[magellan]

Originally Posted by papafox

Can someone explain why Michigan has reliably gone Democrat in the last several presidential elections, but on the other hand has a Republican governor and also Republican control of both chambers of the state legislature?

I'm not here to start a political fight, but am genuinely curious as to why there is a split like this.

Thanks

Gerrymandering. The Republican controlled legislature has taken it upon themselves to redraw voting district lines so they retain their power, even though they receive fewer votes every election cycle (for most races).

[Coldjensens]

Detroit.

When Detroit votes, we are Blue, when Detroit cannot be bothered to vote (non-presidential elections) we are purple or red.

[Ummagumma]

Implying that all Republican voters are "poorly informed" shows nothing but bias. As if the people who voted for Kwame were so much better informed because he was a Democrat. There's enough lies, corruption and shameless political agenda on both sides. And enough idiots who mindlessly repeat it.

To understand Michigan, one must realize that a large percentage of it's voters have divided loyalties. On one hand, they are Union members and therefore are Democrats. On the other hand, they are fairly conservative, religious and pro-2A, and on anything that doesn't involve Union / labor issues, are far more likely to side with Republicans.

They are also largely fed up with both parties and ever happy to show them a virtual middle finger every now and then. Like voting for a Dem president but then electing Republicans for local positions.

This is why MI is and will remain a swing state.

[tuebor]

^Eh? Who implied that all Republican voters are "poorly informed"?

On voter suppression, this essay by WSU's Jack Lessenberry discusses current and past GOP attempts to outlaw straight-ticket voting as an example of this.

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by tuebor

^Eh? Who implied that all Republican voters are "poorly informed"?

On voter suppression, this essay by WSU's Jack Lessenberry discusses current and past GOP attempts to outlaw straight-ticket voting as an example of this.

I misread the initial "low information voters" comment, my bad.

On voter suppression - both parties are at fault here. There's quite a bit direct intimidation and bullying going on at the Union hall meetings and inner city "get out to vote" campaigns, that I've observed with my own eyes.

I do side with Republicans on this - if you don't have an ID, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

I misread the initial "low information voters" comment, my bad.

On voter suppression - both parties are at fault here. There's quite a bit direct intimidation and bullying going on at the Union hall meetings and inner city "get out to vote" campaigns, that I've observed with my own eyes.

I do side with Republicans on this - if you don't have an ID, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Having lived in a no id state (California) and watched people in line look in the book to see who they will claim to be, I have to agree. I find it hard to believe requiring ID is repressive when you must have ID to drive, go to an R rated movie, buy alcohol, use a credit card, open a bank account, rent an apartment, walk down the street if you are over 16, fly on an airplane, enter the democratic or republican conventions, rent a car, boat, snowmobile or even a bicycle. . . .

I see ticket voting as voter suppression. Rather than figuring out who is good, people are encouraged to just check the box they are told to check. Blind voting is suppressing their right to decide. It is not really difficult to check each box. If you are capable of checking one box, you are capable of checking several and deciding on each person or issue for yourself. Party voting is for people who want to keep voters from thinking about each vote.

[Geo-Aggie]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Having lived in a no id state (California) and watched people in line look in the book to see who they will claim to be, I have to agree. I find it hard to believe requiring ID is repressive when you must have ID to drive, go to an R rated movie, buy alcohol, use a credit card, open a bank account, rent an apartment, walk down the street if you are over 16, fly on an airplane, enter the democratic or republican conventions, rent a car, boat, snowmobile or even a bicycle. . . .

I see ticket voting as voter suppression. Rather than figuring out who is good, people are encouraged to just check the box they are told to check. Blind voting is suppressing their right to decide. It is not really difficult to check each box. If you are capable of checking one box, you are capable of checking several and deciding on each person or issue for yourself. Party voting is for people who want to keep voters from thinking about each vote.

Liberal here: I actually completely agree with the statements Codjensens makes. The movements to simplify voting are simply an attempt by one party to grab more votes without earning them. I don't want that. If the Democratic Party is to retain its traditional core voters, it needs to field candidates who will earn those votes through policy and grassroots political campaigning, not through money and having the right connections to get votes during primary season. The single-party box is absolute murder to third party candidates and if you don't have some form of ID (whether it be a drivers license or other state issued card) then you've got some work to do before voting day.

That being said, I'd love to see same-day registration, the ability to issue IDs at polling stations, and the ability for voters to read a paragraph or two bio on candidates at the polls. Voting should be easy and transparent, what it shouldn't be is simplified for the sake of biasing votes to one party with a thin veil of "fairness" laid over it.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie

.

That being said, I'd love to see same-day registration, the ability to issue IDs at polling stations, and the ability for voters to read a paragraph or two bio on candidates at the polls. Voting should be easy and transparent, what it shouldn't be is simplified for the sake of biasing votes to one party with a thin veil of "fairness" laid over it.

Same day registration would be fine if they could verify identification and citizenship. It really frustrated me that illegal aliens voted in California. Legal long term residents, maybe. People who come here illegally - no.

California did have voter booklets that explained ballot proposals had for and against positions, short bios and statements from candidates. However, where I voted, the sometimes did not have any of those booklets in English. Only Spanish, Korean and Tongan. One time they told me "We did have two in English - someone must have taken them." They mailed out copies too, so I just had to remember to bring my copy with me. I usually wrote notes on it anyway. There were too many things to vote on to just remember where you stood after researching each one. They tended to be cleverly worded to deceive voters and the pro and con statements were often just false.

[tuebor]

^Cj, could you tell us more about your experience? How do you know that illegal aliens voted in significant numbers, or that the people you saw in line were looking in the book to see who they would claim to be?

Re: straight-ticket voting: there is no neutral, objectively fair position here. One way favors one side, the other way favors the other side. So how should we resolve it? First of all, the voters have spoken. They have clearly stated through more than one referendum that they want this option (see that Jack Lessenberry link, above). Secondly, there is efficiency. Everyone benefits when voting goes quickly; doing away with straight ticket voting will significantly increase the time we all have to spend in line. But then that suggests that there is a fairness issue after all, because the people who can't afford to spend a long time in line tend to vote Democratic.

[edit: ok, there are more than two sides. But 3rd parties could get straight-ticket boxes of their own, assuming they can field a slate of candidates. Those who can't are already appealing to split-ticket voters anyway.]

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by tuebor

^Cj, could you tell us more about your experience? How do you know that illegal aliens voted in significant numbers, or that the people you saw in line were looking in the book to see who they would claim to be?

Re: straight-ticket voting: there is no neutral, objectively fair position here. One way favors one side, the other way favors the other side. So how should we resolve it? First of all, the voters have spoken. They have clearly stated through more than one referendum that they want this option (see that Jack Lessenberry link, above). Secondly, there is efficiency. Everyone benefits when voting goes quickly; doing away with straight ticket voting will significantly increase the time we all have to spend in line. But then that suggests that there is a fairness issue after all, because the people who can't afford to spend a long time in line tend to vote Democratic.

[edit: ok, there are more than two sides. But 3rd parties could get straight-ticket boxes of their own, assuming they can field a slate of candidates. Those who can't are already appealing to split-ticket voters anyway.]

How do I know illegal aliens voted -

1. Friends who were illegal aliens told me they voted. They thought it was funny. Some of them did it just for fun or to promote issues they wanted to pass or fail. In most cases, they got paid to vote. They would go to different locations and vote over and over as different people in different locations. One friend told me he got paid $25 or $50 (I do not remember the amount except that it was not much given they were probably committing a crime) to go to 10 places and vote. They gave him and others rides to the polling places. I do not know whether all the people being paid to vote as someone else were illegal aliens, but I do know it appealed to illegal aliens. It was quick easy money.

2. I was involved in some political efforts to a limited extent. There were political promoters on both sides of the aisle who said they used hired illegal aliens to vote. One guy claimed the other party bused people up from the border to come vote. He said he saw them coming off the buses. I do not have any other evidence the last part was true, but I believe this guy. He had no reason to lie to me and he was admitting that he had also paid illegal aliens for votes. The context was they were trying to collect money. I asked what for and he took me aside and told me. I expressed shock and he explained it was standard practice employed by both parties, but never by the politicians themselves. They were protected by several layers of people/groups so they could truthfully day they did not encourage it and did not know it was going on. I told him I wanted nothing further to do with the group. Later I asked another organizer on a different issue. He also agreed he knew it is common practice, but he and our group had nothing to do with those underhanded tactics.

How do I know that I saw people come in, look at the book and say they were a person from the book? Because I saw it when I voted. The first time I realized it, a guy behind me claimed to be one of my neighbors and I saw him look at the book and get the name when they looked up my name. I knew he was not my neighbor. I called him out on it, he denied it and claimed he was my neighbor. The polling place person person just looked panicked and did nothing. Once I realized it was happening, I hung around and watched after voting, and I always saw people doing it. I never knew what to do about it, I just watched because it was amazing that this was going on. It made me mad when I was involved in small local issues and I knew hired people would be voting as other people.

Two other friends went to vote and were told they had already voted and could not vote. During that discussion a person at an adjoining table said it had happened to them too. I am assuming someone came in and voted in their name. There is no other way that would have happened.