I don't know if you are an American yourself, but "colored people" is a somewhat antiquated term to refer to certain ethnic minorities (especially blacks/African-Americans). It doesn't appear as if you meant anything pejorative by it, but it still strikes one as being a bit "off."

Yet, I have never heard a single mainstream news network connect these dots. — LD Saunders

Really? I’ve seen it lots of times. Here's some just from today:

If the Republicans Win Tuesday, the Reason Will Be Simple: They Cheated

'Crisis for American Democracy': It's 2018, in the Richest Nation on Earth, and Voting Machines Still Distorting Elections

An Appalling Abuse of Power

Michael: I just read through the article on the first link, skimmed it, and it's from the Daily Beast. I'm not sure how mainstream that is. I'm just not that familiar with it. I did see where it pointed out numerous state election problems with the GOP suppressing the votes, and there was a comment about this being a strategy used to prevent the Democrats from winning elections, but I didn't see a general statement that the GOP is forced to take this position, because the vast majority of Americans reject their policy positions, so the GOP has to be against democracy, because if everyone is allowed to vote, the GOP loses in pretty much any national election, especially for president. Hopefully, people reading the article can connect the dots, but I still haven't seen this specific point I referenced in my post being mentioned. I have seen specific counties in places like Georgia, where the voters are likely to vote Democrat, having their votes suppressed, or in North Dakota, but why is it that the major news media is so reluctant to state that since the GOP is behind, nationally, on virtually every public policy position, then they have to, as a matter of policy, be against democracy itself?

Even with the particular case in Georgia, you can't just assume that a higher percentage of minority ballots were discarded because they were minority ballots.

That's possible, but we'd need evidence of it other than circumstantial evidence from which we're jumping to conclusions.

Arkady: I am an American, and disagree that mentioning colored people is in any way insulting. It is rather inclusive of all non-white groups, from Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, etc. It's certainly much easier to write colored people than to reference all of the various non-white ethnic groups in the USA to make a point. I also don't believe races actually exist biologically, so I don't like using the word race.

Yea, there's a district line in my state that goes right down the middle of a majority black university. It dilutes the young black vote with whites. A Republican spokesman said the students shouldn't think of it as gaving their vote diluted, but that the college has two representatives.

And "colored"? Where's praxis?

Frank: In the latest issue of Scientific American, they have an article discussing the use of mathematics in drawing up voting districts in such a way that they cannot be rigged. Hopefully, these methods will become the gold standard, because what we are seeing now, and have for a long time, is a concerted effort to deny people their voting rights. I also see the failure of states to apportion their electoral college votes among the voters, as wiping out people's right to vote for president. A republican may as well not vote for president in California, and a Democrat may as well not vote for president in Texas. For a country that supposedly values democracy and the right to vote, we sure as hell don't act like it.


I'm still not sure what's wrong with "colored people." If I use "non-white people," why should that make a difference. It's not as if Trump is just against Hispanics, and likes Blacks, and Indians from India. As far as I can tell, he dislikes all of these people, precisely because they do not have light skin, and are people of color.

Even with the particular case in Georgia, you can't just assume that a higher percentage of minority ballots were discarded because they were minority ballots. — Terrapin Station

Let's hope that @Hanover's vote for Abrams wasn't discarded.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise honestly. The whole point of these laws - made possible by the SCOTUS pull backs of the Voting Rights Act - is to make it harder for minorities to vote since they tend to vote for the Dems. The relevant laws (ones which would reject those whose names missed, saw, a hyphen or a middle initial) were enacted precisely because those would not affect white people very much, and we see that in the results: 70% of those rejected are black Americans and 80% of the total are non-whites. The Dems in Georgia fought that bill because they said this would happen. The bill didn't have any benefit besides voter suppression, the results speak for themselves. It's not even clear if the provisional ballot alternative will even work because Kemp's office is in control of it (he's the Secretary of State) and he's also the person running for governor. That's just a conflict of interest.

Really, if the above doesn't suffice then the only thing that would likely satisfy you is an open admission of guilt on the part of Kemp and the GOP, which is absurd.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise honestly. — MindForged

And I think you'd be incredibly naive to assume things that you don't have evidence for.

I agree with MindForged, that just the effect of these laws having a disproportionate impact on minorities who typically vote Democrat is evidence of voter suppression. Requiring Indians who live on a reservation to have ID with a specific street address on it, when the people who passed that law knew damn well reservations where Indians live do not typically have street names? Like who would be surprised that such a law would prevent Indians from voting, and the facts are that they overwhelmingly voted Democrat during the past congressional election in North Dakota. That's un-American voter suppression, and it's disgusting as hell, and calls our entire system into question. Every American citizen's right to vote should be protected.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise honestly. — MindForged

The Dems lost the presidency, so they blame the electoral college. The Dems don't like the President, so they talk about impeachment. The Dems can't control Congress, so they blame gerrymandering. The Dems don't like the Supreme Court nominee, so they engage in a character attack. The Dems can't control the Senate, so they argue against equal state representation in the Senate. And now in fear of continued Republican control, they claim they're being cheated of votes. The continued effort of the Dems is to win in litigation or by rule change that which they can't otherwise win through the existing process. Their strategy is the continued effort of delegitimization of Republican control.

It's all about their attempt to obtain power at all costs. It has nothing to do with righteousness. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

The Dems lost the presidency, so they blame the electoral college. The Dems don't like the President, so they talk about impeachment. The Dems can't control Congress, so they blame gerrymandering. The Dems don't like the Supreme Court nominee, so they engage in a character attack. The Dems can't control the Senate, so they argue against equal state representation in the Senate. And now in fear of continued Republican control, they claim they're being cheated of votes. The continued effort of the Dems is to win in litigation or by rule change that which they can't otherwise win through the existing process. Their strategy is the continued effort of delegitimization of Republican control.

It's all about their attempt to obtain power at all costs. It has nothing to do with righteousness. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. — Hanover

An appeal to motive isn't a good rebuttal. Republicans share the same desire to obtain power at all costs.

What matters is whether or not there really is voter suppression and gerrymandering, whether or not the electoral college really is the best way to select a President, and so on.

The Democrats might very well be kicking up a fuss just because they don't have power, but do the Republicans have power because they actually are cheating?

Michael's last comment was well written, and I absolutely agree with it.

A republican may as well not vote for president in California, — LD Saunders

Yes. It's frustrating. Maybe they'll change it to popular vote sometime, although my history reading tells me that the US will change into a tyranny eventually and it won't make any difference.

I'm still not sure what's wrong with "colored people." — LD Saunders

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's just a little antiquated, like when somebody says "Gosh!"

frank: I can't say "Gosh"? It's right up there with "by-golly."

I think part of the problem is that in order to remove the electoral college, then we would have to admit that the people who founded our nation did not trust people with the right to vote directly for president, and that calls into question the myths we have erected on their behalf. I think it's entirely antiquated and offensive to the idea of a liberal democracy.

We certainly seem headed towards a tyranny. I'm shocked at how bad things have gotten over the past several years in the USA. I never thought I would be witnessing what I am seeing in my country.

Arkady: I am an American, and disagree that mentioning colored people is in any way insulting. It is rather inclusive of all non-white groups, from Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, etc. It's certainly much easier to write colored people than to reference all of the various non-white ethnic groups in the USA to make a point. I also don't believe races actually exist biologically, so I don't like using the word race. — LD Saunders

Suit yourself. I agree that it's a quirk of our language that "people of color" is somehow acceptable, but "colored people" is antiquated; I'm just saying that using such a bygone phrase might distract from your more substantive points, and also make you sound as if you stepped out of a time machine from 1965.

Arkady: Why should I say in three words what I can say in two? I'm economically efficient with my rhetoric. "People of color" sounds like a throwback to Che's era if anything is. And think about how easy it is to make comparisons, when using the words "colored people"? I can say colored people versus white people for example, whereas comparing "people of color" to "people of white" or whatever it would be seems awkward to me.

I'm still really puzzled over why anyone would think my use of the words "colored people" was improper. It's not like I personally give a damn about the color of someone's skin. I don't. That's one reason I am so disgusted with Trump and his supporters who definitely do think such things are important.

Plenty of other people seem to think such things are important, including those on the Left, who are seemingly obsessed with identity politics-related issues. Checking one box rather than another in the "Race/Ethnicity" section of a college application (a trait which tracks with skin color) could mean the difference between going to Harvard and going to a lesser school.

While I likewise deplore Trump's and the GOP's race-baiting rhetoric (I can't even properly call them "dog whistles" because they're so blatant), let's not pretend that the Right is the only political demographic which attends to race and ethnicity.

And think about how easy it is to make comparisons, when using the words "colored people"? — LD Saunders

It's also easy to dredge up a bloody era of American history with those words. That's why that black guy was staring at you. He was trying to figure out what your intentions were.

Frank: lol. My intentions? Well, I certainly wasn't trying to flirt with anyone.
I don't even consider races to be real, from a biological standpoint, so anyone trying to paint me as a racist is going to have a huge difficulty in doing so. I'm also middle aged, and not familiar with the latest in political correctness, and I really couldn't care less what words people find offensive, when the words themselves carry no such content and no such intent was meant. People are far too obsessed with mere trivia instead of sticking with the larger picture.

I agree with MindForged, that just the effect of these laws having a disproportionate impact on minorities who typically vote Democrat is evidence of voter suppression. Requiring Indians who live on a reservation to have ID with a specific street address on it, when the people who passed that law knew damn well reservations where Indians live do not typically have street names? Like who would be surprised that such a law would prevent Indians from voting, and the facts are that they overwhelmingly voted Democrat during the past congressional election in North Dakota. That's un-American voter suppression, and it's disgusting as hell, and calls our entire system into question. Every American citizen's right to vote should be protected. — LD Saunders

Yes, for a party which proclaims to "love this country," the GOP is surely fond of shitting on its democratic institutions. The incident with the Native American voter ID kerfuffle is the just the latest in a line of targeted voter suppression the GOP engages in to keep certain minority groups from voting.

The fact is that in-person voter fraud is a virtually non-existent problem, and yet GOP-led legislatures are falling over themselves to enact voter ID laws in order to solve this "problem." They can't win people over on the basis of ideas, and so they try to keep them from the polls. Win at any cost, democracy be damned. Pathetic.

I wish their opposition would be more ruthless. Unfortunately maintaining decorum against an opponent who doesn't and won't is a terrible strategy.

I think that getting down in the muck with the GOP only makes both of you dirty, and will do even more lasting damage to the country's institutions.

This imagined future with pristine preserved institutions would also have no voter presence aside from the lobbyists, who already get mostly what they want. The only message this sends is that the decorum of the political process must be preserved even if it goes against the interests of those it governs.

Maybe we should play chess some time. Let's have a rule where your pieces behave like queens and can put you in check, don't worry decorum insists that it's always your turn to move first. You want to play by this rule too? Pah, do you really want to stoop to my level? Ok, no you don't. Then get used to losing.

Unfortunately, everyone who matters has already gotten used to losing so much they're completely alienated from the process. The meek will inherit the earth and so on, simply because they have their principles.

If the only way to salvage American democracy is to abandon it, then the fight is already lost, and further struggle will avail us nothing. We may as well act like some post-colonial African nation or banana republic and just engage in outright warfare to see who ascends to power.

You're prescription is to counter subversion of democracy with more subversion? I think that just gets us to dictatorship sooner.

Oh. Arkady just said that.

Arkady: It's pure propaganda. The GOP claims that it needs Indians to have ID with their street addresses named, in order to protect people's right to vote. Yet, the whole purpose of the law is to have the opposite effect --- to suppress the right to vote. When one uses an idea to achieve its opposite, and when this is done repeatedly by a major political party in the USA, we have to start worrying about the integrity of our institutions in this country. It's Orwellian.

I agree. The thing is, people don't seem to mind when it benefits them, American institutions be damned. Perhaps were the roles reversed, Democrats would be equally blase (or even approving) of voter suppression tactics like those promulgated by the GOP, but the fact is, that the GOP is currently the overwhelming beneficiary of "voter ID" laws, gerrymandering, and the like. They can't win clean, so they cheat. So sad.

(BTW, you may to start linking to people's comments when you respond to them so that the indicator appears.)

Giving up when challenged with a dirty trick is exactly what will bring this scenario you fear about quicker. Retaliating to restore decorum is only passive when it's done terribly; IE when it's not done at all. The opponent is motivated, reasonably unified on their goals, and plays dirty. No wonder they're winning. What I'm surprised with is that lying down and rotting is seen as the height of virtue; no, the only moral response to this.