And those aren't the only changes I support. But it doesn't matter. When "my side" proposes it, it literally doesn't matter what we propose, it's "racist" or some other -ist. It's racist when we purge invalid, illegal, fraudulent, and expired registrations from the voter registry, too, for example, and yet that's a bare minimum requirement for a trustworthy election system.
It's funny to say that, when I'm the one being called racist in this thread. (Ghostmaker called me "confirmed as racist".)
It seems to me that it doesn't matter what I propose, I'm being called racist and supporting fraud.
My biggest problem with our system is the legal manipulation of voting - like gerrymandering, hours-long lines in poorer districts, and voting day being on a work day. That's why I oppose changes that add additional burden on select groups of voters.
I'm especially in favor of changes that study and prove existing voter fraud in order to come up with solutions, rather than blindly applying changes that also make it more difficult for certain voters. Apropos the topic, if people believe that massive voter fraud is happening in the U.S. - I'd think that people would be pushing for lawmakers and laws that would prove fraud and punish those responsible.
I would not consider you racist in the sense of consciously thinking one race is inferior to another or biologically predisposed to failure due to innate physiological “flaws”. Which for me is the only type of racist that’s a solvable issue in a world where everyone has their own subconscious biases and predilections. (Ex: Some people negatively stereotype straight white males subconsciously too, including indoctrinated straight white males. And sensitivity training doesn’t really seem to work even for removing the biases it targets, which are themselves at times questionable.)
I do think we get a whole lot less of such accusations in absolute terms here than you might on sites sponsored by the left on average. Not least because their definitions of transgression tend to be far less measured and reasonable than my own, with a very real “with us on whatever we say, blindly, or against us” mentality.
Likewise, I think mudslinging is a questionable use of all our time. By and large I think people, even on the internet more broadly (places like rpg.net excepted), but especially on a site like this one, tend to mean well. Even if they are sometimes blinded to the words, positions, and reasonings of others by their own stances and preconceptions. I think you mean well and are an upstanding person with a cool rpg site, even if I don’t agree with you on a lot of things.
I do agree that gerrymandering can be a problem and neutral commissions that equalize the value of a person’s vote might be preferable. I think a national voting holiday would be great and patriotic, even if unnecessary given things like early voting, absentee ballots, genuine estimates of whether it is nonviable to vote or simply a bit less easy (and let us be honest, nothing is ever equally easy for everyone), and my earlier thoughts on the rational follow-ups on disparate impact. I am against voter intimidation of legitimate voters, especially on the basis of race and where it is politically supported.
However, I do acknowledge that some of the positions you seem to support with respect to voting are indeed touched upon in my questioning of the true validity of disparate impact. Likewise, in instances where others have seemingly reasonably implied the real burden of acquiring an ID in practical terms seems quite low, in exchange for basic electoral security, you seem opposed on similar bases. In this sense, while I do not doubt that you disapprove of fraud itself, you are admittedly protecting it from prosecution along certain viable policy lines. Seemingly because you perhaps buy into both some things related to disparate impact and because you either don’t see or find valid the points others have been making with respect to actual voter impacts and the exploited insecurities of our system, or perhaps you do not want to believe.
(To be fair, prior to reading through this thread I was a lot more skeptical of the possibility of real and actionable fraud as well. I still don’t think there is sufficient legal proof to overturn the election and have that be justified, or to lock up Biden on something election related. [Especially since with the fake elector stuff and classified document bs we perhaps shouldn’t cast stones from glass houses.] But I do now believe that our system is flawed and should be changed on that basis as well as the basis of public faith in elections being so low. For that to happen, as noted by others, we may have to pay a bit at times in ease.)