Voting Rights

[RiverDog]

Would it help you if I said that they put the "food and drink" part in there under the guise that it was about soliciting votes. To me it doesn't matter (it matters in the sense that it is despicable but not in the sense that I understand why it is there) all I was doing was explaining why it was there. It is definitely about soliciting votes via those means (handing out food and drink), I mean that is very clear in the wording of the law. All I was doing was addressing your OP where you said,

"A section of the Georgia law that I thought absurd was the part where it made it illegal to give someone standing in line to vote food and water. I haven't read the entire law to see if there's some sort of catch, such as selling stuff to awaiting voters, but it's hard to imagine why that would be a concern to the integrity of the process."

If people were giving away food for votes I think we both could agree that would be a 'concern to the integrity of the process.'

To me the fact that it is similar to previous Georgia law isn't relevant. Laws routinely get more specific over time if they aren't being enforced the way they were intended. Like you said maybe the law wasn't being enforced the way it was previously written so they wanted to get more specific, but like I said it really doesn't matter. I completely agree this main motivation behind the law probably is about voter suppression and if that is the case it is deplorable.

I do not like passing laws unless there is a demonstrated need. Pass enough laws and you'll make law breakers out of all of us. My default position on any legislation is to vote no unless I can be convinced otherwise by the side proposing the legislation. I still don't understand why the old law is inadequate.

The other problem I have is that this is a completely partisan bill passed on a straight party line vote and signed into law by a Republican governor, so it really makes me wonder what the motivation is behind this legislation. Voting procedures is something that most people, at least moderates and independents, should be able to agree on despite their political persuasion, and the fact that this is a completely partisan bill is very concerning.

I'm four square behind voter ID provided that it's free, but I wouldn't want to see it passed on a strictly party line vote.

[mykc14]

I do not like passing laws unless there is a demonstrated need. Pass enough laws and you'll make law breakers out of all of us. My default position on any legislation is to vote no unless I can be convinced otherwise by the side proposing the legislation. I still don't understand why the old law is inadequate.

The other problem I have is that this is a completely partisan bill passed on a straight party line vote and signed into law by a Republican governor, so it really makes me wonder what the motivation is behind this legislation. Voting procedures is something that most people, at least moderates and independents, should be able to agree on despite their political persuasion, and the fact that this is a completely partisan bill is very concerning.

I'm four square behind voter ID provided that it's free, but I wouldn't want to see it passed on a strictly party line vote.

I tend to agree with this. Obviously we don't know the specifics behind the motivation of the Bill but it would not shock me in the least bit if it were to suppress Democrat voters.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't understand the voting bill. Last election more Republicans were standing in line than Democrats because their Clown Lord told them mail in voting bad. So this would seem to have a more prominent effect on Republicans. It would be interesting to see what data they're going on to determine the reason for this bill.

Parts of it I understand as I believe proving you're a citizen to vote is important. I'm still not sure why that isn't a law. It is absolutely ridiculous to have a system where a bunch of foreigners could pile in and vote in an election by mail. Though I can't imagine that happens too much, but who knows.

But I can't imagine the reason for the food and water law unless they have clear proof either party was handing out food and drink for votes. If some BBQ joint were handing out ribs for votes, then I'd understand. If I were some undecided voter who loved ribs, I'd vote the way they want for some free ribs. If you're not invested, then who cares and ribs taste great. But if that isn't the case, then I don't know what happened to cause them to add this.

The other stuff is administrative gobbly-gook that I don't see much of an issue with. Just tightens everything up for everyone. That makes sense given how long it took Georgia to do its counts an its odd run off rules.

[Aseahawkfan]

I tend to agree with this. Obviously we don't know the specifics behind the motivation of the Bill but it would not shock me in the least bit if it were to suppress Democrat voters.

I'm not understanding what parts of the bill will target Democrats given Republicans are more likely to stand in lines. Sometimes who they are suppressing doesn't make sense given the available information and the text of the law itself.

[RiverDog]

I tend to agree with this. Obviously we don't know the specifics behind the motivation of the Bill but it would not shock me in the least bit if it were to suppress Democrat voters.

I'm not understanding what parts of the bill will target Democrats given Republicans are more likely to stand in lines. Sometimes who they are suppressing doesn't make sense given the available information and the text of the law itself.

My understanding is that the longest voting lines in GA this past election were in predominantly black urban areas that vote heavily for Democrats, hence their reaction to the not handing out food/drink part. Voter ID/registration is always going to be an issue for Democrats as most people on the lower end of the income ladder tend to vote Democratic and don't always have the means/motivation to acquire an acceptable ID just for the purpose of casting a vote.

I have to point to the fact that the GA bill was completely partisan, with 100% of the R's in favor of it, 100% of the Dems in opposition. Whether it be this bill or the coronavirus relief bill recently passed on the federal level, it should raise concern when one party is ramming something down the throats of the other when they have been unable to articulate its merits well enough to persuade even a single vote out of scores of legislators/Congressmen from the opposite side of the aisle.

[Hawktawk]

These laws were passed in the immediate aftermath of a wipeout at the national level . It’s a fig leaf for republicans who were attacked by Trump but it is 100% designed to suppress black voters . The timing says it all. Good luck with that you racist white yee haws. I think it’s going to backfire like trumps big lie backfired on the Republican senate candidates . I think Georgia democrats of all colors have had it with the trumplican party .

[Aseahawkfan]

My understanding is that the longest voting lines in GA this past election were in predominantly black urban areas that vote heavily for Democrats, hence their reaction to the not handing out food/drink part. Voter ID/registration is always going to be an issue for Democrats as most people on the lower end of the income ladder tend to vote Democratic and don't always have the means/motivation to acquire an acceptable ID just for the purpose of casting a vote.

I have to point to the fact that the GA bill was completely partisan, with 100% of the R's in favor of it, 100% of the Dems in opposition. Whether it be this bill or the coronavirus relief bill recently passed on the federal level, it should raise concern when one party is ramming something down the throats of the other when they have been unable to articulate its merits well enough to persuade even a single vote out of scores of legislators/Congressmen from the opposite side of the aisle.

So they have data on this? Ok. That would make more sense. Was it for the Senate or Presidential races? Or do we know? I know the Senate races were tightly contested.

If this is focused on race, it should be struck down and hard. We shall see.

[Hawk Sista]

There was Russian influence in the 2016 election and there was additional foreign influence in 2020. There is no proof that it impacted the actual outcome & it’s a GIANT dose of false equivalence to say “both sides are guilty of claiming elections aren’t fair and it just needs to stop,” the Bush V. Gore example included. That was a couple hundred votes in ONE state in which the brother of one of the candidates happened to be Governor...and the guy with the short straw won the popular vote. It wasn’t tens of thousands of votes in each of several key states. That’s not just a big difference, it’s a startling comparison to make. Both Gore and HRC conceded. Neither are perfect and I have had my own less than favorable opinions about their handling of each situation, but to compare either to Trump’s beeline toward authoritarianism is bananas.

Trump, on the other hand, has escalated mistrust in voting to the point that I still fear a physical civil war of sorts; we are most certainly in a cognitive civil war now. His insistence in voter fraud gave way to a freakin’ failed coup attempt with dead bodies in the Capitol! It also likely aided in Georgia’s Senate seats going to the Dems fueling the Rs partisan pressure to over correct & produce Jim Crow like laws which are the very antithesis of what democracy is about. That any politician voted for that BS is an American disgrace.

I would like to think that everyone in the USA, irrespective of political affiliation, would be concerned about foreign influence, voter suppression, & gerrymandering to fix an outcome and/or make it harder for every American to vote.

[Aseahawkfan]

There was Russian influence in the 2016 election and there was additional foreign influence in 2020. There is no proof that it impacted the actual outcome & it’s a GIANT dose of false equivalence to say “both sides are guilty of claiming elections aren’t fair and it just needs to stop,” the Bush V. Gore example included. That was a couple hundred votes in ONE state in which the brother of one of the candidates happened to be Governor...and the guy with the short straw won the popular vote. It wasn’t tens of thousands of votes in each of several key states. That’s not just a big difference, it’s a startling comparison to make. Both Gore and HRC conceded. Neither are perfect and I have had my own less than favorable opinions about their handling of each situation, but to compare either to Trump’s beeline toward authoritarianism is bananas.

Trump, on the other hand, has escalated mistrust in voting to the point that I still fear a physical civil war of sorts; we are most certainly in a cognitive civil war now. His insistence in voter fraud gave way to a freakin’ failed coup attempt with dead bodies in the Capitol! It also likely aided in Georgia’s Senate seats going to the Dems fueling the Rs partisan pressure to over correct & produce Jim Crow like laws which are the very antithesis of what democracy is about. That any politician voted for that BS is an American disgrace.

I would like to think that everyone in the USA, irrespective of political affiliation, would be concerned about foreign influence, voter suppression, & gerrymandering to fix an outcome and/or make it harder for every American to vote.

I disagree. We'll likely never agree on this, so no point arguing. But it is very clear that If you are going to undermine the election process by putting information out there that the election is compromised without clear proof in what way and to what effect it is compromised whether claiming Russians were interfering or that an election was stolen by one party, then you are undermining elections with half of the electorate. If the other side does the same, but only better than you and to more of an extreme then don't be surprised when we get capital riots.

It is not false equivalency. That is rubbish. Undermining election is undermining elections. And the Russian interference was not proven to have a material effect on the outcome of either election and yet it was pushed as an agenda by one party to the tune of millions in investigation costs with no real effect. Just lots of wasted time and money and further undermining election confidence. And a new boogieman card the Democrats can pull out when they feel like it.

Until you Democratic voters admit your party is corrupt and engaged in similar behavior to undermine elections and confidence in the government, then nothing is going to change. You and the other Democrats can act as outraged as you want, but it doesn't change that your party's BS antics are fueling this culture war as much as the Republicans. You just go back and forth vilifying the other side and turning this country into the powderkeg it is.

These clowns just keep upping the ante. Crying about Hilary lost, it was the Russians. Trump crying he lost, it was Democrats stealing elections. It both feeds into the other sides paranoia and undermines the nation.

So stop trying to sell me on rubbish when I've been watching this garbage from you two polar opposites for decades now. The Democrats always like to put their noses in the air and pretend their claims are more valid with their media arm pushing their agenda. But it isn't, never was, and is tiresome. It's all damaging to the nation.

Here are the facts:
1. Hunter Biden is corrupt. He made money off his father's name and influence. He did it for years. Plenty of politicians do this, so par for the course.

2. The Clintons are corrupt as all hell. Hilary Clinton torpedoed Sanders in the primaries. She engineered the Russian Election fraud attack on Trump as political revenge to cast a shadow over his presidency. If you read deeper than a puddle, she's tried it with a few others as well including Tulsi Gabbard in her own party. She's a low character person and I'm glad she lost. Her and Bill are two of the most corrupt and powerful politicians in DC. Yet Democrats just love them and think they're great.

3. Trump is corrupt as is Mitch McConnell. All they care about is winning so they can push the agenda of them and their cronies. Trump's been corrupt for years. He's been paying off politicians and such for years. Finally decided to go do it himself and make all that nice money off his influence.

4. Both of these parties lie and manipulate and manufacture all kinds of fake fights to vilify each other. Then they do the same crap they are supposedly against once in office. About the only thing you can count on is Republicans will always push lower taxes, Democrats will always push higher taxes. As far as the rest, both parties just keep us involved in tons of trash that we don't need.

If Americans want a better nation, they are going to need to scour both of these parties clean because they have both reach a point of such venal and ridiculous corruption that Americans don't even know what is true or false anymore. Or what these clown parties are doing. They just half-believe what the media is telling them for the sake of their sanity. I wouldn't be surprised if each future generation becomes more and more disenchanted with this mess. Hopefully to the effect of some real change.

[RiverDog]

There was Russian influence in the 2016 election and there was additional foreign influence in 2020. There is no proof that it impacted the actual outcome & it’s a GIANT dose of false equivalence to say “both sides are guilty of claiming elections aren’t fair and it just needs to stop,” the Bush V. Gore example included. That was a couple hundred votes in ONE state in which the brother of one of the candidates happened to be Governor...and the guy with the short straw won the popular vote. It wasn’t tens of thousands of votes in each of several key states. That’s not just a big difference, it’s a startling comparison to make. Both Gore and HRC conceded. Neither are perfect and I have had my own less than favorable opinions about their handling of each situation, but to compare either to Trump’s beeline toward authoritarianism is bananas.

Trump, on the other hand, has escalated mistrust in voting to the point that I still fear a physical civil war of sorts; we are most certainly in a cognitive civil war now. His insistence in voter fraud gave way to a freakin’ failed coup attempt with dead bodies in the Capitol! It also likely aided in Georgia’s Senate seats going to the Dems fueling the Rs partisan pressure to over correct & produce Jim Crow like laws which are the very antithesis of what democracy is about. That any politician voted for that BS is an American disgrace.

I would like to think that everyone in the USA, irrespective of political affiliation, would be concerned about foreign influence, voter suppression, & gerrymandering to fix an outcome and/or make it harder for every American to vote.

Hey, Sis! Glad to see you dipping your toe in here.

Although I'm stopping short of calling the new GA election law Jim Crow, I do think that some of the measures are an attempt by the Republicans to suppress voter turnout, in particular the handing out of food/drink and limiting ballot drop boxes. I am for voter ID so long as those registered voters that do not have driver's licenses, passports, or other acceptable forms of ID can acquire an ID relatively easily and at no cost. I have not seen any examples of actual incidents that the bill was designed to prevent and do not understand why the existing laws are inadequate.

I'm obviously against any kind of foreign interference and that we should be doing everything within reason to prevent it. However, I do not see any evidence that any foreign entity altered the outcome of any election and feel that it is an overblown issue.

You're preaching to the choir about Donald Trump. Worst POTUS in our history.

[Hawk Sista]

The way we get information these days exacerbates the power of crafty foreign foes. They masquerade as like-minded folks in the simplest of ways, and it adds fuel to the divisions we see. The Russians, for example, want to destroy democracy and get us to hate each other. To that end, they are making strides. This is an over simplistic example for sure... but you see what I’m driving at. And yes! We need to know where our sources of information are coming from and avoid the temptation to share a divisive meme rooted in lies. On this point I agree we are all susceptible.

I haven’t read one opinion here that suggests Trump is anything but the buffoon that he is. The exaggerated false equivalency arguments, however, do confound me. I love all you guys, all of you no matter your view or how long it’s been. Thanks Riv!

And that means you too, ASF. We clearly disagree! I’ve worked in government my whole life and have seen some of the scummiest back-stabbing BS at even the local level. I don’t think I trust too many politicians. I have core values and I vote according to those. I’m not so naive as to think HRC was akin to Mother Theresa. And it’s fair to say I’ve wrongly blamed people for things based on my core beliefs. That said, foreign interference is a problem. That people make that interference a partisan issue plays into the hands of interferers. Let’s agree to disagree and I’ll look into what you’ve said with more vigor soon. To be continued.

[RiverDog]

That said, foreign interference is a problem. That people make that interference a partisan issue plays into the hands of interferers. Let’s agree to disagree and I’ll look into what you’ve said with more vigor soon. To be continued.

IMO the larger threat is the ignorance and moronish nature of the American public. We are our own worst enemy. All the Russians, the Chinese, the media, or Donald Trump can do is manipulate weak minds. They cannot physically force anyone to put an 'X' in a little box.

[Hawk Sista]

I think we are making the same point, here RD. And still, the attempts to get us effed up from the outside are scary, the idiocy w/in our very own borders notwithstanding. The ramping up of efforts to end democracy concerns me greatly, no matter the source.

[RiverDog]

I think we are making the same point, here RD. And still, the attempts to get us effed up from the outside are scary, the idiocy w/in our very own borders notwithstanding. The ramping up of efforts to end democracy concerns me greatly, no matter the source.

They concern me, too, and I fully support all reasonable measures to protect the integrity of our electoral process, which is one of the reasons why I support voter ID. But until we address the root cause, which is the fact that there are so many uneducated, illiterate Americans that are eligible to cast a vote, we will always have to deal with these types of issues where people, groups, or foreign governments attempt to influence weak minds. It was no coincidence that there was such a large education gap between Trump supporters and other voting groups. I abhor the thought of being led by the ignorant masses.

If I had my druthers, I'd require that anyone wishing to vote pass some type of very basic competency test. We require it for citizenship so I don't know why we wouldn't require it for the privilege of casting a vote. Voting isn't an inalienable right, otherwise we wouldn't be able to deny criminals or non citizens from voting.

[c_hawkbob]

That's the basic Heinleinian system in which only citizens are allowed to vote and the easiest way to become a citizen is to serve in the military, police, fire department or some other form of public service. The difference between being a citizen and a mere civilian, which only requires being born here.

It's interesting to note that in the book the society in question had evolved in a future in which the Nazis had won WWII.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

That's the basic Heinleinian system in which only citizens are allowed to vote and the easiest way to become a citizen is to serve in the military, police, fire department or some other form of public service. The difference between being a citizen and a mere civilian, which only requires being born here.

It's interesting to note that in the book the society in question had evolved in a future in which the Nazis had won WWII.

Yes, Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, posited requiring some kind of federal service to secure one's right to vote; the idea being that if one gives up their self-interest to serve the state, that when they are discharged, they will vote with the greater good in mind as opposed to self interest. Heinlein, in general, was very outspoken about voting. He didn't agree with unlimited franchise. He wanted voters to have both a stake in the game and that they demonstrate base line intelligence. E.g., one idea he had was the voter had to put up $100 to enter the booth. The voter then has to answer a math problem. If they answer correct, they get to vote and they get their money back. If they don't answer correct, they don't get to vote and lose the $100.

That last statement isn't correct though. Heinlein makes no mention of Nazi Germany winning World War II in the book (Starship Troopers). The political system and society evolved in the aftermath of a fictional conflict between the Anglo-Russo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. The war brought governments to collapse, organized society broke down into looting and violence, and it was returned veterans that restored order. Those veterans only let other veterans serve on the ad hoc governing bodies, and it eventually became permanent.

[c_hawkbob]

Yes, Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, posited requiring some kind of federal service to secure one's right to vote; the idea being that if one gives up their self-interest to serve the state, that when they are discharged, they will vote with the greater good in mind as opposed to self interest. Heinlein, in general, was very outspoken about voting. He didn't agree with unlimited franchise. He wanted voters to have both a stake in the game and that they demonstrate base line intelligence. E.g., one idea he had was the voter had to put up $100 to enter the booth. The voter then has to answer a math problem. If they answer correct, they get to vote and they get their money back. If they don't answer correct, they don't get to vote and lose the $100.

That last statement isn't correct though. Heinlein makes no mention of Nazi Germany winning World War II in the book (Starship Troopers). The political system and society evolved in the aftermath of a fictional conflict between the Anglo-Russo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. The war brought governments to collapse, organized society broke down into looting and violence, and it was returned veterans that restored order. Those veterans only let other veterans serve on the ad hoc governing bodies, and it eventually became permanent.

Perhaps, it's possible that the "it's a world evolved from our losing WWII" paradigm was more the way the discussion of the book in 11th grade social studies class was framed by our teacher, but it's definitely the way I always viewed it.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I just don't understand the teacher making that connection. It doesn't hold up at all with the text. I suppose it is possible because it isn't explicitly stated, but there are innumerable possibilities that aren't explicitly stated considering the only date mentioned is 1987 for the war against the Chinese Hegemony and the book is at an unspecified time in the far future.

I am curious:

1. What was the teacher trying to explain with the theory that the Starship Troopers world was one where Nazi Germany won WWII?
2. What is the interesting note about this theory?

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Or is it a view drawing a parallel that if Nazis Germany had won WWII, we could have ended up with a world like Heinlein created in Starship Troopers?

[c_hawkbob]

Dude, I'm 64, 11th grade was a long time ago and even if it weren't I wouldn't try to speak to my teachers thoughts. But I completely disagree with you that it as outrageous a notion as you're trying to make it out to be. Made perfect sense to me the several times I read the book and seemed to be an even more pronounced dynamic in the movie.

I also think your comments on Heinlein's personal views are a bit off base. I never met the man but based on reading his books his thought on politics are a lot more diverse than you seem to think. Read Friday, it's about the diametric opposite of Starship Troopers as far as any political bent.

[RiverDog]

Back to the topic.

Major League Baseball, in protest of the GA voting rights law, decided to cancel its All Star game slated for July. The mayor of Atlanta, a Democrat, claims that the decision will cost the GA economy $100 million. A number of companies, including GA based Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola, have been openly critical of the voting rights law and drew the ire of former President Donald Trump who has called for a boycott of their products and services. Viacom CBS, Cisco, JP Morgan, UPS, and a number of other large corporations have come out publicly against the law.

Just another day in the life of American politics. Anyone that thought that we'd start to heal the wounds of the past four years now that Trump is out of office must be supremely disappointed.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Hey bob. You indicated that your teacher spoke of it; while I can’t know for certain what you are able to remember, I thought you might be able to reiterate what your teacher said. I wouldn’t see that as speaking for the teacher, just stating what they said.

Your statement stuck with me because you made it as a statement of fact. I asked for clarification because I can’t see how that conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the one major event in that book’s fictional history specifically mentioned was a major war between an Anglo-Russo-American alliance and a Chinese Hegemony in the late 1980’s seems to make a Nazi Germany victory unlikely. Having Russia, Britain, and China all as major powers 40 years after a Nazi victory doesn’t make sense to me.

And I would say the movie is a poor example. Verhoeven made very little attempt to stay true to the source material, and he sought to satirize fascism. His portrayal, to me, was very far away from the world Heineken presented.

More to the point, in light of the thread’s topic on voting rights, and River’s statements about having to demonstrate baseline competency, I am genuinely curious what you meant by it is interesting that it evolved from Nazi Germany winning WWII. What is interesting about this and how does it relate to voting rights? You don’t owe me clarification, but I am genuinely curious.

(And I have only also read The Cat Who Walks Through Walls; I am going to look into to Friday, but Heinlein seems to value personal responsibility, intelligence, and individual freedoms along with exercising the franchise while having something at stake.)

[Aseahawkfan]

As much as I despise the ignorance, not sure limiting voting to certain groups based on knowledge or service is a good idea. A nation should be governed by all the people with their varying interests voting. The main way to divest power is to have as many people as possible holding power and having so many people vote means that a politician has to cater to the various voter groups of varying education and income levels to win. Then The People have to hold them accountable for the policies they said they would promote.

The only skin people need in the game as they say is being a citizen of a nation. You should get to govern in your homeland even if it is just a vote based on limited knowledge. The circumstances of being a citizen are often random coming down to being born in the nation. Immigrants pick their nation and often they come to the nation that gives them a chance at a better life be it here or another Western 1st world nation, whoever let's them in first.

Sure, it's frustrating. I sometimes would prefer a requirement to vote. But then you wouldn't get the vote of the people who care about something you may have missed while you are studying the subjects important to you. It's impossible to know everything.

My main problem with these parties is how bad the agenda of each side is overall. The way they sell their agendas. The fear mongering. The sensationalism. The divisiveness. The general way they go at each other which just encourages this terribly divided environment. It's not based on science, history, or much remotely healthy to overall society many times. It just causes a divisive environment with little trust. Republicans can't keep calling all Democrats socialists and communists. Democrats can't keep calling all Republicans racists and sexists. Then preying on the fears of each citizen driving them to whichever party offers to protect them from their fears.

It's a bad way to run a country. If this capitol riot situation isn't a clear example of where this divisive environment is going if these two parties continue on with their games, then I don't know what is. Apparently all it will take to light the fire is a bad leader with too much charisma and a willingness to burn the country down to have his way. Maybe Trump is the worst we see, but we also know there are far worse people out there than Trump, far more militaristic, and more of a crusader than an angry child. We get one of those in place with the current environment, we will have a far worse occurrence than the capitol riots.

And Starship Troopers? Fun movie and decent book. No way I run a nation that way.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The premise of limited franchise in Starship Troopers is tempting to me, Asea. Not necessarily the book verbatim, but something to demonstrate the voter cares about more than themselves.

[Aseahawkfan]

The premise of limited franchise in Starship Troopers is tempting to me, Asea. Not necessarily the book verbatim, but something to demonstrate the voter cares about more than themselves.

There was never any idea other than the voter caring about his own interests in the creation of a voting system. The idea being that competing interests in a pluralistic system would prevent the concentration of power that led to tyranny and singular groups like nobles, the military, or corporations controlling everything. Though in the original voting system they did try to maintain that only landowners could vote, but that left a lot of people disenfranchised including poor people of European ancestry, of which there were many.

If the only people voting were members of the military or some class of service, then only their interests would be served. There is little evidence to support that people whether they serve in the military or peace corps don't pursue their own interests when voting. For example, the wealthy often vote for candidates offering a better business environment, lower taxes, or immigration friendly polices to their global recruiting. Military people are more likely to support wars and military action to settle matters.

The dirty secret Democratic voters never seem to grasp is why does Big Tech seem to support Democrats. The answer is the tax breaks and such they receive from Democratic politicians. The support for the H1B visa program that globalized the labor pool. And other tech friendly policies that have allowed Big Tech to become as powerful as they are. None of these Democratic voters ever ask themselves why places like California and Washington State have so many tech companies paying so little in taxes within their states. It's because Democrats know that to attract business you offer tax breaks and such to the business, then tax the workers and associated smaller businesses.

It's why I don't understand Democrat voters much. They don't even realize what their party is doing in terms of business friendly policies. They don't realize they will be the ones paying for any social programs that get implemented, not the big business rich. If the Democrats try to go after them, they'll stop funding the Democrats and leave the country for other areas like Singapore, China, The Bahamas, or various other places where they get to protect their capital. Wealthy people are global, working people are national and local.

That's why if the Middle Class is to ever rise again, you need a Party focused on Middle Class tax cuts, Middle Class property breaks in taxes, Middle Class labor support such as affordable healthcare decoupled from the job that allows them to maintain greater job mobility and financial flexibility (real affordable healthcare, not Obamacare), and a better environment for the Middle Class workers. Not high priced parking in cities, high priced tiny apartments, and all the stuff that city politicians do to make operating in a city expensive where only the wealthy can survive or the poor on the government's dime.

Middle Class at the moment isn't on the same page as to what they need to succeed. Some are in the Republican camp wanting the scraps from minor tax reductions while Repubs give corporations huge tax breaks and some in the Democrat camp wanting to pay more union dues and pay higher taxes hoping the government programs equal things out. Yet housing prices keep rising, technology keeps making the standard of living for other than property cheaper, and the environment changes becoming less reliant on working for a corporation for 50 years and more reliant on automation and job flexibility.