Comments by "Deborah Freedman" (@deborahfreedman333) on "Michael Smerconish: Voter suppression may not be reason Democrats lose midterms" video.

@Tomas_Pita That all sounds nice, until you see it in action. First, people invested in those oil companies, so they could find the oil, and drill for it. Much of those investments are their retirement funds. If you seize oil production, their retirement money is lost. Second, if you look at socialist countries, like Venezuela, who did seize and operate oil companies, oil production went down. Often the engineers, and other experts, are replaced with party loyalists, who have no expertise. Proper maintenance is no longer done, investments in new technologies are not made, and production all but ceases. There is a reason that all free countries, who chose to nationalize oil production, later privatized it again. Your idea is a lose/lose situation.
2
My state went to all mail in ballots in 1998, and others states have followed us. Some analysts looked at voter turnout and election results after our states made this change. When comparing presidential years to presidential years, and midterms to midterms, there was a rise in voter turnout, but no change in the types of politicians elected. Our blue state stayed blue, and red states stayed red. The only difference was voting was much easier and more secure. I know Democrats think greater voter turnout will favor them, but the data doesn't support that idea. So, if making voting more convenient won't favor either party, why not do so?
2
But, both parties gerrymander. This is not a red/blue issue. The real problem with gerrymandering is, it tends to drive both parties to the extremes, as it creates safe seats. Politicians are more concerned with a primary contender, than losing in the general. They cease to represent all their constituents.
1
@joboygbpedwards In some states you can request an absentee ballot. Other states make it very difficult, or require you to be in the military to vote absentee.
1
FlushaArt Intergalatic, Eh The Republican party was founded by Amos Tuck, Alvan E. Bovay, Abraham Lincoln, Edwin D. Morgan, Horace Greeley, Henry J. Raymond, and Salmon P. Chase. They were all white men. The rest of you "history" lesson is also nothing but a tissue of lies.
1
@robertjohnson1681 They do push for that, and in some states they succeeded. In others, Republicans have too much control. Since IDs are issued by states, not the federal government, Democrats can't do anything in deep red states. In the 1970s and 1980s, many people were pushing for a free federal ID, they wanted to make social security a picture ID. But, there were people worried they could not longer 'live off the grid' if there was a national photo ID. And even more, with money, afraid if proof of identity were universal, they could not longer hire cheap, illegal labor (ie. illegal aliens). So we never got our national ID.
1
@zennbubba You should have to prove you're a citizen to register, but a signature should be enough to vote. Most of the people pushing for ID as proof, for every vote, are doing so to prevent mail-in ballots. That is absurd, as signatures are verified before the ballot is counted. This is just a ploy to make voting more difficult.
1
Maybe, but others, with strong liberal credentials have studied it too, and come to the same conclusion. Some attempts at voter suppression actually increase turnout. There is nothing like someone trying to keep you from the polls, to motivate you to vote.
1