Comment by zahlman
2 days ago
> Naïve conservatives refuse to see the straight line from poll taxes to voter registration deadlines.
There is no such line. Of course the state and the people should be clear on who is and is not legally entitled to vote, in advance of actual voting. How could it be otherwise?
>How could it be otherwise?
I feel like acting like things are impossible which are done in other regions without issue is a losing argument, no?
What are you talking about? I made an "ought" claim, not an "is" one. No matter what democratic polity you're in, the government and the people should be aligned about who is and is not allowed to vote for that government. Otherwise you do not have anything that can be called a democracy.
Caught one! I jest. Probably.
Voter registration deadlines are a tool for paternalistic racists and classists to enforce their voter suppression agenda with the thinnest veil of plausible deniability. Here you are, declaring their denial as strictly plausible.
Maybe we could have voter registration deadlines if there weren't so many bad actors who use it as a tool for voter suppression, but apparently ~50% of US state governments can't be trusted with that responsibility.
Edit: that's actually the issue, inherently; many rules and requirements for voting sound reasonable when presented absent of the context of the entire history of the United States (especially in the apartheid South...), but there are literal neo-Klansmen who will twist and bend those rules into onerous requirements that make sure that only white wealthy people who live in certain zip codes and have plenty of flexibility in their schedule have an opportunity to vote.
And you fall for that trap with some sort of rationalist aloofness that's so common on this Silicon Valley technology forum. This is why being "woke" matters and the Trumpist campaign against historical literacy is critical to keeping certain states red. The historical literacy in some of these states is already abysmal (based on first-hand conversations), and to think it could get even worse...
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> there are literal neo-Klansmen who will twist and bend those rules into onerous requirements
The year is 2026, not 1956.
> And you fall for that trap with some sort of rationalist aloofness that's so common on this Silicon Valley technology forum.
It is not a "trap". It is what actually looking at actual evidence tells me.
By definition, "historical literacy" is something that tells you about what used to happen. This does not explain what currently happens.
What currently happens is explained by looking at contemporary evidence. I have, as a Canadian who constantly has to have these arguments because of the American cultural dominance of the Internet, looked into it quite a bit. It does not support your assertions.