Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[The Turlesz]

As someone with no clue what's going on why dont they do the logical thing like adults and just vote without them or count them as an obvious no ( I probably read this wrong and my solution is dumb and sorry in advance)

So in order for a vote to happen you have to have a certain number of people present. They don’t have that number present and you’d need to change the constitution or pass a law to change said number but they can’t because the number isn’t there

Ok thank you That makes sense now

[New Odrana]

Yeah, that's my take, too. Representatives shouldn't be able to just run off everytime they don't want to vote on something.

I disagree. If it’s the only way for their constituents to be represented then they must. Democratic government shouldn’t be about running roughshod over the minority party or coalition. It should be about what works and not what benefits a few

It also shouldn't be about forced gridlock. If we're going to try and say this is a legitimate tactic, why shouldn't the minority party(ies) in a legislature just fuck off everytime they have the opportunity (assuming they have the numbers to prevent quorum)? Why even vote against anything? Why not just not show up, since it's apparently the same thing.

I mean, the people who would actually be affected if these laws passed are the few. The majority of Texans would be completely unaffected by them. Not that I think that justifies it (I don't support majoritarianism). I suppose you could argue the GOP benefits, but I still stand by the position that I don't think it will be as beneficial as people think it will.

[San Lumen]

I disagree. If it’s the only way for their constituents to be represented then they must. Democratic government shouldn’t be about running roughshod over the minority party or coalition. It should be about what works and not what benefits a few

It also shouldn't be about forced gridlock. If we're going to try and say this is a legitimate tactic, why shouldn't the minority party(ies) in a legislature just fuck off everytime they have the opportunity (assuming they have the numbers to prevent quorum)? Why even vote against anything? Why not just not show up, since it's apparently the same thing.

I mean, the people who would actually be affected if these laws passed are the few. The majority of Texans would be completely unaffected by them. Not that I think that justifies it (I don't support majoritarianism). I suppose you could argue the GOP benefits, but I still stand by the position that I don't think it will be as beneficial as people think it will.

Not every state has a quorum rule. In many if the minority doesn’t show up the majority can just vote without them.

[Kowani]

It also shouldn't be about forced gridlock. If we're going to try and say this is a legitimate tactic, why shouldn't the minority party(ies) in a legislature just fuck off everytime they have the opportunity (assuming they have the numbers to prevent quorum)? Why even vote against anything? Why not just not show up, since it's apparently the same thing.

I mean, the people who would actually be affected if these laws passed are the few. The majority of Texans would be completely unaffected by them. Not that I think that justifies it (I don't support majoritarianism). I suppose you could argue the GOP benefits, but I still stand by the position that I don't think it will be as beneficial as people think it will.

Not every state has a quorum rule. In many if the minority doesn’t show up the majority can just vote without them.

Well, no
Most states have quorum rules.
They’re just usually 50%-1 and require an active caller

Same outcome, mind you

[Ghost Land]

To quote an NPR article (not the best source, but bear with me here) I saw before I found the text of the bills:

I don't understand the problem with voting on a Sunday, so that's pretty much the very kind of unexplained bureaucratic rule I'm against. As for the latter provision mentioned, this does have some merit behind it, but as described here it offers too much potential for abuse. I do think election results should be investigated and looked into deeper if there are credible allegations of voter fraud, but allowing officials to overturn the results at will is silly and counterproductive if we're supposed to be a democracy.

There is, I am given to understand, a long tradition of Black churches organising to bring their congregation to vote after Sunday services. Restrictions on voting on Sundays are meant to stop Black people from voting.

Well that's just pathetic then. Everybody who's legally able to vote - which IMO should include every citizen over a certain age other than incarcerated felons - should be able to vote.

Also Kowani: I saw your post going into detail about the link I provided regarding the 2020 election. Thank you for taking the time to go through the top 25 claims one-by-one. I don't think you or anyone else can convince me either way that elections in the United States are 100% free, fair, and secure - but it seems there's no shortage of people taking things out of context in that link or elsewhere.

[Ifreann]

No they'd rather cheat than win free and fair elections. They no longer believe in democracy or free and fair elections. The entire staff of the Republican caucus and the governor should walk off the job.

He did mention their interest in winning...

Also, why do you keep proposing this when we all know that it's not going to happen?

It is a nice idea. All the villains declare themselves openly and explicitly to be villains who will do evil unless thwarted, only for their henchpeople to revolt against them. And then everyone performs the final musical number as the day is saved.

---

There is, I am given to understand, a long tradition of Black churches organising to bring their congregation to vote after Sunday services. Restrictions on voting on Sundays are meant to stop Black people from voting.

Well that's just pathetic then. Everybody who's legally able to vote - which IMO should include every citizen over a certain age other than incarcerated felons - should be able to vote.

But if everyone who could vote, did vote, then Republicans would lose resoundingly. And so here we are.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Based. Definitely a better reason to break quorum than any time the GOP has done so in recent memory.

[Page]

He did mention their interest in winning...

Also, why do you keep proposing this when we all know that it's not going to happen?

It is a nice idea. All the villains declare themselves openly and explicitly to be villains who will do evil unless thwarted, only for their henchpeople to revolt against them. And then everyone performs the final musical number as the day is saved.

---

Well that's just pathetic then. Everybody who's legally able to vote - which IMO should include every citizen over a certain age other than incarcerated felons - should be able to vote.

But if everyone who could vote, did vote, then Republicans would lose resoundingly. And so here we are.

I think if America had automatic voter registration and sent a mail ballot to every adult citizen, the Republicans would have fewer than 25 Senate seats and Presidential elections would be a foregone conclusion.

[Diarcesia]

It is a nice idea. All the villains declare themselves openly and explicitly to be villains who will do evil unless thwarted, only for their henchpeople to revolt against them. And then everyone performs the final musical number as the day is saved.

---

But if everyone who could vote, did vote, then Republicans would lose resoundingly. And so here we are.

I think if America had automatic voter registration and sent a mail ballot to every adult citizen, the Republicans would have fewer than 25 Senate seats and Presidential elections would be a foregone conclusion.

That's a large part of why Republicans wanting to be in charge of voting security is sus.

Edit: Although as long as there are valid concerns in that regard (currently there's none), they have every right to scrutinize it.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

...while I'm against voter suppression, I'm kind of left wondering why the laws don't allow the representatives who showed up to work to vote on it without those who didn't show up to work needing to be present for it.

[Page]

...while I'm against voter suppression, I'm kind of left wondering why the laws don't allow the representatives who showed up to work to vote on it without those who didn't show up to work needing to be present for it.

Every rep in Congress except AOC dies and there are no quorum rules, AOC has a veto proof absolute majority. She is the dictator of America. Yes, that would rock but what if it was Majorie Taylor Greene instead? That's why quorum.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

...while I'm against voter suppression, I'm kind of left wondering why the laws don't allow the representatives who showed up to work to vote on it without those who didn't show up to work needing to be present for it.

Every rep in Congress except AOC dies and there are no quorum rules, AOC has a veto proof absolute majority. She is the dictator of America. Yes, that would rock but what if it was Majorie Taylor Greene instead? That's why quorum.

Why can't representatives appoint replacements who would in that event assume their office until the next election like Presidents have? That sounds like a more constructive solution than something that can be misused by people fleeing the state.

[San Lumen]

Every rep in Congress except AOC dies and there are no quorum rules, AOC has a veto proof absolute majority. She is the dictator of America. Yes, that would rock but what if it was Majorie Taylor Greene instead? That's why quorum.

Why can't representatives appoint replacements who would in that event assume their office until the next election like Presidents have? That sounds like a more constructive solution than something that can be misused by people fleeing the state.

There is no provision in the constitution for that regarding the house. In the senate a vacancy is filled via gubernatorial appointment in most states.

No state constitution has such a prevision like what you suggest.

[Page]

Every rep in Congress except AOC dies and there are no quorum rules, AOC has a veto proof absolute majority. She is the dictator of America. Yes, that would rock but what if it was Majorie Taylor Greene instead? That's why quorum.

Why can't representatives appoint replacements who would in that event assume their office until the next election like Presidents have? That sounds like a more constructive solution than something that can be misused by people fleeing the state.

Well assuming that the reps chose their proxy, they would choose proxies who had the same position as them and nothing would change except that their proxies would flee the state too.

[San Lumen]

Why can't representatives appoint replacements who would in that event assume their office until the next election like Presidents have? That sounds like a more constructive solution than something that can be misused by people fleeing the state.

Well assuming that the reps chose their proxy, they would choose proxies who had the same position as them and nothing would change except that their proxies would flee the state too.

its a pointless gesture and almost certainly unconstitutional.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Why can't representatives appoint replacements who would in that event assume their office until the next election like Presidents have? That sounds like a more constructive solution than something that can be misused by people fleeing the state.

There is no provision in the constitution for that regarding the house. In the senate a vacancy is filled via gubernatorial appointment in most states.

No state constitution has such a prevision like what you suggest.

Then they need a constitutional amendment ASAP. You shouldn't need a majority of people to show up to work for the business of government to proceed without the no-shows. Nor should the ability of no-shows to control the business of government be the sole alternative to the ability of a bunch of murderers who could co-ordinate murders of representatives being able to control it instead.

[San Lumen]

There is no provision in the constitution for that regarding the house. In the senate a vacancy is filled via gubernatorial appointment in most states.

No state constitution has such a prevision like what you suggest.

Then they need a constitutional amendment ASAP. You shouldn't need a majority of people to show up to work for the business of government to proceed without the no-shows. Nor should the ability of no-shows to control the business of government be the sole alternative to the ability of a bunch of murderers who could co-ordinate murders of representatives being able to control it instead.

The federal government cannot amendment state constitutions.

They'd appoint people who agree with them so whats the point of your proposal?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Wow this OP and thread title is really, really misleading.

[Mantodean Dictyop]

Is this just history repeating itself?
Anytime Texas goes slightly purple, the GOP goes berserk with minority vote suppressing measures, the Democrats go AWOL, and next thing a minimally regulated militia goes hunting for said Democrats.

Another decade, another round of rounding up.

[San Lumen]

Is this just history repeating itself?
Anytime Texas goes slightly purple, the GOP goes berserk with minority vote suppressing measures, the Democrats go AWOL, and next thing a minimally regulated militia goes hunting for said Democrats.

Another decade, another round of rounding up.

Republicans know if everyone is allowed to vote easily they’d lose.

[Mantodean Dictyop]

Is this just history repeating itself?
Anytime Texas goes slightly purple, the GOP goes berserk with minority vote suppressing measures, the Democrats go AWOL, and next thing a minimally regulated militia goes hunting for said Democrats.

Another decade, another round of rounding up.

Republicans know if everyone is allowed to vote easily they’d lose.

And Democrats know that if everybody is allowed to vote, they would be in opposition to socialist and green governments. Which is why both parties have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, including the decannual flight and hunting theatre.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Ok, so as I'm reading this thread I'm seeing a consistent but blatantly horrible trend. A lot of you left-leaning folks are of the opinion that Republicans can not ever win a fair election, ever. Therefore, there is active voter suppression and Republicans never win fairly.
This is potentially one of the most dangerous rhetorics I have ever heard from you guys here on NS. That is blatantly stupid and utterly false by every available point of data. It is simply mind-boggling that you can claim something like that when every other president is a Democrat, and the Democrats currently hold a majority in the House and Senate. THERE IS NO VOTER SUPPRESSION. PERIOD. None of these bills promote voter suppression anyway. Last year, when covid was still a much bigger issue than it is now, many states created special provisions for people to vote, which included mail-in balloting and an election that lasted forever. In case you guys haven't noticed, covid cases are down (for the moment), and we no longer need those special provisions. It is absolutely not racist for a state to decide how to run its elections, so long as that law is applied equally. Not only this, but African Americans more often than not outvote their percentage of the population, and more of them voted for Trump in 2020 than did in 2016. Is this voter suppression? I have a damn good feeling that African Americans will continue outvoting their percentage because nobody except for maybe 5 stupid KKK members are trying to keep them from voting. This is the kind of terrible rhetoric that will end up splitting the nation.
"can never win fairly" my a##.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Is this just history repeating itself?
Anytime Texas goes slightly purple, the GOP goes berserk with minority vote suppressing measures, the Democrats go AWOL, and next thing a minimally regulated militia goes hunting for said Democrats.

Another decade, another round of rounding up.

Republicans know if everyone is allowed to vote easily they’d lose.

To be honest, I'd expected better from you, Lumen. I guess you never really know a guy, huh?

[Mantodean Dictyop]

Technically,I am of the opinion that the current election laws are there because neither major party would win a majority fair and square - except on some local/municipal levels.

So I see "Iowa's" (AN) critique, and I agree, and I take it two steps further. Everybody cool with that?

[San Lumen]

Ok, so as I'm reading this thread I'm seeing a consistent but blatantly horrible trend. A lot of you left-leaning folks are of the opinion that Republicans can not ever win a fair election, ever. Therefore, there is active voter suppression and Republicans never win fairly.
This is potentially one of the most dangerous rhetorics I have ever heard from you guys here on NS. That is blatantly stupid and utterly false by every available point of data. It is simply mind-boggling that you can claim something like that when every other president is a Democrat, and the Democrats currently hold a majority in the House and Senate. THERE IS NO VOTER SUPPRESSION. PERIOD. None of these bills promote voter suppression anyway. Last year, when covid was still a much bigger issue than it is now, many states created special provisions for people to vote, which included mail-in balloting and an election that lasted forever. In case you guys haven't noticed, covid cases are down (for the moment), and we no longer need those special provisions. It is absolutely not racist for a state to decide how to run its elections, so long as that law is applied equally. Not only this, but African Americans more often than not outvote their percentage of the population, and more of them voted for Trump in 2020 than did in 2016. Is this voter suppression? I have a damn good feeling that African Americans will continue outvoting their percentage because nobody except for maybe 5 stupid KKK members are trying to keep them from voting. This is the kind of terrible rhetoric that will end up splitting the nation.
"can never win fairly" my a##.

tell me how banning poll watchers from being evicted for violating election law isn't voting suppression.