Current Events > Just found out that there are actually people against mail in voting

(+) Yeah! (+)

I thought it was a big good, but there are real people out there who vehemently believe that you need to wait in line for hours for your vote to be counted. Absolutely ludicrous

Are you one of those people? Please tell me why
---

Mail-in voting means brown people can send in millions of fake ballots to elect AOC President and turn America into the Neo Soviet Union.

...or something equally ridiculous

---

Yeah, they are called Republicans, and it's because they know they'll never win an election that has a large number of voters. Trump literally admitted this himself.

If your party is against more citizens voting because you know you'll lose every fucking time, then maybe said party shouldn't exist. If every single adult in America voted, you'd never see another Republican president again in your life. So that's why they try to suppress voters.

---

in general Republicans are against anything that allows or encourages more people to vote.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

in general Republicans are against anything that allows or encourages more people to vote.

This

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

in general Republicans are against anything that allows or encourages more people to vote.

Isn't it ironic that the party that's so against equity needs so much help from the system to win anything?

---

crab bucket mentality drives it

rich and upper middle class people, of course, want policy that favors them, and this is best accomplished by rich people being a larger share of voters than their population indicates. so they will always oppose anything that makes voting easier. small price to pay, and they can just vote at unusual hours to minimize their discomfort, since their jobs usually are more flexible with time--they're either 'always working' (ie, can take a break whenever because they will return) or working to a set # of hours and it doesn't matter which.

middle class people are more afraid of moving down in social strata individually than they are of their entire social class losing wealth. so they can be persuaded to support voter suppression even if it means they don't get to vote, because they will figure for every one person like themselves who loses out, two poorer people lose out. this is not a logical way to view the world but it is consistent with self-interest. if wealth is social status then losing wealth as a class doesn't change social status, but becoming equal to the lowest social status (even if your class loses nothing) means lower status.

i think men are manipulated by this more often than women because social status helps men find romantic partners.

---

it's people who know their "side" would lose if their opposition were all able and encouraged to vote

---

like the President?

---