Hacker News Reader

Comment by minikites | Hacker News Reader

Which party is the "one party" here?

Probably the one with the presidency, house, senate, most of the media, and social media content moderation.

I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote, how is that "planning to never lose an election again"? The Republicans are the only ones who ever fight to suppress votes, most recently the attacks on absentee voting in Georgia, which are a direct result of two Democrats winning there and has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" or election security on any level.

Which one sounds more like "planning to never lose an election again", the scheme where more people vote or the scheme where fewer people vote?

The point in question is not whether it is justified or moral single-party rule. It is whether there is a shift towards single-party dominance.

So how does "more people voting" lead to single-party dominance? I only see one party working for that goal, and it isn't the Democratic party.

> I only see one party working for that goal

I mean, that's silly — any political party would love single-party dominance.

Democrats want "more people voting" because their thesis is that most disengaged or non-voters would default Democrat. It's fine if you believe is that "more people voting is good for democracy" but it's not the reason that the Democrats are focused on getting more people ballots.

The Democrats know they have popular ideas, I fail to see how that's a sinister motive as you imply.

> I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote

Including dead people ? </sarcasm>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com