site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   30059 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Today in weird election arguments, Wisconsin has an ongoing dispute about the legality of ballot drop boxes and with a shift in Supreme Court seats, there is a big stare decisis is for suckers revisiting of it:

The 4-3 decision released Friday reverses a near-total ban on ballot drop boxes, which was handed down by the state's high court in 2022.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded in another 4-3 ruling that unsupervised ballot drop boxes outside of clerk's offices are illegal, because they're not specifically authorized in Wisconsin law.

I have my usual objections to encouraging more absentee voting, but they're not the point from a legal perspective. Instead, let's just look at the actual statute:

Except as otherwise provided in s. 6.875, an elector voting absentee, other than a military elector or an overseas elector, shall make and subscribe to the certification before one witness who is an adult U.S. citizen. A military elector or an overseas elector voting absentee, regardless of whether the elector qualifies as a resident of this state under s. 6.10, shall make and subscribe to the certification before one witness who is an adult but who need not be a U.S. citizen. The absent elector, in the presence of the witness, shall mark the ballot in a manner that will not disclose how the elector's vote is cast. The elector shall then, still in the presence of the witness, fold the ballots so each is separate and so that the elector conceals the markings thereon and deposit them in the proper envelope. If a consolidated ballot under s. 5.655 is used, the elector shall fold the ballot so that the elector conceals the markings thereon and deposit the ballot in the proper envelope. If proof of residence under s. 6.34 is required and the document enclosed by the elector under this subdivision does not constitute proof of residence under s. 6.34, the elector shall also enclose proof of residence under s. 6.34 in the envelope. Except as provided in s. 6.34 (2m), proof of residence is required if the elector is not a military elector or an overseas elector and the elector registered by mail or by electronic application and has not voted in an election in this state. If the elector requested a ballot by means of facsimile transmission or electronic mail under s. 6.86 (1) (ac), the elector shall enclose in the envelope a copy of the request which bears an original signature of the elector. The elector may receive assistance under sub. (5). The return envelope shall then be sealed. The witness may not be a candidate. The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots. [emphasis mine] If the envelope is mailed from a location outside the United States, the elector shall affix sufficient postage unless the ballot qualifies for delivery free of postage under federal law. Failure to return an unused ballot in a primary does not invalidate the ballot on which the elector's votes are cast. Return of more than one marked ballot in a primary or return of a ballot prepared under s. 5.655 or a ballot used with an electronic voting system in a primary which is marked for candidates of more than one party invalidates all votes cast by the elector for candidates in the primary.

To fulfill that clause and allow remote ballot drop boxes, the new court would need to discover that these remote drop boxes are actually the municipal clerk. That might sound like a stretch, but they're willing to enact the labor:

¶25 By mandating that an absentee ballot be returned not to the "municipal clerk's office," but "to the municipal clerk," the legislature disclaimed the idea that the ballot must be delivered to a specific location and instead embraced delivery of an absentee ballot to a person——the "municipal clerk." Given this, the question then becomes whether delivery to a drop box constitutes delivery "to the municipal clerk" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1.

¶26 We conclude that it does. A drop box is set up, maintained, secured, and emptied by the municipal clerk.10

This is being characterized as a big win for democracy. To be clear, I don't really think there's anything going on here that's a problem or poses a threat, but it just remains very weird to me how there are all these arguments in favor of doing weird things that don't really seem necessary with solutions in search of a problem. What exactly is the situation where someone can't drop a ballot in the mail or swing by the clerk's office? Why is it so critical to Our Democracy^tm that there be more drop boxes? I suppose one could easily ask the same of Republicans, wondering why it's so critical that clerk's offices not put out boxes, but it seems like the simple answer in this case is simply that the statute pretty obviously doesn't allow it.

I mean, I sort of have the same argument that I do for dentists - clerks, especially government ones, generally have workday hours at best. Most working people are, uh, also at work at those times. Few people either can or want to leave work just to drop off a ballot. Thus, accessibility to voting to basically a massive portion of the population (plus the ones we kind of want to vote in the first place) is obviously a big deal. Drop boxes neatly solve this issue by allowing consolidation with other errands, often conveniently done before or after work, and without relying on the capricious hours of government employees who keep their own annoying hours more out of selfish desire rather than a true desire to serve the people their job is to serve. This is more understandable for dentists, who really want to get paid more than to help people, but less understandable for government agents, whose entire purpose is to help people, which makes one wonder why they are often so bad at it.

But at what costs? Seems like drop boxes open up ballot harvesting.

Also maybe voting should be moderately hard. If our elections are important, maybe citizens should have to undertake a modicum of effort to vote.

Most people are fairly law-abiding and reasonable. Especially when it comes to elections, we aren't in the midst of Gilded age party machine shenanigans. Regular people are fairly likely to give ballots to a trusted family member to drop off, and that's fine. Some ballot harvesting laws make this illegal, which is dumb. They are already less-likely to give these ballots to some partisan (or non-partisan) rando to drop off. That's a strong natural disinclination. I'd argue there's already a strong disincentive for abuse in place due to that alone. And if states pass laws making this kind of non-casual ballot harvesting illegal, as is their right, I think it would be very effective. Really, our model for abuse is that organized groups do organized bad things to ballots. So it's not only unlikely, but also easily preventable. Some states might also want to codify some sort of official or semi-official ballot harvester, and I think that would be a bad idea, but it's not a flagrantly bad idea, depending on implementation.

"Voting should be hard" is, like, maybe fine as an idea, but in practice it's extremely vulnerable to various kinds of unethical voter suppression efforts. It's more fair and more just for everybody to simply keep voting on the easy side. Just like how we have a long history of arguments like "only landowners can vote". Some of those arguments were even half-decent! But at the end of the day, a government is by the people, for the people, and so a person is a person and a person should be able to vote. Social contract, and all that. Governments should represent their people, even if we might not want them to. That's just what's fair and natural. And (IMO) desirable, but that's just a bonus.

I agree with you in general, but when people say that widespread voter fraud ended in the Gilded Age, I am reminded of Robert Caro's magnificent biography of Lyndon Johnson. His 1948 election to the Senate was characterized by massive fraud - which was in fact the norm in Texas at that time , complete with jeffes telling their underlings how to vote (and supervising the votes to make sure they did it correctly), ballots collected by party apparatchiks, and illegals shipped across the border to vote en masse.

Voter fraud really isn't some hypothetical bogey man that's a relic of ancient times. Our elections are probably a lot cleaner today than in the 1940s and 1950s, but the potential and the motivation is most definitely still out there.

Fair point. Not saying it ended precipitously, just was giving a contrasting example, though most numbers I’ve seen do indicate a low rate over recent decades. Worth noting that locale might make a difference. New Jersey, for example, might need some very strong fraud laws in a way that Oregon might not.

  1. I’m not sure your first paragraph is true. You might not want to hand your ballot to any random person. But imagine you live in a poor community. In that community, there is a kind activist who comes by regularly and helps out. You aren’t really politically motivated but you like the activist. The activist says “hey do you want to vote? I’ll make it really easy and drop off the ballot for you.” You don’t really care that much but you like the activist. So you agree.

Are we sure that doesn’t happen? There are of course other failure modes.

  1. We had in person voting for years and years. Covid measures were a major relaxation of those rules. I’m suggesting we simply go back to the status quo ante.

To be totally transparent, I grew up in Oregon which has for many years been almost exclusively vote by mail, and so VBM literally is normal voting for me. I’ve voted in person once in my current state, and that was because I forgot to mail my by-mail ballot on time (plus I was curious about the in person experience).

That is a plausible sounding failure mode but no, I don’t think it’s very common at all. One, there actually aren’t all that many poor community activists. Activism tends to be, contrary to media idealization, roughly correlated to actual voting propensity and roughly proportional to free time. Which happen to both be in short(er) supply in poor neighborhoods.

Finally, many of these activists that do exist are typically fairly well organized and not very ad-hoc. If ballot harvesting is of questionable moral or legal status, it’s highly unlikely to be part of their spiel or to be organized (which would also leave a paper trail). Instead they will say things like “I can help tell you if you have trouble with the instructions”, “let me make it easy by letting you know the deadlines without figuring out the complicated questions”, “here are the nearest drop locations” and “call me if you are confused about anything”. They might do something at most like “at 5pm we’re going to get a bunch of people rides/ all walk over to drop off our ballots, want to come? (Though that would be rare)” I’ve seen one or two door to door scripts in my time plus a few more online and they almost always look like this. If someone digs up a door to door script that actually contained ballot harvesting instructions that might shift my prior a bit, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t happen in any significant way. (And, not to move the goalposts or anything, but a law cracking down would make any vestiges disappear very fast, which I’m not opposed to as long as it doesn’t accidentally criminalize too many of the family casual modes I mentioned)

How do drop boxes make ballot harvesting more likely than mailboxes?

Probably not more likely. Both are part of the same problem.

The statute allows simply mailing ballots. There is no problem here that needs solving.

Would you be allowed to mail a sealed ballot on someone else's behalf?

I don't think I've ever actually mailed a physical letter in my entire life. I'm sure it's not too hard, but one can imagine 80IQ or low-motivation people screwing it up.

There’s something to what you say, but I’d say the impact is more on young people than on stupid people. Even though some people here can’t seem to imagine it, there are plenty of younger Millennials and Zoomers who have never sent a letter in their lives, and I know for a fact that many elementary schools stopped teaching kids how to address an envelope 15+ years ago (probably around the time they stopped teaching cursive). Bills get paid online, greeting cards are passe, and anything else can be handled via email. Couple these young people’s inexperience with their crippling anxiety and other mental disorders, and many will decide to skip an activity entirely rather than try to figure out how to send a letter. Even worse are the ones who don’t know how to address an envelope but who arrogantly assume they can just somehow figure it out. I’ve seen some doozies from younger coworkers.

I’d guess low-IQ individuals, on the other hand, probably send out more letters than any other group. They’re probably more likely to still pay bills by cash or check, they’re more likely to have relatives or friends who are incarcerated (jails and prisons still make inmates use the postal service), they’re more likely to receive government benefits that require them to send documents via mail, etc.

I've had a few friends go to prison. Can't speak for everyone or all of them, but it seems most of them have solutions for electronic messaging now. It's all hacky custom apps by some prison services company that are overpriced, don't work that well, and are certain to be highly monitored, but it's still better than physical letters. Physical letters may still be necessary sometimes though.

I don't think I'd ever communicate with a regular person via written physical letters. But it's also hard to imagine not ever mailing a physical letter in my whole life. At least some legal and bureaucratic processes still seem to require it.

They’re probably more likely to still pay bills by cash or check,

The underclass pays their bills over the phone or through middlemen. Not by mailing a physical check.

No offense, but what possible lifestyle do you live? Are you really young, like college age?

Am I just old and out of touch, or are you a strange outlier?

I’m youngish (just shy of 30). I have never sent a physical letter. No one I know my age has ever sent a physical letter. I have sent 1 package by UPS. I recently had to walk a friend through how to do so because they had no idea how it worked at all, whether they needed their own box or were provided one etc.

It’s just really not that common unless you sell stuff online or something and so need to ship things.

You've never had to deal with a government agency by mail?

No. In what context would that be necessary? All state-level stuff has always been online, and county-level, while theoretically doable via mail, is easier to just do in person. I can’t think of anything that would require the mail, and anything that doesn’t require it gets sped up by several weeks by not using it.

Meanwhile, all my dealings with the feds have involved a blacked-out SUV showing up at my door. By far the most convenient.

And we have discovered the reason why Democrats want this and Republicans don't.

Whether true or not, both parties believe that the extremely stupid and lazy will lean blue.

If stupid and lazy people are going to screw up mailing a ballot then I'm not sure why Democrats would expect to benefit.

Subsets of the population which incline towards the Democratic Party have low voter turnout. The average nonvoter would favor the Democratic Party if voting was mandatory.

We're talking about voting by mail, not mandatory voting.

Your experience is extremely atypical and I wouldn’t extrapolate from that.

Agreed. I'm a person who does a lot of stuff digitally (more than average, in my experience) and I still mail physical letters a few times per year. Someone who has never mailed a letter ever is way, way outside the norm.

Also, I'll second @yofuckreddit here: mailing a letter is really easy and if someone can't figure it out, they frankly are too stupid to vote. Even if one has never mailed a letter before, it would take 5 minutes with Google to look at how you are supposed to address the envelope and where the nearest post office is. The bar to entry is on the floor here.

You don't even need to address the envelope to vote by mail. They send you an envelope. You just have to put the ballot in, seal it, sign it, and put it in a blue box.

I haven't mailed anything in years, and I haven't mailed an actual letter in decades.

I'm struggling to think of when I last received a valuable piece of mail (instead of just paper copies of bills and advertisements). It might have been some Christmas cards from pre-pandemic times.

I got a jury summons the other day and the IRS communicates via mail.

I'm struggling to think of when I last received a valuable piece of mail

Weekly for me. In the past month: a passport, a check, a medical bill. All mandatory through the mail.

I’ve sent one or two letters in my life. Idr how to do it but I’m sure it’s googleable.

It might be more typical for the under 25 contingent. Many do seem genuinely unable to do simple offline things like mail a letter or make phone calls to a business.

I've seen a Reddit post where a young person claimed that no apartments were available in their city because they couldn't find any on the one or two apartment websites they tried. When people pointed out a large number of listings on Craig's List, they seemed to despair at the thought of actually having to call or email for information. Maybe that says more about Reddit than young people... but this is presumably not ultra rare behavior.

Sounds like a feature, not a bug.

Isn't the answer to that to just put drop boxes at the clerk's office?

A cynic might view the apperent desire to avoid a simple and obvious solution to the dilemma as evidence that this is not "a dilemma" as much as it is a power-play.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats