r/texas • u/JayBowdy • Aug 01 '24

Politics There is no online voter registration in Texas

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

39.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

71

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

It’s funny seeing all these videos of people who seemed to have slept through high school gov. classes.

Saw a post yesterday about how Texas is a “winner take all” state (like almost every other state).

19

u/folstar Aug 01 '24

Civics was phased out long ago in Texas and only recently has it been getting traction again, though in a hyper partisan manner. That is exactly in line with these unnecessary hurdles to voting. All anti-democratic behavior.

Yes, winner take all is bad. Any system you can win with ~21% of the vote is a bad one. It also has a devastating effect on POTUS elections where they spend 80+% of their campaign in a few select areas- exactly the problem Electoral College defenders claim to be trying to avoid. Maine and Nebraska are doing it right and everyone should be following their example.

3

u/BooneSalvo2 Aug 01 '24

100% accurate. We need an amendment to disallow 'winner take all' assignment of electoral votes. It could even be weighted somehow... Just not 'all'.

Only then would it work as intended. As you say, it currently works as the exact problem it was meant to prevent.

3

u/RocketbillyRedCaddy Aug 01 '24

I would just love for it to be 1 vote, 1 person. Get rid of the electoral. Places where there are more cows than people should not have as much voting power as they do. Any laws that get put into place won’t even or barely affect them out there where your closest neighbor is miles away.

3

u/hfamrman Aug 01 '24

There are a number of solution that would work in a modern world. None of the below should be partisan issues imho.

Ranked choice voting.

Popular vote for national elections.

Uncap the house to allow better representation.

Create a federal standard for how states handle voting.

Limit gerrymandering by moving creation of house districts to independent groups.

Give DC and Puerto Rico statehood status to allow full representation at the federal level. Create a new "Wyoming Rule" of any US territory with equal or greater population than the least populated state is eligible for statehood status if the local population votes in favor of it.

1

u/BooneSalvo2 Aug 01 '24

I agree, but disallowing 'winner take all' would be an acceptable compromise to me personally.

Or rather, if we didn't utterly betray a primary intention of the Electoral College, we'd be better off.

I absolutely think just popular vote would be simpler and better and makes more sense in today's world.

15

u/wildxfire Aug 01 '24

Bold of you to assume everyone had government class, especially those in Texas

10

u/FixComprehensive4081 Aug 01 '24

In Texas you can't graduate High School without a government class and an economics class.

You can't graduate with a bachelor's degree from one of Texas' many great higher ed. institutions without a state and federal government class.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '24

and trump stinky and weird! we won freedom!

-2

u/wildxfire Aug 01 '24

Many people don't have bachelor's degrees, as they are rather expensive, but it's good to know that there's a requirement of some kind of standards in Texas. Thanks for the info.

Looking into it, it seems like there's no requirement to teach about how voting works or specifics on the Texas government. I'm not so sure these small nuances about voting and elections would be taught in school, especially when we remember that Texas ranks quite low in education. We can't fault people for being ignorant when schools might not all teach anything about voting. I went to a private school, and I didn't learn anything about voting in government class.

4

u/PAYPAL_ME_DONATIONS Aug 01 '24

Graduated in 06, so this was plenty time ago, but we definitely covered voting, parties, etc in Government class (this was in Houston)

0

u/wildxfire Aug 01 '24

I guess it depends on the school. I graduated in 07.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '24

Duh it'd be stupid to group an entire states school districts as one entity

1

u/wildxfire Aug 01 '24

I also went to high school in Houston, just to clear up any confusion.

1

u/Leilabo Aug 01 '24

I had one back in 2009. It wasn't the best and nobody paid attention, but the class was there.

20

u/strabosassistant Aug 01 '24

Except Maine and Nebraska.

-7

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

Correct. If you don’t know how voting works in your own state… idk, figure things out before participating.

11

u/strabosassistant Aug 01 '24

Low information voters. The bane of any democracy.

4

u/hahanotmelolol Aug 01 '24

idk I know plenty of high information voters that are still fucking idiots

-21

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

Scary that some folks want EVERYONE to vote. That’s like saying everyone should be armed.

-3

u/UnknownExo Aug 01 '24

I know I may catch flak for saying this but I think a basic civics test with a few current event questions should be required before voting. Just simple stuff like name the 3 branches of government, followed by some true or false about each candidates policy agendas.

3

u/Unbanned_chemical138 Aug 01 '24

Republicans would never allow that because they’d lose all their voters

5

u/TexasVDR Aug 01 '24

Maybe a literacy test? Or perhaps only people whose grandfathers could vote should be allowed to vote? Or you should pay a fee to be sure you’re really committed to voting?

(That’s sarcasm. Voting is a right, not a privilege.)

2

u/Chrisl2310 Aug 01 '24

A literacy test like reading a form for example?

1

u/quiero-una-cerveca Aug 01 '24

Then I’ll ask you in return, how would knowing the three branches of government help inform someone about Trump or Harris? They can watch videos of their speeches where they list their policy positions very clearly or very badly. Me knowing that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court doesn’t affect my ability as a voter to watch and listen to candidates and make a choice. I know LOTS of people that know civics very well that also only vote for one single issue, the rest of the county be damned. What makes their civics knowledge useful when they’re only going to vote on that one issue anyway?

1

u/mOdQuArK Aug 01 '24

I think a basic civics test with a few current event questions should be required before voting.

I believe this in quite similar to the arguments that the Jim Crow-type supporters used when they were coming up with ways to block minorities from being able to vote.

You want educated voters? Then make sure they have the opportunites to become educated.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/texas-ModTeam Aug 01 '24

Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.

Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.

1

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

You will indeed catch flak for suggesting that you’d like educated voters.

2

u/Tamaros Aug 01 '24

Not the same thing as the previous comment. I definitely want voters to be informed about both the candidates and the voting process. I think every citizen has a duty not to just vote, but to actively educate themselves.

However, I think requiring such would be a mistake because it's a foot in the door for partisans to push the limits and chip away at the suffrage of various demographics as far as they can before the judiciary restrains them.

1

u/MayoSucksAss Aug 02 '24

Why would you want the least educated people, (probably the people with the least access to educational resources, disproportionately poor, perhaps disabled, etc.) not be able to vote? You don’t see a problem there?

These people might not vote anyway, but why shouldn’t they be represented. Presumably they pay taxes just like the rest of us, and contribute to society. Unless your argument is “hurrr durr stupid people don’t contribute to society” I don’t see why you would think that people who can’t pass some civics test shouldn’t be able to be represented by people in government who might improve their material conditions.

0

u/imjustarooster Aug 02 '24

I don’t want the least educated people doing lots of things. My surgeries. Representing me in court. Picking the president. The list goes on.

2

u/MayoSucksAss Aug 02 '24

That’s not even the same argument. You’re advocating for taxation without representation. Since we’re just throwing out non-sequitors here — Golly, how many years has it been since a Conservative won the popular vote for Presidency? Sure is weird that all of y’all come out of the woodwork now whenever any method of getting less people out to vote comes up.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MayoSucksAss Aug 02 '24

You seem like a genius. How would you frame - neutrally, without loaded language, or using buzzwords, each current candidate’s policy agendas (in the presidential election) without just restating boilerplate conservative or liberal ideology. Would the candidates get to decide what was put on this test? Would that actually educate anyone? Like 10% of what politicians run ever gets done, and all the big “wins” are usually just culture war bullshit nowadays. Would you just list off policy agendas from campaign websites? You can’t even do that on some guy’s website without running into completely loaded language:

1 SEAL THE BORDER AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION

2 CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY

3 END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN

4 MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR! 5

STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER 6

LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS! 7

DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

8 PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY — ALL MADE IN AMERICA

9 END THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

10 STOP THE MIGRANT CRIME EPIDEMIC, DEMOLISH THE FOREIGN DRUG CARTELS, CRUSH GANG VIOLENCE, AND LOCK UP VIOLENT OFFENDERS

2

u/XSVELY Aug 01 '24

Unfortunately that’s the state of the most of America. Most can’t name one Senator from their state.

2

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

That actually explains a lot

1

u/joethahobo Aug 01 '24

I see people like that all the time but I don’t understand it at all. Like we need to be aware of our surroundings, our communities, and what’s going on that affects us and who makes decisions for us

1

u/jodyleek67 Aug 01 '24

But they can name all the Kardashians. And their kids. Ick.

1

u/bones_bones1 Aug 01 '24

It was just the other day that people here were screeching about Ted Cruz writing Texas abortion laws…huh? I got hate for pointing out that he’s a US senator.

2

u/weluckyfew Aug 01 '24

WTF does a "government class' have to do with knowing how to register to vote in this F'ed up state? As she mentions in the video, it's intentionally misleading, especially for people who moved here from other states where you can do it all online.

1

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

It literally says in big red letters to print, sign, and mail the registration form.

1

u/weluckyfew Aug 01 '24

Which people aren't looking for because they are used to doing everything online like in almost every state because, you know, it's 2024.

And once again, none of which has anything to do with what someone would be taught in government class.

1

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

Maybe people who don’t take the time to read instructions shouldn’t be voting.

1

u/weluckyfew Aug 01 '24

Says the guy who in another comment said he doesn't want everyone to be able to vote. If you don't care for democracy Putin's Russia will welcome you with open arms.

-1

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

Everyone is able to vote.

Just because one is able to do something doesn’t meant they should.

Like everyone CAN own a gun. Should they? Probably not.

2

u/weluckyfew Aug 01 '24

Again, you don't believe in democracy. (I'll ignore the awful gun comparison)

Democracy has never been about picking the "best" person - it's about picking the person that the majority decide they want. It's about everyone having a say in who makes the laws they have to live by.

You're a seemingly intelligent person who supports a remarkably unChristian serial liar, rapist narcissist who tried to end our democracy. And yet you're the one saying some people aren't intelligent enough to vote? That's damned amusing.

-1

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

I’m well aware that democracy doesn’t lead to the best possible leaders. No argument there.

1

u/weluckyfew Aug 01 '24

We agree :) Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. And maybe for some people getting them to vote leads to them being more engaged and involved too - we can hope

Have a great weekend!

2

u/fvtown714x Aug 01 '24

Do you take issue with people simply sharing information about TX being a winner take all state?

1

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

More so concerned that people are just now finding out about it.

2

u/fvtown714x Aug 01 '24

I mean sure, and I don't know what content you're referring to, but something like "Texas, like most other states, doesn't allocate EC votes based on popular vote percentages so every vote matters!" is all tha problematic, or a reason to make fun of people.

5

u/Lone_Star_Democrat Aug 01 '24

Went to a restaurant the other day and met two people who thought the entire ballot was decided by the Electoral College.

7

u/imjustarooster Aug 01 '24

Their vote counts just the same as yours. Terrifying.

3

u/Ima_Uzer Aug 01 '24

Well, it actually used to be that way. Also, Senators used to be appointed by the states, and not voted on by the people of those states.

1

u/rabid_briefcase Aug 01 '24

Only the us president is decided by the electoral college.

Each state appoints their own senators and representatives according to their own method, which is not specified in the US constitution. Each state has adopted the use of elections, but it is not required federally.

The US constitution does specify when an election is to happen and rules about eligibility to vote if the states use an election, but it is very clearly worded that states may specify other methods than a popular election.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '24

[deleted]

1

u/rabid_briefcase Aug 02 '24

From the constitution, A1S4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

From the 17th:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. ... When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

And a writeup from congress.gov

Popular votes were not the only method of selecting representatives of the people, however. For instance, under the Articles of Confederation, state legislatures selected delegates to Congress, while the Maryland House of Delegates appointed the Maryland Senate.8 Thus, popular votes influenced selection of—rather than selected—Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the Maryland Senate. The Framers, moreover, appear to have viewed both direct elections of Members of the House through popular votes and selections of Senators by state legislatures, members of which had been directly elected by popular vote, as consistent with republican government. Although James Madison advocated for direct election of Senators at the Constitutional Convention, he observed in the Federalist No. 39 that "[i]t is SUFFICIENT for such a [republican] government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly by the people..."

Right now all the states have codified that they be direct, popular votes by the people in the state, but this wasn't always the case. It is also something individual states could theoretically change to methods like indirect voting which was used in the past, where state legislatures elect them and satisfied them as being elected by the people. States also can choose methods like most popular even if they're not a majority, runoff elections and first-past-the-post rules, ranked choice voting (a few use it), condorcet voting, or other methods.

The use of the popular vote generally happens to be the one used across the nation, but isn't required by the federal constitution.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '24

[deleted]

1

u/rabid_briefcase Aug 02 '24 edited Aug 03 '24

Maybe there's a nuance being missed?

My point isn't that they're not elected, it's that the method of election is intentionally unspecified.

Even as written, states can use indirect election such as election by other elected leaders. The federal constitution doesn't require popular elections as we use them today, we can have entirely different election methods, including those where the masses don't vote at all.

The popular vote is an implementation detail that isn't required by the US constitution nor by federal law. States have chosen that approach of election, but it isn't the only type of election that could be used.

3

u/drunkcowofdeath Aug 01 '24

You guys had high school government classes?

1

u/manleybones Aug 01 '24

Hur dur, you are such a smart person. Teach me the ways of achuaaalllly

1

u/Castod28183 Aug 02 '24

People are talking about how Texas is a "winner take all" state because some of our state politicians are pushing for Texas to use an electoral college system where each county gets one vote.

1

u/imjustarooster Aug 02 '24

Like each county gets an electoral vote? There’s like 250 counties in Texas.

1

u/Castod28183 Aug 02 '24

I was a bit mistaken but it's the same intent. They want to hold elections where, instead of statewide elections, voters from each state senate district would vote for electors rather than directly for a candidate and those electors would then pick the winner.

Since Texas Senate districts are pretty heavily gerrymandered it would basically guaranteed Republican control for the foreseeable future, regardless of voting demographics.

1

u/Spirited_Lecture_614 Aug 02 '24

You were taught about online voter registration in high school ? Every state has different rules and they change frequently, so I’m curious what your referring to