Republican leadership acts in a brazenly partisan way in the nomination of their committee members, an extension of their attitude to the whole issue.
Large portions of the US press blame Pelosi for making this is a partisan exercise with her decision…despite the presence of a woman who was until a few weeks ago the third most senior member of the Republican party still being on the committee. This section of the press seem to treat “bipartisanship” as a goal in itself, but worse is they only require it of Democrats, and define it as Democrats agreeing to whatever lies and bad faith positions the GOP stake out.
You do need ID for enrolment, however this can happen automatically via the electoral commission accessing other data (eg drivers licenses from all states and citizenship and birth data). They also have an ‘automatic update’ program that updates the enrolment address (and hence electorate) of voters when it receives data that they have moved in the event that they don’t do it online themselves (which takes about 60 seconds).
You can also initially enrol without ID via a declaration countersigned by someone who themselves is enrolled.
Those on the right in Australia used to bemoan the risk of ‘electoral fraud’ and when the automatic enrolment and update of enrolment was mooted there was some concern about enrolment fraud but that has vanished as it has been shown that the instances of fraud are so remote as to be irrelevant.
Don’t particularly like the bold part, however I guess it’s verified over and above the countersigned, which would make sense. In theory if should be easy for any organized government to verify that someone has a birth certificate, don’t have a death certificate, and are legally allowed to vote. I guess that’s why you stated “initially”?
Think remote Aboriginal communities where they may not have a driver’s licence for eg. Having a declaration that they are who they say and are entitled to be enrolled also signed by an existing elector within their community ensures they aren’t unfairly disenfranchised.
If you are still worried about safeguards then I think you are looking at it the wrong way - the system captures the votes of well over 90% of eligible population with no fraud issues. A system like those of many of the US states which are supposedly concerned with ‘safeguards’ just disenfranchises vast swathes of the population for no reduction in fraud and gives results that have vastly inferior legitimacy.
Yeah, the US has a long history of fairly apolitical disenfranchisement. But I think the thing to remember in these discussions about how to vote and what is required is that in the US it did become political in the 60s. Every conversation about protecting against election fraud is one actually designed to bolster Nixon’s southern strategy.
It’s absolutely fascinating how in lock step this was. Literally overnight, some of the main players on Fox, right wing pundits and a collection of GOP governors, all of whom had previously been at best unhelpful in their rhetoric towards vaccines as part of a holistic public health measure all turned on a dime and started with this narrative. It is without question coordinated. The thing I havent seen a good explanation for is why? Only thing I can think of GOP polling has shown them that voters will put the blame on them for another big outbreak. After all, these people will never do the right thing just because its the right thing.
They always struck me as a combination of pro-vax and pro-vax choice before the vax actually came out, while left was extreme anti-vax while Trump was president, for purely political reasons obviously, You can find plenty of leftists (politicians) saying they wouldn’t get vax pre election. It was a different story post election, and has escalated now to Biden telling the non vaxed they are killing people, and that he wants to mandate vaccinations for all.
What I have got from the right wing media is “we have had the vax, we recommend that you do, however we defend your right to chose not to, and we reject the idea of vaccination passports, etc.
I find it strange that the uk has openly provided vax stats of hospitalizations of fully vaccinated at 60-40 (or 40-60). Yet no mention of this via the politician in the USA. So you could conclude that the states are hiding these stats, or that the uk is completely wrong, or that there is some physical attributes that people in the uk have facilitate a more serious reaction to COVID (ridiculous).
I don’t know any leftist US politicians. Bernie and AOC are basically Social Democrats like any member of the Labour Party or the SPD. Did they say they wouldn’t be vaccinated?
US and UK have been using different vaccines haven’t they? UK is mostly AZ I think.
Ok, more along the lines of don’t trust trump’s vaccinations but would trust scientists. So my point was it was politicized as I said, rather than focusing on the vaccinations, it was positioned in a way that they wouldn’t trust trump. Fauci was very pro vaccination development (Dr and Scientist), so they could have focused on that, however it would have been political suicide.
I put politicians in brackets. Not trusting a vaccination because of trump, but trusting it after election because of scientists and experts (same ones pre elections), is 100% disingenuous and 100% political, if it makes you happy, if Clinton were president, it would have been reversed on both side. Political, it’s what politicians do.
If you dont believe it, you dont believe it. I’m not here to change minds, just expressing my interpreted opinion.
