Cuomo is not a good example of an mainline Democrat. He sides with Republicans in the state senate as often as Democrats. The only NY politician with a worse approval rating is Mayor DeBlasio.
Election reform is a major piece of the Democratic party platform, and has been for a very long time.
Whenever it comes up in Congress, the vote is party-line: all Democrats in favor of more secure and less money-influenced elections, all Republicans opposed.
No, it's all Democrats in favor of things that they know will net them more Democrat votes, and Republicans against them, and vice versa, of course. Why are the Democrats upset about the census not counting "migrants" and going to court to block attempts to make the census only count citizens? Well, you could try to derive an answer from first principles... or you could just count votes, and come to the correct answer much more quickly.
Don't be so silly as to believe their spin about "getting money out of the election"; such reforms are not hypothetical things that may happen in the future, reforms have been passed are in effect, and, lo, money is still in politics.
> Why are the Democrats upset about the census not counting "migrants" and going to court to block attempts to make the census only count citizens?
You are a bit off on that.
The census is supposed to count everyone resident in the US, regardless of citizenship status or legality of their presence here. It's been that way since the Census Act of 1790. (And it does not count US citizens who are not resident in the US, except for Federal employees and their dependents).
The issue with adding a question about citizenship is that it might discourage some people from responding to the census, reducing the accuracy of the count. The Census Bureau estimates that about 6.5 million people will not respond if the question is included.
There are legitimate reasons for the government to want to know how many citizens are resident in the country, and how they are distributed, but they already have that data from the American Community Survey which does include a citizenship question (in fact, I believe, the same question they are trying to add to the census).
The experts at the Census Bureau unanimously recommended not including the question (as did six former directors of the Bureau, both Republican and Democrat). The Commerce Secretary overruled them, claiming that the Justice Department said it wanted the question added to somehow better enforce the Voting Rights Act. (Emails between the Secretary and the DoJ that were introduced in one of the trials over this show that this is not true--the DoJ told him that the question was unnecessary).
Here's a recent article that covers most of this [1].
This is a non sequitur response to an informed and interesting comment, which 'tzs clearly took pains to compose and which addresses in detail the claim you made above. You'd have been better off not commenting at all than writing this.
I disagree. tzs keeps trying to pin me down to disagreeing with "Democrats want the vote to be solid and the evilnasty Republicans keep stopping them", but the point I want to make is that the theory that parties act in their interest is far more explanatory than the theory that the parties act in accordance with their stated principles. (Stated principles are of some modest help in determining why the parties are made up of the specific interests they are, but it's far from determinative.) Do the Democrats believe that any of the measures that tzs defends is going to increase Republican voting, and they are pursuing them even so? That would be relevant. Give me some evidence of that and I'll admit at the very least a rare admission against interest, and at most that I'm wrong about this. But I don't believe it to be true. I'm pretty sure they think that if they get those things, they'll get more Democrat votes.
How exactly Democrats defend their position for policies that will result in Democratic voting power isn't that relevant for my point.
> I disagree. tzs keeps trying to pin me down [...]
Excuse me? I just went through 90 days of your comment history, and as far as I can see my comment above in this thread is the only time in there (before this comment, of course) that I have responded to one of your comments. I don't see how you can claim "keeps trying to pin me down" from that.
First, that is nothing at all like what 'tzs said, and it's rude to suggest otherwise. Second, this new argument essentially shuts down the whole discussion. What you're saying is that there's no explanation about census policy that can override your somehow-infallible observation that this is all a political sideshow. Why bother participating in the discussion at all, then? You've already made that point. Did you need to make it 3 times?
I have a problem with the pattern on HN of someone taking the time to make an informed comment, and then others trying to shut that person down with handwaving and shouting. If you want to rebut 'tzs, do the legwork and rebut him.
Democrats consistently oppose all forms of voter ID, which is pretty much standard practice in most other developed countries. The usual explanation is that it amounts to racial profiling in practice, which is true enough with the implementations that GOP proposes - but then why not propose an implementation that doesn't have those problems (again, like most other developed countries already have)?
Don't forget that Maryland remains one of the most heavily gerrymandered states in the nation, either - and that gerrymander was carried out by the Dems, and is currently being defended in court by the state admin.
I'm also not convinced by their stance on counting non-citizens for the purpose of representation. I am not a citizen, and I cannot vote - but the effect of the present system is that a vote is effectively allocated to me, but then handed over to whichever side is first past the post in any election in my district, amplifying their voting power without my consent. Supposedly this is because they still "represent" me - but it's about as meaningful as the representation that the American colonies ostensibly had in the British parliament prior to the revolution. If voting power irregularities that stem from the electoral college are bad - and they are - this is no better. So why are Dems supporting it? The cynical answer is that it gives disproportionate voting power to areas with large immigrant non-citizen populations, which are mostly urban and lean strongly Dem. I'm not sure what a non-cynical answer is; I can't come up with one.
On the whole, I believe that it is correct to say that Dems are much more often in favor of less money influence on voting and broader franchise. But given situational examples to the contrary, it seems less like a principled stance, and more like the party interests being in alignment with those goals more often than they are for GOP. Which makes sense for a party that relies on a broader, larger coalition of diverse voters, rather than a monolithic key support group.
No Democrat any where opposes properly identifying voters.
One's identity and eligibility to vote is verified upon registration.
One's identity is confirmed when being issued a ballot.
The current system works so well, until recently [1], that there have been very few cases of voter or registration fraud.
If you are you unhappy with forms of identification accepted to be issued a ballot, then you should advocate that all voters are issued a government issued identification for free. Which is pretty much standard practice in most other developed countries.
Requiring government issued ID to vote that is not free is called a poll tax. And that's unconstitutional.
To clarify, all references to "Democrats" in my comment above are to Dem politicians, not necessarily their supporters. If I could vote, I'd vote for Dems myself, and to the extent that I can participate in politics by supporting political campaigns, I exclusively support Dem candidates of the more progressive variety.
> If you are you unhappy with forms of identification accepted to be issued a ballot, then you should advocate that all voters are issued a government issued identification for free. Which is pretty much standard practice in most other developed countries.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
The question is, why aren't Democrats doing that? Where is a bill that would package voter ID together with free and easy to get government-issued identification? Put it on the table, then let GOP vote it down and explain themselves.
> Requiring government issued ID to vote that is not free is called a poll tax. And that's unconstitutional.
Agreed. Do you feel the same way with respect to other rights, though? For example, with respect to various licensing and permitting schemes on gun ownership and carry?
Because universal federal ID is unpopular and also potentially constitutionally problematic. Then Social Security numbers were introduced, there was a lot of opposition that had to be overcome, including two supreme court challenges that were decided by one vote. Whenever Republicans propose voter ID and Democrats attach universal ID to make it equitable, the bill dies because universal ID is a sticky topic.
> Do you feel the same way with respect to other rights, though? For example, with respect to various licensing and permitting schemes on gun ownership and carry?
There are no such schemes in the United States. Anyone over the age of 18 can buy a gun in all 50 states unless disenfranchised by some other action, like a felony conviction. Some types of guns and some types of carry require special licenses, like concealment and handguns, but there is no general-purpose "gun license": you can always buy long arms for better or worse.
Can you give an example of a bill where Dems attached a universal free federal ID rider? I haven't heard of that before, and would like to research more. Most complaints about universal IDs in US are about a hypothetical mandatory ID, but you don't need it to be mandatory in this case; just make it available free to any citizen that requests one. So I'm curious if Dems added a mandatory clause there, or if not, then how did Repubs justified voting against.
(Side note: I'm not opposed to a mandatory federal ID, personally. Given the existence of SSN, driver licenses etc, it's just codifying the status quo in a way that allows it to be implemented far more efficiently. If the feds are going to track me anyway, I'd rather them at least use that information to provide services to me in a more efficient way.)
As far as guns, for starters, it's a right to keep and bear arms, so we have to talk about licenses to carry as well, not just licenses to possess. These licenses aren't free in any state that has them, and can be extremely expensive in some, to the point of hundreds of dollars. And note that handguns in particular are the one type of firearms that was specifically cited as protected in Heller, so this can't be justified on the grounds that they're somehow exotic and outside of the scope of 2A.
But there are also jurisdictions where mere possession requires a license - for example, FOID in Illinois, or the NYC permits. Those apply to long guns as well. And they also come with fees - in NYC, you have to pay $140 just to make an application, and then another $90 on top of that for fingerprinting, just to own a long gun.
Then there are indirect fees imposed by various requirements. For example, most states with universal background checks implement them by requiring an FFL transfer with the usual NICS gate. But those are carried out by private dealers, who charge essentially arbitrary fees for them. Most laws do not set any limits on those fees. And since the check is mandatory, there's no way to avoid them, effectively requiring paying money to exercise the right to own. (There's some obvious irony here in those laws effectively subsidizing local gun stores, by letting them get a cut on every private sale, but it's a separate issue.) Same thing with mandatory training.
To be clear, I don't think that universal background checks or carry permits are bad, or even that licenses to possess are bad. As a gun collector, I'd actually personally prefer license to possess to the current NICS arrangement - it would certainly make my life easier! - and it's also more efficient at enforcement. The point, rather, is that charging for those checks and permits amounts to limiting a constitutionally protected right only to those who can pay for it, effectively turning it into a privilege. And in that regard, it is very similar to a poll tax, and I can't see how one can be opposed without opposing the other on the same grounds. I oppose both, and other similar arrangements (e.g. funding the justice system via court fees).
> Can you give an example of a bill where Dems attached a universal free federal ID rider?
Because IDs are a State thing? States issue IDs (except for Passports, which the Feds issue). The Feds can't make the States issue IDs to everyone.
One of the big oppositions to ID laws is that it unfairly hurts poor voters more than rich ones. If you look at the demographic without IDs, they're mostly poor, rural or a marginalized community like native Americans.
The feds can issue their own ID, and require that the states recognize it for the purposes of voter identification, at least for federal elections.
But you're right, "federal" was an unnecessary qualifier. I would also be interested in any such bills on state level.
> One of the big oppositions to ID laws is that it unfairly hurts poor voters more than rich ones
That is only so because the voter ID laws you usually see in US are intentionally designed to do just that. But, as I wrote in my initial comment in this thread, most developed countries have some form of voter ID without those issues.
Hence why I don't buy the argument that voter ID is inherently discriminatory. And, logically, if your opposition to voter ID is on those grounds, then there should be a reasonable compromise here in form of implementing it, but in a non-discriminatory way. Hence my question about whether Dems have tried that anywhere.
Americans have conflicted opinions about privacy, security, civil liberties. I, for one, opposed Real ID until I grokked the counterintuitive notion that encrypting demographic data at rest (PII) is only feasible by issuing and using GUIDs. That subtle realization only happened after working on privacy issues for years, and sadly is still difficult to explain to non geeks.
"Often in US discussions, the term poll tax is used to mean a tax that must be paid in order to vote, rather than a capitation tax simply. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote on payment of a poll tax or any other type of tax."
Yes, "poll tax" here refers to the narrow US meaning, same as OP.
Why do you consider my point to be trolling? Yes, it's an argument often brought up in discussions of gun rights and reasonable gun regulation (long before this one guy you referenced mentioned it). That's because there's an obvious analogy here. Both are constitutional rights. In both cases, governments effectively do not allow to exercise those rights without paying. And in both cases, the payment isn't connected to any rational objective by the state - if it did, all the fees would be strictly what's necessary to cover the administrative costs to issue them. You don't need to be a Republican politician, or even right wing, to reach the conclusion that both are wrong in the same fundamental manner.
In fact, it's a much stronger argument from the left perspective, because it discriminates on economic class, turning 2A a privilege for the rich. And it might surprise you, but there are actually quite a few pro-gun people on the left who genuinely care about such things. You just don't hear about it much, because the media spotlight is always on NRA and co, which oblige by providing plenty of extreme right-wing red meat for the headlines. If you go by those headlines, it's not surprising to feel like the right owns the topic entirely - but this ignores groups like NAAGA, Black Women's Defense League, Liberal Gun Club, Pink Pistols, SRA, Redneck Revolt etc.
I also have to note that, while the 24th Amendment did ban poll taxes for federal elections, it didn't apply to state elections. It was a separate SCOTUS ruling that banned them there as well, and they reached that conclusion from the 14th Amendment alone, without referencing 24A at all. On the other hand, there's Murdock v. Pennsylvania, which specifically said that "a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution" - the case itself was about freedom of religion under 1A, but the principle is obviously more broad than that.
But supposing that such protections do require an explicit amendment to implement - if you agree that 24A was a necessary amendment with a good rationale behind it, why would the same rationale not apply to other protected rights in principle, regardless of the current inconsistent state of affairs in practice?
Election reform is a major piece of the Democratic party platform, and has been for a very long time.
Whenever it comes up in Congress, the vote is party-line: all Democrats in favor of more secure and less money-influenced elections, all Republicans opposed.