Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4311)	1/2/2017 3:56:00 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357320

How does voter suppression occur in NC? What are the mechanics used? Are they trying to suppress the black voter? Poor voters? I hear this charge levied a lot by liberals but haven't fully understood how this takes place?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4311)	1/2/2017 4:27:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 357320

I'm not sure I even agree with you fully about the motive. In my opinion its almost all about supressing voter fraud. I think the people pushing it have an exaggerated fear of voter fraud, and an exaggerated belief about how well their proposals could deal with it, but it isn't a totally bogus issue either, and even if it was, that would go to false belief more than malicious motivation. Sure some people believe its a good way to address what they see as a real or potential problem, but also one that could work to their advantage politically, others would be using it as a cover for their desire for political advantage, and a few even might be open about the seeking of political advantage, but for most it is seen as a serious attempt to rectify what they see as a serious problem. But lets accept malicious motivation for the movement for sake of argument. The motive isn't really important to my point. Failed voter suppression is still a failure at suppressing votes. Part of, perhaps most of, our disagreement seems to be definitional. I wouldn't call adding small inconveniences to voting "voter suppression". To the extent it is called that I then wouldn't consider all "voter suppression" to be enraging or seriously abusive. I'd rather keep "voter supression" as a term of the truly outrageous, and if it isn't then some other term would have to be used for the outrageous while "voter suppression", would be something that should lose its connotations of outrageous behavior. In a totally different area, some would call "rape", what is sexual assault without being rape, and/or call sexual assault what is probably better termed harassment (or in some cases not even that), and also define harassment in a very broad way. That helps lead to the claims that a very large percentage of women (in general or very often on college campuses) are sexually assaulted or even raped. Which isn't to say that creepy behavior that falls short of sexual assault, or even actionable sexual harassment should be considered totally acceptable, just that conflating terms and using overly broad definitions muddies things. You get less objectionable (and even sometimes unobjectionable) things defined in to more objectionable categories. Staying along the lines of sex treating 17 year olds texting racy pics of themselves to someone they are dating as child pornographers is probably an even more extreme case of this (at least since it is more likely to involve actual prosecution) Getting back to "voter suppression" - Do you think the combination of outright suppression (to the extent it actually occurred) , more broadly defined "suppression" (requirements for picture IDs and such which I would not consider supression), and voter fraud shifted the net vote to the Republicans by more than 173,310 votes in the state of North Carolina? I really doubt it, esp. since that combination would hardly have been just for one party. And of course for it to have changed the election outcome it would have had to have shifted more than just NC.