Sinema, Manchin slammed as Senate begins voting bill debate | AP News

Maj John Bell You're hung up on voter fraud, but I'm more concerned about the suppression that has been made legal in several states that will allow partisan legislatures to override the choice of voters due to "supposed fraud". These states are making it legal to do what former guy tried to do but hit a roadblock.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - The Constitution doesn't need to state, "legislations can override the will of the voters." We do not live in a democracy. We live in a democratically elected representative republic. If it isn't a ballot proposal the voters do not make decisions on legislation. The voters' will is irrelevant until the next election.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - On the findlaw website, they provide the following definition of voter suppression.

"Voter suppression is a political strategy — usually at the party-level but sometimes conducted by zealous individuals — designed to prevent a group of would-be voters from registering to vote or voting."

Is that an adequate definition, or would you propose another?

Once we agree on a definition, Pick a state. Pick a piece of legislation that has passed or is being considered. Then tell me what specific part of the law suppresses voter registration or voting and how.

MSG Stan Hutchison - Anyone that claims voter suppression is really saying that people of color are not as capable as whites. Racist to the bone.

"Voting rights" is like "comprehensive immigration reform". The devil is in the definition.

1SG Russell Scott The States Rights argument is dumber now than it was when first introduced. Do you enjoy driving along interstates from state to state at a constant speed?

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - States right exist because Wyoming is not New York. Within the limits established by the Constitution, a satisfactory solution for one constituency may be unacceptable for another.

And what does that have to do with speed limits on the interstates.

It doesn't change at the whim of each party. Leave it alone.

Every GOP Senator voted no, so what? Clearly it didn't have bi-partisan support by the time it hit its' final form. How they voted is not near as telling as why their support changed.

Pure speculation on my part.

Both parties like to apply labels to the other whenever there is a wedge issue. For the most part those labels are misleading or outright false. But they help to energize the base and or retain single issue voters.

According to the GOP, democrats are
"Soft on crime"
"anti-military"
"Indifferent to veterans"
"Soft on national security"
"Tax and spend"
etc. etc. etc.

According to the democrats, republicans are
"anti-LGBTQ"
"racists"
"The part of voter suppression"
"The party of the wealthy"
etc. etc. etc.

Whenever there is bipartisan consensus on a wedge issue one side has feels works to their advantage, they demand more and more until the consensus is lost. Even better if they can get it down to a straight party line vote. They retain the wedge issue and don't risk the energizing effect on their base or give single party voters a chance to look at other issues.

Given an either-or choice between power or a significant solution to a national problem, or elected officials almost always choose power. We don't hold them accountable, so we get the government we deserve.

Maj John Bell - They voted no on even discussing the bill. After some Republicans helped write it.

MSG Stan Hutchison - Besides Senator Murkowski, who were the other "some Republicans?" Did Senator Murkowski help write the bill or did she co-sponsor it. There is a difference.

From the link: "Decisions to cosponsor legislation can be made for a variety of reasons, some of which might be unrelated to the text of the bill itself. As such, cosponsoring a bill should not be equated with a vote for final passage. In some cases, the text of a measure might have been amended following its introduction in ways a cosponsor can no longer support. In addition, Senate norms of behavior have long emphasized collegiality and deference to one’s colleagues, and some Senators may view co-sponsorship as the legislative equivalent of a common courtesy."

Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) expressed the sentiment this way: The bill may be 50 pages long, and I will not know what is in it from the enacting clause to the last period. But I do not wish to affront a Senator, and if he gives me a sufficient sales talk, I am likely to say, “All right, go ahead and add my name.” Then, when we finally get around to it, I discover at long last what I actually put my name to. Perhaps I will not like it. But how do you get out from under it? Because my name is there, notwithstanding. I could at some point take it off, but one does not wish to affront a fellow Senator by doing that.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/98-279.pdf