Democrats Face a Dilemma on Voting: Compromise or Keep Pressing?

[brooklynite]

New York Times

WASHINGTON — With their drive to secure far-reaching voting rights legislation nearing a dead end, Senate Democrats face a decision they had hoped to avoid: Should they embrace a much narrower, bipartisan effort to safeguard the vote-counting process, or continue what increasingly looks like a doomed push to protect access to the ballot box?

A growing group of Senate Republicans and centrist Democrats is working on legislation to overhaul the Electoral Count Act, the 19th-century law that former President Donald J. Trump sought to exploit to overturn the 2020 presidential election. That effort is expanding to include other measures aimed at preventing interference in election administration, such as barring the removal of nonpartisan election officials without cause and creating federal penalties for the harassment or intimidation of election officials.

Democratic leaders say they regard the effort as a trap — or at least a diversion from the central issue of voter suppression that their legislation aims to address. They argue that the narrower measures are woefully inadequate given that Republicans have enacted a wave of voting restrictions in states around the country that are geared toward disenfranchising Democratic voters, particularly people of color.

Still, even if there is no consensus to be found on a bill addressing how votes are cast, proponents say there is a growing sentiment in favor of ensuring that those that are cast are fairly counted.

[Takket]

1. if rethugs wanted to compromise, they would have offered already

wasn't manchin going to get them all on board? If mcconnel had offered him anything more than a shit sandwich, manchin would have proposed it.

rethugs has zero incentive to compromise at all. they need to implement everything voting rights bills try to prevent, so they can rule from the minority and tear down the country for good.

as Marc Elias says, "there is no compromise between a firefighter and an arsonist"

[PortTack]

7. Turtle did make an offer regarding electoral count act.

Schumer said no because it doesn’t address gerrymandering

Go read the act, some overhaul, if that’s all we can get would be good

[gratuitous]

2. Ah, the liberal New York Times

Yeah, Democrats have to give up on wildly popular, winning issues because everything didn't fall neatly into place. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to press forward to deprive people of their rights, enhance the power of corporations to break the law, dismantle and repeal the regulatory structures designed to protect the vulnerable. The liberal New York Times never seems to have the column inches or bandwidth to suggest that Republicans give up their oppressive ways.

It's just so mysterious how this keeps happening.

[brooklynite]

4. Where does the Times say what the strategy should be?

They're reporting that there are divergent points of view on how to proceed.

[gratuitous]

10. Curiously . . .

The New York Times proffers advice to only one side. And it is almost exclusively to stand down for very popular liberal proposals. It's just so weird, isn't it?

[brooklynite]

11. Perhaps they raise the notion that passing SOMETHING is the better political outcome

[edhopper]

12. In the last line

"Still, even if there is no consensus to be found on a bill addressing how votes are cast, proponents say there is a growing sentiment in favor of ensuring that those that are cast are fairly counted."


They are talking about Electoral Votes, not the votes of citizens. They are talking about not allowing Congress to get in the way of the count. But it does nothing to stop the States from giving their Electoral Votes to whoever they want, and it removes any remedy by Congress to address it.
If this is the only voting law enacted, it will ensure the GOP takes any election they want to.

[dpibel]

3. What is your opinion?

This is a "could be this, could be that" NYT piece.

Do you have an opinion as to which approach (assuming there actually are two or more in the article) should prevail?

[brooklynite]

5. I tend to subscribe to "get what you can now and try to add more later"

If nothing gets passed, Democrats won't get virtue points for holding out for something better.

[Septua]

6. Get what you can...

Something is better than nothing...I don't fully comprehend what the Electoral Count Act is but if they can just get something that guarantees everybody's vote gets counted and the final count gets certified, I'll take it.

[edhopper]

13. This will guarantee

that whatever Electoral Vote the States deliver, no matter how corrupt that is, will be certified by Congress. It is a Trojan Horse by McConnell.

[VarryOn]

8. Win some damn elections where a couple pols can't gum up the works.

We need a solid majority everywhere!

[Poiuyt]

9. Why are Democrats always the ones who should compromise?

Republicans fall all over themselves saying they are the most conservative ever. Why should they be the ones to back off?