Mixing
Are there cases of Democrats engaging in voter suppression?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Republicans are using a number of different tactics to suppress the right to vote for minorities. Examples include closing of polling places in predominantly black areas, requiring specific IDs less likely to be owned by minorities, purging voter registrations of specific demographics, keeping voter registrations of specific demographics on hold, limiting voting to times preferred by white people, or misinforming specific demographics about voting location or time.
Are there also cases of Democrats suppressing the right to vote for demographics that are less likely to vote for them? If so, do the tactics mirror the listed tactics of Republicans, or are they different?
united-states election voting democratic-party
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Republicans are using a number of different tactics to suppress the right to vote for minorities. Examples include closing of polling places in predominantly black areas, requiring specific IDs less likely to be owned by minorities, purging voter registrations of specific demographics, keeping voter registrations of specific demographics on hold, limiting voting to times preferred by white people, or misinforming specific demographics about voting location or time.
Are there also cases of Democrats suppressing the right to vote for demographics that are less likely to vote for them? If so, do the tactics mirror the listed tactics of Republicans, or are they different?
united-states election voting democratic-party
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Republicans are using a number of different tactics to suppress the right to vote for minorities. Examples include closing of polling places in predominantly black areas, requiring specific IDs less likely to be owned by minorities, purging voter registrations of specific demographics, keeping voter registrations of specific demographics on hold, limiting voting to times preferred by white people, or misinforming specific demographics about voting location or time.
Are there also cases of Democrats suppressing the right to vote for demographics that are less likely to vote for them? If so, do the tactics mirror the listed tactics of Republicans, or are they different?
united-states election voting democratic-party
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
Republicans are using a number of different tactics to suppress the right to vote for minorities. Examples include closing of polling places in predominantly black areas, requiring specific IDs less likely to be owned by minorities, purging voter registrations of specific demographics, keeping voter registrations of specific demographics on hold, limiting voting to times preferred by white people, or misinforming specific demographics about voting location or time.
Are there also cases of Democrats suppressing the right to vote for demographics that are less likely to vote for them? If so, do the tactics mirror the listed tactics of Republicans, or are they different?
united-states election voting democratic-party
united-states election voting democratic-party
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
asked 2 hours ago
tim
15k53971
15k53971
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there are no reported cases of Democrats suppressing votes in the same manner as Republicans are seen to be doing, however there are still some accusations of voter suppression that have been leveled at the party.
Scheduling Off-Cycle Elections
Democrats have, in general, stood against attempts to bring local election schedules in line with one another. It is thought by some that this is because having these elections at unusual times leads to only the most motivated voters bothering to show up at the polls. Often, these are the workers directly affected by the election. For more information, take a look at this article.
Primary Elections
There have been accusations that Democrats deliberately make it difficult to switch your party affiliation to vote for an inspiring candidate in an attempt to ensure that mainstream, establishment candidates get the democratic nomination. For more information on the phenomenon, take a look here.
In general, however, these cases seem more isolated than the Republican attempts, and to generally be isolated to elections with somewhat lower stakes. This is likely why they are less reported on, and not seen as such an intense issue.
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
If historical answers are acceptable, then Democrats wrote the book on racist voter suppression. Wikipedia's article Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era covers the Southern Democrat's foul tricks such as: poll taxes; literacy tests with grandfather clauses so that whites who were illiterate could vote while blacks who were illiterate could not; white primaries; and virtual impunity for murderous white racist paramilitary violence and tyranny. In those days it was the Radical Republicans who fought against voter suppression.
The two parties virtually traded places on racism in the mid-20th century, which sometimes leads to brand confusion. Sometimes modern racist Republicans exploit this brand confusion by calling themselves "The Party of Lincoln" whilst advocating policies Lincoln would not have admired.
So there's a vile history of racist voter suppression on both sides. Voter suppression is not one party's problem, it's everyone's, (or at least everyone who's not a racist), and should properly be regarded as a general bipartisan reform issue.
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there are no reported cases of Democrats suppressing votes in the same manner as Republicans are seen to be doing, however there are still some accusations of voter suppression that have been leveled at the party.
Scheduling Off-Cycle Elections
Democrats have, in general, stood against attempts to bring local election schedules in line with one another. It is thought by some that this is because having these elections at unusual times leads to only the most motivated voters bothering to show up at the polls. Often, these are the workers directly affected by the election. For more information, take a look at this article.
Primary Elections
There have been accusations that Democrats deliberately make it difficult to switch your party affiliation to vote for an inspiring candidate in an attempt to ensure that mainstream, establishment candidates get the democratic nomination. For more information on the phenomenon, take a look here.
In general, however, these cases seem more isolated than the Republican attempts, and to generally be isolated to elections with somewhat lower stakes. This is likely why they are less reported on, and not seen as such an intense issue.
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there are no reported cases of Democrats suppressing votes in the same manner as Republicans are seen to be doing, however there are still some accusations of voter suppression that have been leveled at the party.
Scheduling Off-Cycle Elections
Democrats have, in general, stood against attempts to bring local election schedules in line with one another. It is thought by some that this is because having these elections at unusual times leads to only the most motivated voters bothering to show up at the polls. Often, these are the workers directly affected by the election. For more information, take a look at this article.
Primary Elections
There have been accusations that Democrats deliberately make it difficult to switch your party affiliation to vote for an inspiring candidate in an attempt to ensure that mainstream, establishment candidates get the democratic nomination. For more information on the phenomenon, take a look here.
In general, however, these cases seem more isolated than the Republican attempts, and to generally be isolated to elections with somewhat lower stakes. This is likely why they are less reported on, and not seen as such an intense issue.
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there are no reported cases of Democrats suppressing votes in the same manner as Republicans are seen to be doing, however there are still some accusations of voter suppression that have been leveled at the party.
Scheduling Off-Cycle Elections
Democrats have, in general, stood against attempts to bring local election schedules in line with one another. It is thought by some that this is because having these elections at unusual times leads to only the most motivated voters bothering to show up at the polls. Often, these are the workers directly affected by the election. For more information, take a look at this article.
Primary Elections
There have been accusations that Democrats deliberately make it difficult to switch your party affiliation to vote for an inspiring candidate in an attempt to ensure that mainstream, establishment candidates get the democratic nomination. For more information on the phenomenon, take a look here.
In general, however, these cases seem more isolated than the Republican attempts, and to generally be isolated to elections with somewhat lower stakes. This is likely why they are less reported on, and not seen as such an intense issue.
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
As far as I know, there are no reported cases of Democrats suppressing votes in the same manner as Republicans are seen to be doing, however there are still some accusations of voter suppression that have been leveled at the party.
Scheduling Off-Cycle Elections
Democrats have, in general, stood against attempts to bring local election schedules in line with one another. It is thought by some that this is because having these elections at unusual times leads to only the most motivated voters bothering to show up at the polls. Often, these are the workers directly affected by the election. For more information, take a look at this article.
Primary Elections
There have been accusations that Democrats deliberately make it difficult to switch your party affiliation to vote for an inspiring candidate in an attempt to ensure that mainstream, establishment candidates get the democratic nomination. For more information on the phenomenon, take a look here.
In general, however, these cases seem more isolated than the Republican attempts, and to generally be isolated to elections with somewhat lower stakes. This is likely why they are less reported on, and not seen as such an intense issue.
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
edited 24 mins ago
BobE
2,3701725
2,3701725
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
answered 2 hours ago
CoedRhyfelwr
516128
516128
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
CoedRhyfelwr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
1
1
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
+1 The first point is very interesting. I heard that Democrats are at a disadvantage in the midterms, and just assumed that that disadvantage scales further down (so they would actually not prefer off-cycle elections). But the linked analysis seems very reasonable. I'm not that much interested in primaries, as afaik parties could decide on their front-runner however they want (they could just throw a coin, or dictatorially determine the front-runner by party elders).
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
If historical answers are acceptable, then Democrats wrote the book on racist voter suppression. Wikipedia's article Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era covers the Southern Democrat's foul tricks such as: poll taxes; literacy tests with grandfather clauses so that whites who were illiterate could vote while blacks who were illiterate could not; white primaries; and virtual impunity for murderous white racist paramilitary violence and tyranny. In those days it was the Radical Republicans who fought against voter suppression.
The two parties virtually traded places on racism in the mid-20th century, which sometimes leads to brand confusion. Sometimes modern racist Republicans exploit this brand confusion by calling themselves "The Party of Lincoln" whilst advocating policies Lincoln would not have admired.
So there's a vile history of racist voter suppression on both sides. Voter suppression is not one party's problem, it's everyone's, (or at least everyone who's not a racist), and should properly be regarded as a general bipartisan reform issue.
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
If historical answers are acceptable, then Democrats wrote the book on racist voter suppression. Wikipedia's article Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era covers the Southern Democrat's foul tricks such as: poll taxes; literacy tests with grandfather clauses so that whites who were illiterate could vote while blacks who were illiterate could not; white primaries; and virtual impunity for murderous white racist paramilitary violence and tyranny. In those days it was the Radical Republicans who fought against voter suppression.
The two parties virtually traded places on racism in the mid-20th century, which sometimes leads to brand confusion. Sometimes modern racist Republicans exploit this brand confusion by calling themselves "The Party of Lincoln" whilst advocating policies Lincoln would not have admired.
So there's a vile history of racist voter suppression on both sides. Voter suppression is not one party's problem, it's everyone's, (or at least everyone who's not a racist), and should properly be regarded as a general bipartisan reform issue.
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If historical answers are acceptable, then Democrats wrote the book on racist voter suppression. Wikipedia's article Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era covers the Southern Democrat's foul tricks such as: poll taxes; literacy tests with grandfather clauses so that whites who were illiterate could vote while blacks who were illiterate could not; white primaries; and virtual impunity for murderous white racist paramilitary violence and tyranny. In those days it was the Radical Republicans who fought against voter suppression.
The two parties virtually traded places on racism in the mid-20th century, which sometimes leads to brand confusion. Sometimes modern racist Republicans exploit this brand confusion by calling themselves "The Party of Lincoln" whilst advocating policies Lincoln would not have admired.
So there's a vile history of racist voter suppression on both sides. Voter suppression is not one party's problem, it's everyone's, (or at least everyone who's not a racist), and should properly be regarded as a general bipartisan reform issue.
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
If historical answers are acceptable, then Democrats wrote the book on racist voter suppression. Wikipedia's article Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era covers the Southern Democrat's foul tricks such as: poll taxes; literacy tests with grandfather clauses so that whites who were illiterate could vote while blacks who were illiterate could not; white primaries; and virtual impunity for murderous white racist paramilitary violence and tyranny. In those days it was the Radical Republicans who fought against voter suppression.
The two parties virtually traded places on racism in the mid-20th century, which sometimes leads to brand confusion. Sometimes modern racist Republicans exploit this brand confusion by calling themselves "The Party of Lincoln" whilst advocating policies Lincoln would not have admired.
So there's a vile history of racist voter suppression on both sides. Voter suppression is not one party's problem, it's everyone's, (or at least everyone who's not a racist), and should properly be regarded as a general bipartisan reform issue.
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
edited 2 mins ago
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
answered 8 mins ago
agc
4,2341346
4,2341346
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34671%2fare-there-cases-of-democrats-engaging-in-voter-suppression%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
