What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

[guest1163268]

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

20 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yeah, republican legislators would like us to believe that it's all just innocent attempts to keep elections secure.  That explanation works for those who don't want to look any further than those excuses for making voting less accessible for no good reason. 

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/

But voter identification isn't the focus of many of the new laws...and there was a flurry of new republican laws after Trump lost in the most secure election in our history. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021

 

When a person registers to vote, they have to prove who they are.  Is that not the process in every state?  Our requests for a ballot are ONLY sent to people who are already registered so have  already proven who they are.  When their ballot is read, the signature on the new ballot is compared with the signature they used originally to register.  I have never seen any proof from any Republican that this is somehow unsafe.  I did see that the blackest city in Wisconsin only had 5 polling sites open instead of the usual 180 and that the most left-leaning counties didn't get their ballots on time to send in so, if any rigging was done in Wisconsin, then it certainly favored the Republicans who were stupid enough to cry a foul on an election they won.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

My state has had all mail-in ballots for years. A Republican Secretary of State created and maintained the process, and it seems to go quite well. Even before this system, when you got to the polling place, you didn’t have to show ID or your voter registration. You gave the poll worker your name, she found you in the big book, and you signed your name attesting to you were who you said you were. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

I asked Muno how those laws will affect one side but not the other?

That's a very good question.  The answer is probably that it doesn't.  

Remember though it was Trump and other Republicans that said voting by mail benefited Democrats.  Which made it suspect that when Trump lost they immediately went into reform mode.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/who-votes-mail

Here is an interesting article.  But not really a scientific peer reviewed study.   It does seem that both sides have an agenda.

Quote

Voter suppression laws can hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans in states like Arizona, Florida, and Georgia, where legislative political power is still in the hands of Republicans, but population growth—and thus new voters—tends to be in Democratic areas. Voter expansion laws may not be critical to Democratic victories in California or Massachusetts, but they may help keep Virginia Democratic in a presidential election. The effect in the Senate could be minimal given that so many of the Senate seats up this year are very safe. But in the House, where the Democratic majority is very close, changes in the voting laws could be crucial.

 

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/10/26/voter-suppression-or-voter-expansion-whats-happening-and-does-it-matter/

9 minutes ago, Tweety said:

That's a very good question.  The answers is probably that it doesn't.  

Remember though it was Trump and other Republicans that said voting by mail benefited Democrats.  Which made it suspect that when Trump lost they immediately went into reform mode.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/who-votes-mail

Here is an interesting article.  But not really a scientific peer reviewed study.   It does seem that both sides have an agenda.

 

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/10/26/voter-suppression-or-voter-expansion-whats-happening-and-does-it-matter/

I'm gathering that one agenda might be to limit who votes and how they might vote and the other agenda might be to expand voting access...is that correct?  Only one of those agendas is dangerous to our democracy. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

9 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I'm gathering that one agenda might be to limit who votes and how they might vote and the other agenda might be to expand voting access...is that correct?  Only one of those agendas is dangerous to our democracy. 

Well, there is the idea that Beerman stated above about the Democrat agenda:  "Or, because Democrats keep coming up with ways that expose and put our elections at risk of fraud. No excuse necessary mail in voting, ballots mailed without being requested, long early voting periods, drive in voting, etc."  increases the risk of fraud which could be considered dangerous to our democracy.

[Beerman, BSN]

44 minutes ago, subee said:

When a person registers to vote, they have to prove who they are.  Is that not the process in every state?  Our requests for a ballot are ONLY sent to people who are already registered so have  already proven who they are.  When their ballot is read, the signature on the new ballot is compared with the signature they used originally to register.  I have never seen any proof from any Republican that this is somehow unsafe. 

What us the problem with providing a ID when you vote?   CA is now going to be automatically sending out 18 million ballots, whether you request one or not.  In Maryland, you can request one be sent forever.  Isn't it foreseeable that many of those will be sent to outdated addresses or people who have died?

49 minutes ago, subee said:

I did see that the blackest city in Wisconsin only had 5 polling sites open instead of the usual 180 and that the most left-leaning counties didn't get their ballots on time to send in

Do you have a source for this?  And, where I live the county sends out the ballots.  So, maybe it's the countie's fault people didn't get their ballots on time.

[Beerman, BSN]

25 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I'm gathering that one agenda might be to limit who votes and how they might vote and the other agenda might be to expand voting access...is that correct?  Only one of those agendas is dangerous to our democracy. 

I first asked this last Summer.  And, now you still haven't shared how the new laws (which similar ones have actually been in place for years, including some Democrat states) limit who votes.  And, now you're also saying how they might vote.

Explain "expanded voting access".  It's never been easier to vote.  Why is more and easier access necessary?

The Democratic agenda might include to make it easier for the countless new immigrants who have enetered our country to get a hold of a ballot.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

25 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Well, there is the idea that Beerman stated above about the Democrat agenda:  "Or, because Democrats keep coming up with ways that expose and put our elections at risk of fraud. No excuse necessary mail in voting, ballots mailed without being requested, long early voting periods, drive in voting, etc."  increases the risk of fraud which could be considered dangerous to our democracy.

I don't see how any of the above promote voter fraud with the exception of ballots being mailed out to unregistered voters.  Just because a ballot is mailed in early doesn't mean that the public should have access to that data before election day.

[Beerman, BSN]

5 minutes ago, subee said:

I don't see how any of the above promote voter fraud with the exception of ballots being mailed out to unregistered voters.  Just because a ballot is mailed in early doesn't mean that the public should have access to that data before election day.

They aren't sent to unregistered voters.  They are sent automatically to registered voters.

One issue with that is if you move and don't register at your new address, a ballot will be sent to your old address.  This did happen to us once.  The person who bought our house told us so and we went and got them.

Or, if you die a ballot will still be sent out.

Obviously,  in either of those cases, someone else might fill out your ballot.

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

Well, there is the idea that Beerman stated above about the Democrat agenda:  "Or, because Democrats keep coming up with ways that expose and put our elections at risk of fraud. No excuse necessary mail in voting, ballots mailed without being requested, long early voting periods, drive in voting, etc."  increases the risk of fraud which could be considered dangerous to our democracy.

Is there evidence that any of those things actually have resulted in more fraud...or is that conservative concern that justifies limiting mailed in ballots, early voting and the like? The election cycle that inspired so many new and restrictive election laws was considered the most secure in our history with more eligible voters participating than in the previous federal election. That's a good thing, right? Why does "safe and secure" inspire a raft of new restrictions to make elections safe and secure?

 

[MunoRN, RN]

11 hours ago, Beerman said:

What is it that you believe is being done to keep the other side from voting?

It's generally limitations to what facilitates voting for hourly workers particularly in urban areas.  I think this is incorrectly referred to as racist, these are more commonly minority voters, but it's directed at a socioeconomic class not a race.

"Traditional" voting: in person on a single day, can be pretty much impossible for an hourly worker to take part in.  These voters rely on things like mail-in voting, extended voting periods, etc.  

That's not counting efforts specific to the pandemic to discourage voters who are more likely to vote democrat from voting, I'm still not sure how disregard for a deadly virus became a political stance, but arguing that people should be required to vote in often crowded and cramped spaces became a republican tactic as well.

I see no problem with sending out ballots proactively, the claim that this is ripe for voter fraud is a stretch to say the least.  The same measures are taken regardless of whether or not mail-in ballots are sent out on specific request or proactively, there is still going to be a check of whether that's the current legal address for that voter, and if they are deceased or not.

45 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I first asked this last Summer.  And, now you still haven't shared how the new laws (which similar ones have actually been in place for years, including some Democrat states) limit who votes.  And, now you're also saying how they might vote.

Explain "expanded voting access".  It's never been easier to vote.  Why is more and easier access necessary?

The Democratic agenda might include to make it easier for the countless new immigrants who have enetered our country to get a hold of a ballot.

Nope. There were definitely multiple articles and other published information cited that spell out how the new laws serve to limit access to voting or otherwise make voting more inconvenient. 

I'm a little surprised that you would ask why it's important for all eligible citizens to have convenient and unencumbered access to voting.  Didn't you learn in high school that voting is the most important way that a citizen interacts with their government? Weren't you raised with the belief that we have a duty to inform ourselves and participate in our local and federal elections? Maybe you believe that voting is a privilege rather than a right...I believe that voting is a right that shouldn't be limited by partisan political agendas. 

The Democratic agenda might be to have illegals voting, but in the absence of any evidence that's true it just sounds like more baloney made up and passed around as true in conservative circles. It certainly justifies limiting voting in immigrant communities though, right?