-wing fake news machine reporting something only to create outrage for their culture-war. Which apparently is the only thing that can sustain them, taking the faux outrage over "Mr. Potatohead" or "Dr. Seuss" into account.

Which begs the question: Why should anyone report on such a non-story that comes from places like 4chan? Because with Coca Cola taken out of this, there isn't anything left here besides "there are people doing diversity training I disagree with".

As a faculty member, I am given access to our organization's LinkedIn Learning account, just as TCCC does for their employees. There's all kinds of training videos, some good, some crap. No, TCCC did not require their employees to watch the video in question. Yes, there is a substantial amount of fake news being promulgated by right-oriented media, some initiated by Russian and Chinese governments in order to sow discontent and conflict among the US populace.

[dr_st]

False: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca- ... ess-white/

I never said that the claim that Coca-Cola forced anyone to take this "training" was true. The fact that such a piece of garbage is offered through LinkedIn was bad enough, evidently enough for them to remove it and for Coca-Cola to quickly respond that they had nothing to do with this.

As usual, you respond to my post by attacking strawman arguments in a clumsy way. You write "false" and then link to a source that explicitly rates it as "mixed" and even admits that they found no way to corroborate Coca-Cola's statement, which means that it is completely possible that Coca-Cola is lying and is trying to cover up the embarrassment. Or it may be an in-between, like that it wasn't any mandatory training, but something "recommended" or otherwise highlighted in the offerings.

Which one it is doesn't really matter. Many news items start as something that looks to be one thing, ends up being another, but along the way exposes something else which can be of importance and of interest to the public. Which brings us to this:

Why should anyone report on such a non-story that comes from places like 4chan? Because with Coca Cola taken out of this, there isn't anything left here besides "there are people doing diversity training I disagree with"

Everyone publishes such "non-stories" all time time, but they choose them based on the agenda they serve. In this case, the existence of such "training" is a story in itself. It would be uncomfortable for the Washington Post to shed light on it, so they don't. Obviously, if someone somewhere offered "diversity training" telling, for instance, black basketball players, to be "less black", this would be the headline of all your favorite newspapers, and the outrage would reach the moon. Or, like, if someone uncovered that 40 years ago Trump said to his friend in a private conversation that he "should grab her by the pu**y". That was definitely an event of utmost importance to report.

As expected, in your worldview, it is up to our leftist media overlords to determine what is a story, and what is a non-story. It is a logical fallacy that feeds itself, because under this set of assumptions, a story is a story if and only if NY times / CNN reported it. Otherwise it's fake news. Probably coming from the Russians or Chinese, as mpcook says.

I never expected you or mpcook to take anything I wrote here into consideration or even to dedicate more than 5 seconds to dismiss it. You guys are firmly "on the other side" in this debate. We are "worlds apart", as you put it in an earlier discussion. However, folks that are not yet in the mindset that the leftist media reports "news" while the rightist media reports "propaganda", may stop and think. Even a little bit is good for me.

[Ibthink]

I never said that the claim that Coca-Cola forced anyone to take this "training" was true.

No - what you did say was that "the story created enough noise for Coca-Cola to publish a clarification that it was just a course they took from LinkedIn, and it was only part of their offerings," - which, again, the fact-check lays bare, is false. They never admitted to taking it or offering it.

You say what I wrote was clumsy - same goes back to you. Because you try to attack me on the point that it may be that Coca Cola lied - which is entirely possible, but not the point. The point is that you claimed they admitted this was part of their training (even voluntary) - which they didn't.

Of course, instead of going into counter-attack mode, you also could have just said that you were wrong to claim this.

In this case, the existence of such "training" is a story in itself.

You are doing something that is called "moving the goalposts" here, which is to shift the discussion from one point to a completely different one. Fairly well known discussion technique.

The thing that the right wing sites used here to create their "outrage" was the insinuation that Coca Cola appeared to be using this particular training - not the existence of said training. As you said, you even know this Robin DiAngelo beforehand, so I assume he and his work are quite well known in the right-wing sphere already. The existence of diversity training by itself is not news worthy, because it isn't new.

this would be the headline of all your favorite newspapers [...] a story is a story if and only if NY times / CNN reported it.

See now THIS is what is called "strawman". Neither me nor mpcook said anything about CNN / NY Times / etc. or their quality in particular.

Personally, I don't defend them, because I think the American news system is all around trash, with right wing fake news machines on one side and pretty biased "liberal" media on the other side - both sides are controlled by rich billionaires, which means dissenting voices have a hard time coming through in general. The US lacks a solid public media system and the removal of the fairness doctrine under Regean was just terrible, since it opened the door for very imbalanced reporting.

As expected, in your worldview, it is up to our leftist media overlords to determine what is a story, and what is a non-story.

Media organizations in general are independent, so yeah, they are free in deciding what is a story worthy of their time and what isn't. That has always been the case and is true for any news organization, left or right.

Though I should probably add: In dictatorships, things are different, of course.

However, folks that are not yet in the mindset that the leftist media reports "news" while the rightist media reports "propaganda", may stop and think. Even a little bit is good for me.

So now it is leftist vs. rightist media? Funny though, because up in your list of media not reporting on the "Coca Cola case" is Wall Street Journal, a news source owned by Rupert Murdoch and definitely anything but "left wing" - funny that.

For me personally, I think enough people are already part of this stupid culture war. People should try to avoid outright trash like the far-right outrage media you seem to like and at the same time not take anything in other media for face value - instead, search out multiple sources and fact checks. Inform them self who owns which media organization and think what biases that may incur. People taking an interest in where their information comes from - should be something to strive for, not driving senseless outrage and promoting a black and white world view.

[shawross]

Anyone who goes to Snopes for fact checking is ............

Snopes is just part of the MSM fake narrative control grid by it's links to Facebook.

I have never used Facebook and I never will.

[mpcook]

Anyone who goes to Snopes for fact checking is ............

Snopes is just part of the MSM fake narrative control grid by it's links to Facebook.

I have never used Facebook and I never will.

Another piece of distorted information.

https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snope ... ship-ends/

[cadillacmike68]

You mean LBFNMSM.

I could take a guess at what some of these letters mean, but I have become fond of the term "Legacy Corporate Media" as I think it's short enough and more accurate.

I can't even remember what they mean now!?!

[shawross]

We still know where the money originates from.

Who has become mega rich over the last year?

Stop going on snopes and feeding their AI algorithms.

[dr_st]

See now THIS is what is called "strawman". Neither me nor mpcook said anything about CNN / NY Times / etc. or their quality in particular.

The inadequacy of the MSM venues was the point of my original post, not the Coca-Cola story in itself. The story was merely required to frame the point.

Personally, I don't defend them, because I think the American news system is all around trash, with right wing fake news machines on one side and pretty biased "liberal" media on the other side - both sides are controlled by rich billionaires, which means dissenting voices have a hard time coming through in general.

For someone who is "not defending them", you seem to be defending their choices quite a bit. How about we try calling them "left-wing fake news machines" and "pretty biased conservative media on the other side" instead? Bias is evident from the choice of words alone.

The US lacks a solid public media system and the removal of the fairness doctrine under Regean was just terrible, since it opened the door for very imbalanced reporting.

Yes, of course, as usual, it is some decision made by some rightwing politician a long time ago that is the source of all problems. However, as the situation is not any better here where I am, or anywhere else that I know of, I doubt Reagan has anything to do with it.

For me personally, I think enough people are already part of this stupid culture war. People should try to avoid outright trash like the far-right outrage media you seem to like and at the same time not take anything in other media for face value - instead, search out multiple sources and fact checks. Inform them self who owns which media organization and think what biases that may incur. People taking an interest in where their information comes from - should be something to strive for, not driving senseless outrage and promoting a black and white world view.

Now you are essentially repeating what I've been saying all along, almost. Except the part in bold. The problem with this is: Who gets to define what is outright "trash talk"? Ah, it's you and the same leftists whose opinions we are not supposed to take "at face value". You know, the same guys who are now calling Fox "fake news" and want to order the cable companies to drop it.

In other words - make sure to keep yourself well-informed, and check multiple sources. But only sources that we tell you are trustworthy. That's the essence of leftist dictatorship masquerading as "liberalism". You know, the Soviet Union had multiple newspapers as well.

[Ibthink]

The story was merely required to frame the point.

Well, then you chose a terrible example to make your point.

Who gets to define what is outright "trash talk"?

It is pretty easy - by looking at a mediums track record on accuracy and its ownership, you can quickly identify the trash media, anyone can do so.

There are also folks who rate US media for a living - both on accuracy and bias.

Yes, of course, as usual, it is some decision made by some rightwing politician a long time ago that is the source of all problems.

Many bad things started during the Reagan era, so it is no wonder he laid the groundwork for more bad things longer after he was out of office. Of course, you may be inclined to defend him purely because he was a Republican without any other arguments. Bias shows.

However, as the situation is not any better here where I am, or anywhere else that I know of, I doubt Reagan has anything to do with it.

I think we probably do not agree at all on what even the situation is in Israel. But I won't be talking about Israel, even if you want to, because this was a discussion about US media. No point in trying to shift the goalposts again.

That's the essence of leftist dictatorship masquerading as "liberalism".

Ah yes, the "leftist dicatorship", in which guys like Trump or Netanjahu can lead countries. That is just cringeworthy.

[dr_st]

Ah yes, the "leftist dicatorship", in which guys like Trump or Netanjahu can lead countries.

The opposition to this particular brand of leftist thought police is one of the key reasons people like Trump and Netanyahu get elected in the first place.

[ajkula66]

The opposition to this particular brand of leftist thought police is one of the key reasons people like Trump and Netanyahu get elected in the first place.

This. Times a zillion.

[RealBlackStuff]

After Trump’s loss and false fraud claims, GOP eyes voter restrictions across nation



Shouldn't they instead be looking into shutting down the GOP?
Which hasn't been a G OP for a long time now, but rather a FLOP...
With a-holes like Ted Cruz and turtles like Mitch McConnell, who needs them?

[dr_st]

Apparently actually expecting that people present a valid ID and a valid registration to vote, you know, like in any other civilized country, is consider "voter suppression".

[mpcook]

Apparently actually expecting that people present a valid ID and a valid registration to vote, you know, like in any other civilized country, is consider "voter suppression".

Just a very small portion of the bills being passed, most of which do in fact suppress voting. And if you were to require a specific type of ID, it would be fine if you first help people obtain such an ID. Many elderly, rural, sans vehicle, etc. folks lacking birth certificate etc. do not have such an ID, this has been documented in the past.

[dr_st]

And if you were to require a specific type of ID, it would be fine if you first help people obtain such an ID. Many elderly, rural, sans vehicle, etc. folks lacking birth certificate etc. do not have such an ID, this has been documented in the past.

Certainly. And there is plenty of time to take care of that before the next round of elections. It seems that the US considers that it is reasonable to require a government-issued ID to fly, but not to vote. To me this sounds ridiculous. Then again, many things in many countries will sound ridiculous to foreigners.

[mpcook]

And if you were to require a specific type of ID, it would be fine if you first help people obtain such an ID. Many elderly, rural, sans vehicle, etc. folks lacking birth certificate etc. do not have such an ID, this has been documented in the past.

Certainly. And there is plenty of time to take care of that before the next round of elections. It seems that the US considers that it is reasonable to require a government-issued ID to fly, but not to vote. To me this sounds ridiculous. Then again, many things in many countries will sound ridiculous to foreigners.

I think you are not familiar with the details of how it works here, but okay. More details than can be explained in a post, varying by state.

And also note, these bills do not require any local/state efforts to help people qualify who need assistance, elderly, without a car, etc. And voters should not have to pay to be able to vote. That is why this is suppression, and not just qualification. We are regressing, not progressing. And all of this with evidence of almost no voter fraud in the current system.

[Ibthink]

Apparently actually expecting that people present a valid ID and a valid registration to vote, you know, like in any other civilized country, is consider "voter suppression".

Interesting how you immediately steer this discussion into the direction of ID/vote registration, because that is only part of it. Wonder how you can defend things like reduced voting hours, restrictions on early voting as well as mail-in voting.

Also: You do not need a "registration" to vote in many, many civilized countries, because you are automatically registered to vote. Voting is a civil right, not something you have to earn by jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Though I guess, when you don't like the results of an election, making voting more difficult can be seen as an attractive option for some people.

And voters should not have to pay to be able to vote. That is why this is suppression, and not just qualification.

Exactly - southern states used to have poll taxes to keep African Americans from voting. These are not allowed anymore, so more "creative" measures are implemented instead.

[ajkula66]

Heh...if H.R.1 passes none of this will matter. GOP will never win another meaningful election.

Proof of citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any country, IMO, but I guess I'm old-fashioned.

[mpcook]

Heh...if H.R.1 passes none of this will matter. GOP will never win another meaningful election.

Proof of citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any country, IMO, but I guess I'm old-fashioned.

Not to worry, it will go the SCOTUS and will be struck down.

[ajkula66]

Not to worry, it will go the SCOTUS and will be struck down.

I would not put my money on that turn of events. Not with the judges currently on the bench.

[dr_st]

And voters should not have to pay to be able to vote. That is why this is suppression, and not just qualification. We are regressing, not progressing.

You are thinking about it from a very narrow point of view. A one time processing fee to receive a government-issued ID, which is used for a whole range of causes, including voting, is a completely reasonable thing.

Your "voters should not have to pay to be able to vote" statement makes just as little sense as "passengers should not have to pay to be able to ride a bus" or "people should not have to pay for food". The only reason it sounds true to you, is because you are used to the completely broken US voting system. And because the leftist "non-biased, not Russian fake news" media has been drilling this into your head that any change to this completely broken system would be a death-blow to democracy.

And all of this with evidence of almost no voter fraud in the current system.

This is not a correct statement. Maybe "almost no evidence of voter fraud" is more correct. Then again, you do realize that in virtually all the cases where "Team Trump had failed to provide evidence" it was because the courts did not allow them to present evidence? They simply refused to even consider the case way before the stage of presenting evidence. Probably because they would rather keep a broken system, rather than shed light on how badly broken this system is.

Interesting how you immediately steer this discussion into the direction of ID/vote registration, because that is only part of it. Wonder how you can defend things like reduced voting hours, restrictions on early voting as well as mail-in voting.

Interesting how you immediately steer this discussion away from ID/voter registration, into other realms. Perhaps it is because you really cannot defend the ridiculous situation in which no ID/registration is required to vote?

I have absolutely no problem to answer you in full and at great length. Here you go:

I focused on ID/voter registration because that seemed to be the key point in those alleged "voter suppression" bills I saw from reading the article.

I do not defend things like reduced voting hours. I saw no reference at all that this is part of the proposed bills, and if it is, and if someone asked my opinion - I would remove it from the bills. I would extend voting hours and require more polling points, to make it easier to vote in person on election day. This would reduce some of the pressure to allow unrestricted mail-in and early voting.

Restrictions on mail-in voting I defend easily - mail-in voting makes it easier to cheat, because of the way the votes are processed, and once processed it is very hard to prove such cheating, so it is best to avoid in the first place. Granted, you cannot fully avoid it, and as far as I know, most countries have provisions for mail-in voting in specific circumstances. I do not know of countries other than the US that have completely unrestricted mail-in voting, which does not even require any ID and counts merely on some clerk somewhere doing something as insecure as manual signature verification. I see this as something that threatens election integrity.

I think that as long as mail-in voting is secure and is subject to the same ID/registration checks, with the same level of strictness as in-person voting - there is no problem with that. Obviously, this is not the case in the US currently. Implementing this in properly would probably put extra complications on the system, and so they would want to limit it to only the minimum necessary, and solve the problem of voter accessibility by other means, such as more polling points, extended hours and maybe even more days (see below).

Restrictions on early voting? Well, in as much as it is done by mail - refer to my claims above. Early voting not done by mail (does this thing even exist)? I see no problem in principle, and in fact it is one of the things you can do to reduce polling pressure. Instead of an election day, you can have an election weekend or even an election week. Still, there must be some limit, because elections are not supposed to be a rolling event.

To summarize (TL;DR):

I support strict requirements on ID/registration checks for voting. Including federal databases to prevent people from voting multiple times in multiple states.
I support increasing voting accessibility by adding more polling points and by extending hours or even extending in-person vote to more than one day (as it may be difficult to quickly add enough additional polling points).
As long as mail-in voting can be subject to the same rigorous ID/registration checks - I do not object to it.

[mpcook]

And voters should not have to pay to be able to vote. That is why this is suppression, and not just qualification. We are regressing, not progressing.

You are thinking about it from a very narrow point of view. A one time processing fee to receive a government-issued ID, which is used for a whole range of causes, including voting, is a completely reasonable thing.

Your "voters should not have to pay to be able to vote" statement makes just as little sense as "passengers should not have to pay to be able to ride a bus" or "people should not have to pay for food". The only reason it sounds true to you, is because you are used to the completely broken US voting system. And because the leftist "non-biased, not Russian fake news" media has been drilling this into your head that any change to this completely broken system would be a death-blow to democracy.

No need to be insulting. The tradition here in this country, aside from historical poll taxes in the South, has been in the US that you don't have to pay to vote. There are (skewed minority and Democratic) poor, and/or elderly without means of transportation, some without birth certificates and the means to get one, and so on, who would be excluded with some of the new regulations. Voting is not like taking a bus, that's a silly analogy. Taxes support the system, just as they do the interstate highway system for example, it is for the greater good.

I am all for change that makes it easier for people to vote, not harder to participate. More hours, more locations, etc. So no, I am not at all against change. But we should do something to fix the broken system whereby e.g., people are not standing in lines for 5 or 10 hours to cast their ballots and/or have to drive long distances.

There have been a number of efforts to examine voter fraud, with lack of findings. Even Trump's Voter Fraud Commission could not document evidence of any substantial fraud. After all the hoopla over the past four years, plenty of time to turn up some evidence. Still looking...

[mpcook]

Restrictions on early voting? Well, in as much as it is done by mail - refer to my claims above. Early voting not done by mail (does this thing even exist)? I see no problem in principle, and in fact it is one of the things you can do to reduce polling pressure. Instead of an election day, you can have an election weekend or even an election week. Still, there must be some limit, because elections are not supposed to be a rolling event.

Most of the current bills coming up in Republican led states are reducing opportunity to vote, not making it easier, so get up to speed on this. Currently we have early voting in many jurisdictions, weeks in advance. Sure, let's take that away as well, and close polling places, why don't we. This is what's going on now.

[Ibthink]

Heh...if H.R.1 passes none of this will matter. GOP will never win another meaningful election.

Among the H.R. 1 provisions is a ban of partisan gerrymandering. If you are saying Republicans can only win with gerrymandering, then they shouldn't win in the first place.

If H.R. 1 passes, Republicans can still win elections - by expanding their voting base and moving their platform to popular issues (instead of unpopular ones).

Perhaps it is because you really cannot defend the ridiculous situation in which no ID/registration is required to vote?

No, it is because ID/registration is a problem only because US has no national ID card nor a resident register. These are fundamental problems that Republicans don't want to fix, which makes their calls for voter ID hollow - because their voting IDs are a state matter, and in the states that Republicans control, they can make access (and therefore voting access) as hard as they want.

I support increasing voting accessibility by adding more polling points and by extending hours or even extending in-person vote to more than one day (as it may be difficult to quickly add enough additional polling points).

Well, we can agree on that. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be happening, polling places get shut down, voting hours and early voting are reduced. This even includes bizarre little details like restrictions on Sunday voting or banning that people waiting in line to vote can be given water or food.

[dr_st]

The tradition here in this country, aside from historical poll taxes in the South, has been in the US that you don't have to pay to vote. There are (skewed minority and Democratic) poor, and/or elderly without means of transportation, some without birth certificates and the means to get one, and so on, who would be excluded with some of the new regulations.

Tradition I can understand. I think I mentioned above that just like I find this (and other) US traditions very strange, some outsiders to Israel would definitely find multiple traditions in our country just as strange.

With that said, I don't believe that people should not consider change just because something is a tradition and "has always been like this". Some traditions are broken, when enough people find them detrimental. Obviously, in the US you are not yet there in regards to this particular point. Republicans are pushing to get you there, Democrats are pushing against it. Each party is doing so for their obvious interests. They are both certainly putting their partisan interests first, democracy later.

The difference as I see it, and why I support the Republican point of view on this matter? I see that the problem of ensuring election integrity under the current system as inherent to the system, and one that cannot be fully solved without changing the system. Whereas the problems you raise with the alternative can be solved by making additional provisions (e.g., increased accessibility of in-person voting, which you and I both agree on, and making the process of issuing the required identification documents easier/cheaper).

There have been a number of efforts to examine voter fraud, with lack of findings. Even Trump's Voter Fraud Commission could not document evidence of any substantial fraud. After all the hoopla over the past four years, plenty of time to turn up some evidence. Still looking...

The current system makes it very hard to prove fraud after the fact, because once the mail-in ballots are "cleared", you no longer can associate them with any specific voter. No recount can catch fraud, only counting errors.

In-person voting validates the eligibility of the vote, on the spot, per polling point. Once a vote is accepted, it is most certainly legit, and all you need to ensure is correct counting. Mail-in votes are validated en masse in a few control centers, which means that every point of failure has a bigger effect. Furthermore, in certain jurisdictions, the acceptance criteria for mail-in voting, were specifically relaxed for the 2020 elections, making it even easier for them to accept dubious ballots.

All Trump's team could show was various "irregularities". Enough or not enough to swing the election? Probably not, but even those they were not allowed to present in most cases. Some cases were dismissed for being "too early", others for being "too late" (i.e., you should have brought this up before the election, never mind that they didn't want to hear them back then). The courts simply did not want to touch this hot potato. Don't fall under the coordinated rhetoric about "baseless claims". You cannot say a claim is baseless when you deliberately refuse to hear it.

Most of the current bills coming up in Republican led states are reducing opportunity to vote, not making it easier, so get up to speed on this. Currently we have early voting in many jurisdictions, weeks in advance. Sure, let's take that away as well, and close polling places, why don't we. This is what's going on now.

A good system should make it easier to cast legitimate votes and harder to cast illegitimate votes. Republicans are pushing for a system that if passed currently (without the extra provisions, which they are not pushing for) will make it harder to vote in general - legitimately and illegitimately. Democrats are pushing for the opposite. Again, the partisan interests are driving here. I think I have explained at great lengths which direction I support and why.

[mpcook]

With that said, I don't believe that people should not consider change just because something is a tradition and "has always been like this". Some traditions are broken, when enough people find them detrimental. Obviously, in the US you are not yet there in regards to this particular point. Republicans are pushing to get you there, Democrats are pushing against it. Each party is doing so for their obvious interests. They are both certainly putting their partisan interests first, democracy later.

Way too much to spend time rebutting, but on this one, wow! First, you're saying we should ditch the tradition of free and fair elections. And second, Republicans are pushing for this change, and Democrats are against this change. Modifying the system so that more people can vote is Democratic, and to allow fewer to vote is Republican. This is based on the legislation currently being proposed in a number of states. We all agree there should be minimal fraud. Which again, there is very little. There are a number of controls in place to prevent it. And there have been a number of studies and commissions looking into this. I won't even mention Rudy Giuliani (whoops, the travesty of this "attorney" slipped out). And so, still waiting for the evidence. You say it cannot be proven that voter fraud is minimal, therefore, we should make it harder to vote.

What do I need to do in Israel in order to vote?