Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Typo

Hi there is a typo that you made a mistake of while I googled the GOP, the Gop is in the senate minority not the majority anymore, if you have time please change that, but I perfer you to do that becuase im not a expert on wiki. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk • contribs)

Inclusion of "Trumpism" and/or "Authoritarianism" as an factional ideology, or something to that effect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many articles have claimed that authoritarianism is an ideology favoured among the hard-right and far-right of the Republican Party. 147 GOP members of Congress voted to overturn the 2020 election, and many of them have espoused explicitly anti-democratic beliefs as well. I feel we see democracy through to rosy a lense in the West to say that there is an "anti-democratic" faction and not be violating NPOV. So how about "authoritarianism" instead? Or Trumpism, too? Here is the section on Trumpism for the page of GOP factions.

From that article, an excerpt.

As of 2021, the dominant faction in the Republican Party consists of Trumpists, supporters of a movement associated with the political base of Donald Trump. A poll conducted in February 2021 indicated that a plurality of Republicans (46%-27%) would leave the Republican Party to join a new party if Trump chose to create it. Rather than adopting a new platform, the Republican Party resolved in 2020 to renew its platform of 2016 and declared, "The Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's America-First agenda". By late 2017, performative loyalty and demonstrations of devotion to Trump were normalized within the party. Political science research indicates that the "insurgent" Tea Party faction paved the way for Trump and this faction within Congress. While ideological components of the movement are considered fluid and can at times be hard to define or approach from one lens of analysis, Trumpism is widely considered to represent the far-right in the United States and be an extension of the global national-populist and neo-nationalist movement which saw prominence beginning in the 2010s. Trumpism has frequently been considered to be the American realization of right-wing populism by many political scientists while others have viewed it as a new form of fascism or neo-fascism, characterizing it as authoritarian and illiberal. Some historians, including many of those using a new fascism classification, note that there are strong parallels but considerable differences between Trumpism and 20th century European fascism. Trumpism has been considered to be an ideological successor to paleoconservatism as well. Increasingly, vocal support for election denial and voter suppression are near universal traits of Trumpist politicians and Trump himself endorsed many 2022 midterm candidates who held such beliefs. Leading Trump supporters in Congress as of August 2021 include Representatives Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn and Elise Stefanik, and Senators Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Tommy Tuberville, who were among 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas and Kristi Noem of South Dakota are also strong supporters and allies of Trump.

Here are some sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/29/truth-about-gop-they-prefer-authoritarianism-democracy/

https://journals.openedition.org/spp/5340

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/6/15/22522504/republicans-authoritarianism-trump-competitive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/22/republican-authoritarianism-is-here-stay/

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gops-free-market-principles-take-authoritarian-turn-rcna23008

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k78znw/the-gops-off-the-rails-march-toward-authoritarianism-has-historians-worried

https://www.newsweek.com/gop-became-authoritarian-party-former-nixon-white-house-lawyer-1676257

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/why-are-democrats-like-biden-still-defending-republican-politicians

Aubernas (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not an ideology. Also, the party was recently in control of the executive and during that time no opposition leaders were arrested, resistance media such as CNN were allowed to continue publishing and dissident intellectuals were allowed to continue teaching. In fact the number of "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay declined and no show trials were held. TFD (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, according to Wikipedia right now, Trumpism is the sum of the "political ideologies, social emotions, [and] style of governance...associated with Donald Trump". Multiple sources I listed have compared this to authoritarianism, for its "set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping control of power". And no, I'm not saying the party is literally authoritarian. Like I said, I'm referring to a major faction, listed on a separate page on this site, who broadly support authoritarianism. Your own choice of phrasing "resistance media such as CNN" "dissident intellectuals" suggest that you are perhaps not wiling to contribute to a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view viewpoint. If you are willing to be neutral, however, that's great. Aubernas (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I used that terminology to show how absurd the comparison is. When there is an authoritarian government, its opponents are by definition dissidents. Of course there is an element of truth in it, but you are taking it to extremes. In the late 1700s, the Dems called the Federalists royalists, while the Federalists called them Jacobins. In 1912, the Republicans referred to the Dems as socialists. None of these accusations were justified, although they had an element of truth. It's nothing new. And authoritarianism is not an ideology.

I am being constructive. I don't think that articles should mirror partisan rhetoric, wherever it originates.

TFD (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the opposition politicians called themselves "the Resistance." TFD (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Trumpism isn't a thing and our article on it is a fucking embarrassment. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A majority of political scientists would disagree with you. ––FormalDude talk 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Trumpism specifically. It's surprising to me we don't have it as part of the article already. It's clearly a faction of the Republican Party and our page on it makes that quite clear. Loki (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Last time I peeked, the Democrats had control of the White House, the Senate & the House of Representatives. That wouldn't have been possible, if Trumpism were effective. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Support- But many Republicans want Trumpism to be effective, so therefore it's part of their ideology. The workings of the Senate Republicans to nominate hardline conservatives to the Supreme Court, and Josh Hawley saluting the protestors on 1/6 is Trumpism, even if it didn't accomplish all of their goals. It's got nothing to do with Trumpism actually working. Leftwing politicians in Japan still believe in democratic socialism, even if the 1955 system means that the LDP has been in power for almost 70 years. If it's on the page about factions itself already, why wouldn't be in the article? Aubernas (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that Trumpism is an ideology? If it is, what is it beyond support for the leader by people of different ideologies? Can you name any ideological texts? TFD (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You could start with th 2020 GOP Platform. Your arguments so far are straw man. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? That would mean I made misdefined authoritarianism. So there's a brand of authoritarianism that doesn't actually arrest its opponents and rule by decree? And FYI, the 2020 platform merely repeated the 2016 one, despite Trump's objections. TFD (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen you often misdefine or define in terms of adjacency rather than substance. You also tend to appropriate isolated facts out of context, which results, if I may say so, in your confusion on certain issues of American politics. Anyway the platform bit was widely reported: [1] [2] [3] SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The Vox article that you linked to says the 2016 platform was not written by Trump supporters, Kushner wanted drastic changes to it for 2020 and the RNC decided instead to adopt the 2016 platform for 2020. You can read the full resolution here. In fact Biden had far more say over his party's platform in 2020. Are you arguing that because Trump had no say in the 2020 platform that he was authoritarian? TFD (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point. You seem to be defining "authoritarian" as "effective" or "successful" authoritarian. By that standard, Mussolini, Saddam, and countless others were not authoritarians. I think you're aware of the well-documented accounts of Trump wanting to shoot citizens, overturn the 2020 election, encourageing his rallygoers to beat up protesters, etc. So I think your problem is simply that your definition makes no sense. Trump is clearly and widely reported to have pursued authoritarian goals and methods. He has not been fully successful to date. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that if the circumstances that applied to interwar Europe applied to the U.S. today, would Trump have become a dictator? I think he probably would have. Then again, the European dictators had near unanimous support from conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals, who voted to give them dictatorial powers. So I imagine given the same circumstances, most Democrats would be Fascists too. In fact if the next election is between a Trump and a progressive Democrat, I expect a lot of editors will be working hard to change the tone of this article. Donny Deutsch for example said that given the choice between Trump and Sanders, he would support Trump, and I am sure he speaks for many Democrats, especially the leadership. Does that make him an authoritarian? Where do you draw the line? TFD (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Donny Deutsch? That's easy. Draw the line at ever thinking about Donyy Deutsch. Back to reality, Trump has the support of most Republicans, who failed to convict him in the second impeachment. And although the Taliban was looking forward to that Camp David weenie roast with him in 2020, Trump's model is nothing as smooth as the Continental fascists. More 3rd world. SPECIFICO talk 11:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose adding authoritarianism as it is far too broad of a term to use. Trumpism is better because it is more specific and thus more accurate, but I'm not sure about adding Trumpism. X-Editor (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Support adding Trumpism per OP. Frankly I'm surprised it's not in the article already. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose None of those sources are sufficient for adding "Trumpism" (what ever that is) as a faction of the GOP. Additionally the evidence for "authoritarianism" is suspect and the sort of thing that should only be added with historical hindsight rather vs relying on contemporary sources than may be trying to persuade rather than just inform their readers. Springee (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing "whatever that is" after "Trumpism" shows us that you ignoring the article I linked to just there, and that many others have linked to further up in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Since when does an ideology requires their supporters to be in power for it to be an ideology? This is a complete non-argument. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia should aim for accuracy MappedTables (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose both, assuming we're talking about the infobox. Neither is fleshed out well enough in the body to even consider it at this stage. I'd favor changes to the body of the article that discuss Trump's effect on the party, including at least a mention of Trumpism. Part of the problem here is that §Trump era is written like a summary of the Trump presidency article and goes into far too much detail about things that have little relevance to the party. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Soft support on adding Trumpism. Instead of listing it on its own, it could possibly be listed as a sub-point under right-wing populism. Given recent events, though, I'm unsure if moving right-wing populism and possibly Christian right out of factional ideology and place them under conservatism as a main ideology or something of that sort. Oppose adding authoritarianism due to the fact it is too general, and even parties universally considered authoritarian like the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, etc do not have it listed in the infobox, instead discussing it in the article body. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Support either of these. Verbally, Trumpism is the lighter of the two; but they both amount to the same. Anti-immigrant, anti-democracy, and anti women's and LGBT rights rhetoric and effections are historically telling signs of authoritarianism. GarethPW (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose both. "Authoritarianism" is much too vague and broad – as every politician (and parent) supports it. (I'm in charge!) "Trumpism" is vague too. Mr. Trump has one political philosophy (or "ism") – to be the focus. So including it as a characteristic of the Republican Party is putting a non-encyclopedic importance into the term. – S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Support both. There is a dearth of reliable sourcing supporting each of these. I definitely think that they should be, at minimum, listed as ideological factions of the party in the infobox. Cpotisch (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add National Conservatism/Paleoconservatism as a faction of the Ideology section.

It's clear since the rise of Trump and the "anti-woke" current in the GOP that there is an ideological stream of national conservatism. I think some examples of National Conservative beliefs in the GOP are social conservatism (pro-life, anti-LGBT, pro-religion, etc.), anti-immigration sentiment, skepticism of NATO and other international institutions, and less of a hard line on fiscal conservatism. I think some examples of prominent Republican office holders and ideologues of this view would be (debatably) Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Tucker Carlson, Josh Hawley, (arguably) Marjorie Taylor Greene, Saagar Enjeti (former Republican), (arguably) Ron Desantis and others.

I'm not too familiar with the wikipedia procedure for proposing changes to protected articles but I think National Conservatism should be added as a faction of the Ideology section on this article. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

These aren't really actual wings. There's a substantial amount of overlap with social conservatives/Christian right, and maybe a handful of commentators. It's about as real as Reformicons were. Toa Nidhiki05 00:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is Nixon and Watergate completely missing from the “history section “?

Why is Nixon and Watergate missing completely from history?? This seems like a MAJOR oversight? 2603:8001:B507:7B28:1A1:1DF8:2224:5D23 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Nixon is mentioned, although Watergate isn't. It should be included. TFD (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Nixon is mentioned as a name, but absolutely nothing about his presidency or his strategy is. Not the Southern Strategy, not the beginning of "tough on crime" rhetoric, not winning by huge margins, not the beginnings of the modern primary system... It's not just Watergate we're missing here. Loki (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Nixon won the election by 1968 by a popular vote margin of 0.70%, and the election of 1972 by a popular vote margin of 23.15%. The "huge" vote margin was actually less than some of the election victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren G. Harding. We can compare vote margins in List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Brief discussion of Watergate in the history section would absolutely be due. Anyone should feel free to boldly add it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"restrictions on voting rights"

I added references to the Republicans' "restrictions on voting rights" to the lead wording, but another editor has disputed the specific wording as being non-neutral. I feel this is a bit of a double standard, since we refer to "restrictions on abortion" right before it with no objections. Replacing it with "stricter voting laws" does not truly emphasize the position. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a mobile edit so please excuse any brevity. I have also been concerned with both the volume and neutrality of the content you recently added. I think you have put assertions in as fact and the sourcing isn't broad enough to give the comments the weight you have given them. Springee (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also citing such things as core examples of things the GOP supports, which is beyond ludicrous. I would encourage ViperSnake151 to stop with these disruptive, inflammatory edits. Toa Nidhiki05 17:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Two issues 1) Specific phrasing and 2) Whether appropriate for the lead. I agree that the Republican party generally has supported greater regulation of the voting process; things like voter ID laws and purging of registration rolls have been key party-wide positions for some time. I think that restrictions on voting rights is likely to be inflammatory phrasing. I'm kinda agnostic on whether it does belong in the lead, but I think that if we decide it is, I think the phrasing could be tweaked. Perhaps something like "greater regulation of voting processes" or even just list the concrete things they support or have tried to enact, like voter ID laws and the like. --Jayron32 19:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Right now the article uses the wording "stricter voting laws to control electoral fraud", which does get at your idea more. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  The sources are clear that Republicans want electoral restrictions, not regulation to prevent electoral fraud; that's overt Republican propaganda. There's virtually no electoral fraud in the US; what Republicans are trying to do, and have done so historically (see Democracy in Chains, historians have written about this for decades), is to limit and restrict electoral participation in the US, most notably by making it difficult for people to vote (the US doesn't have voting holidays, doesn't offer paid time off from work to vote, and voting is generally held in the middle of the work week to make it difficult for most people, combined with recent efforts to restrict mail-in voting). It's by design that the US has some of the lowest voter turn out out of any democracy. Republicans don't want the majority of people to vote, because when they do, they vote left, not right. This isn't even debatable, it's a matter of record. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is an encyclopedia, not a political rally, Viriditas. I'd recommend you leave the talking points at home. Toa Nidhiki05 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's exactly the opposite. The political propaganda we're being spoon-fed here is that the Republican Party does not engage in restrictions on voting rights, when the history of the topic shows otherwise, and the key figures, historians, philosophers, political activists, party members, donors, fundraisers, and politicians have all expressed support for voting restrictions. You're trying to tell us the sun the shining when it's clearly raining. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the material from the lead as this is not a long time party position and in general. I think the large increase in voter related content is still an issue as this is meant to be a summary of the party that covers a period over 150+ years. A lot of the newly added content fails IMPARTIAL and too much seems to be echoing just a few sources rather that presenting a broader range of views on the subject. The last two paragraphs of the renamed "Voting Rights" section seem to be a recent play by play with a strong POV pulled from a few sources. I think the previous version of that text was better. It would be better to call the section voting regulations since "rights" works both ways and implies that any tightening of regulations is automatically the restriction/removal of someone's rights. Springee (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of historical record that Republicans in the US support and pass laws that restrict voting and registration. Saying otherwise is pure propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of record that Republicans support putting more things in place that one must do in order to be able to vote. The issue is in the use of pejorative or emotional language to describe that. --Jayron32 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Voter rights in the body

FormalDude, please restore the long standing consensus text then make your case for a change here [4]. Two editors have challenged the change you are making. The source, MJ, doesn't support a generalized statement that "political analysts suggest..." That phrasing implies that this is basically a universal opinion among analysists. MJ, a less than neutral source, only mentions the Brennan Center for Justice as making this claim. It doesn't say this is a widely shared view across the political spectrum of analysists. The original, long standing text that "Opponents" view this as is correct and supported by the source. Finally, please follow BRD. You first made this change less than 24 hr ago. It has been challenged thus doesn't have consensus. The correct next step is to make the case here. Springee (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Starting a new section since this is about different content than the section above.

None of the sources label any of the statements that they support as the viewpoints/arguments of opponents, they all state them as facts. Brennan Center for Justice is a political analysis group, so it is accurate to say that their statement is political analysis, as is the case with the other two sources as well. To downplay these facts as being the opposing view is a false equivalence that gives WP:FALSEBALANCE. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Brennan is a left-wing think tank. It's far from a neutral source for analysis - it's akin to citing the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Brennan is far from the only one to make this claim. We could easily use this source from a Cornell political scientist instead:

The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you searched for sources supporting the change? I don't oppose changing the wording from "Opponents" to "political analysists who oppose" or similar but it's not OK to make it look like this is a universal view. Springee (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have indeed searched for sources supporting the change, and I am confident that these statements are the mainstream view of reliable sources and portrayal of them as anything less would be false balance on our part. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

But that is your OR, not what the sources say. I'm sure you know we need to stick with what the sources say, not what we are certain to be correct. Springee (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My proposed change is what the sources already say. The current text is wrong, nobody who made the claims in the sentence are an "opponent" of it, they are neutral political analysts. And my evaluating of multiple sources to see if the majority verify a statement is actually the opposite of original research. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a good compromise might be "many/some political analysts and opponents..." because quite frankly, I don't see a source saying (point-blank) this is a view held by all (or even a majority) of analysts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Stating that "political opponents say" would be a suitable compromise. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources verify that though. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Two of the sources are described in their wiki articles as "progressive" and "liberal", so I think it's fair to call them "critics" when we state what they say here. BTW, I would support replacing "opponents" with "critics" or "critical sources". The sources clearly are being critical, but describing them as "opponents" kind of implies they're biased. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

More sources that support a change

• The Washington Post: How GOP-backed voting measures could create hurdles for tens of millions of voters, Republicans want to make it much harder to vote. That strategy could backfire., What the GOP voting restrictions actually do vs. what proponents claim
• The New York Times: G.O.P. and Allies Draft ‘Best Practices’ for Restricting Voting, Republicans Aim to Seize More Power Over How Elections Are Run, In Statehouses, Stolen-Election Myth Fuels a G.O.P. Drive to Rewrite Rules, Why the Georgia G.O.P.’s Voting Rollbacks Will Hit Black People Hard
• The Associated Press: ‘An all-hands moment’: GOP rallies behind voting limits, As GOP makes it harder to vote, few Republicans dissent, GOP lawmakers seek tougher voting rules after record turnout
• Politico: After Trump’s loss and false fraud claims, GOP eyes voter restrictions across nation, GOP pushes voting restrictions, while Democrats back expansions, State Republicans push new voting restrictions after Trump’s loss
• NPR: After Record 2020 Turnout, State Republicans Weigh Making It Harder To Vote, Why Republicans Are Moving To Fix Elections That Weren't Broken, Voting Reforms May Look Very Different Between Republican And Democratic States, Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities, Journalist Says
• CBS News: Proposals to restrict voting gain traction in Republican states
• USA Today: Democrats and Republicans are battling over voting rights in Congress and at statehouses. Which side will win?
• Los Angeles Times: As the For the People Act voting bill is debated, Republicans in dozens of states push restrictions
• CNN: Major conservative groups unify behind state GOP efforts to restrict voting, At least 45 states have seen bills aimed at voter suppression. Here's why
• Vox: State GOPs have already introduced dozens of bills restricting voting access in 2021
• Berkeley: Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting
• ACLU: Block the Vote: How Politicians are Trying to Block Voters from the Ballot Box

––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• You appear to be confusing opinion writing for news reporting in many of these cases. Also, news is OK for reporting events that occurred, but it's not great for what is better covered through academic sources. --Jayron32 13:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• None of those sources are opinion pieces and I could provide just as many academic sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• On the first half of your sentence, I picked one at random, This is not a news article, it is a "perspective" piece That's not a reliable source for anything except the directly attributed opinion of the author themselves. Secondly, please do so. Newspapers are not a great source for political science related topics. Academia would be. --Jayron32 15:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• It's labeled a perspective because it's from an outside writer rather than someone on WashPo staff. The author, Robert Griffin, is a political scientist and research director of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group which means they are a subject matter expert and this can safely be considered a reliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Per News organizations, both "analysis and opinion pieces" are rarely reliable unless written by an expert. Quality news media are reliable for current events not political science. You have to show btw that Griffin qualifies as an expert. His background appears to be thinktanks, including the highly partisan Center for American Progress. I think btw that your summary is correct, but needs to be properly sourced and phrased in a neutral tone. That probably means expanding the section to explain Republican strategy, including putting it into the context of U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed sources

Here's peer-reviewed sources, even though the current sources used for this portion are all news media.

• TRUMPED: Intentional Voter Suppression in the Wake of the 2020 Election. Mercer Law Review.
• Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes. The Journal of Politics.
• Why the Sky Didn't Fall: Mobilizing Anger in Reaction to Voter ID Laws. Political Psychology.
• Who Votes Without Identification? Using Individual‐Level Administrative Data to Measure the Burden of Strict Voter Identification Laws. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
• Challenging the Challengers: How Partisan Citizen Observers Contribute to Disenfranchisement and Undermine Election Integrity. Vanderbilt Law Review.

––FormalDude (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried to find sources that don't support that this is voter suppression? This is kind of a general problem with political opinions is finding sources that do support a view then assuming we have represented the range of views on a subject. Springee (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

These are the most relevant sources I could find on the topic of Republican's recent legislative attempts to enhance election security and restrict voting. If you can find an academic source that analyzes this topic and does not refer to it as voter suppression and disenfranchisement, be my guest. I could not. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

To say that something is an effect of a policy position is not the same as saying that it is a policy position, however. Republicans support legal gun ownership with minimal regulation; however that doesn't mean that "more mass murders" is a Republican policy position. They don't support mass murder even though scholarly studies clearly show that the effect of lower gun regulations is higher rates of mass murders. It would be wrong to say they support mass murder. Similarly, even though Republican policy has the effect of suppressing voting by qualified individuals (i.e. it reduces voting by people who have the unambiguous legal right to do so), that is not a policy position of the Republican party. It is merely an effect of that. Just as saying that Republicans support mass murder is not a reasonable thing to say, neither is saying the support voter suppression or restriction or other such emotional language. That is appropriate for the campaign trail, not for an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 21:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. It would be like saying "progressive Democrats support taking people off healthcare plans they like" because they support single-payer healthcare. It's technically true, but that's not the goal or the intended policy. Toa Nidhiki05 23:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hard disagree. I’ve been following this issue for decades. Voter suppression is a policy position of the Republican Party, and the claim that it is only an effect of their positions is false. This discussion is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s a nice argument senator, why don’t you back it up with a source? Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Tova Wang, The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote, Cornell University Press, 2012. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A book written by a rando for The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank that might not even be notable enough for a page here. Cool. Of course a progressive lobbying group is going to argue Republicans are evil - and of course she's also a 2004 election conspiracy theorist. Be serious. Toa Nidhiki05 03:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we need an additional proposal at this point to change the lead: "The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment. They receive much of their funding from the Koch Network, a collection of American oligarchs in the oil, gas, armaments, and industrial sectors who believe that corporations, not individual citizens, should direct the political future of the United States. They wish to rebuild and remake America in the image of authoritarian regimes like Hungary and the Russian Federation. Their primary political positions for achieving these stated goals involves anti-democratic behavior and policymaking that opposes labor unions, Social Security, supporting voter suppression and privatization, and placing impenetrable barriers to popular and social democracy." Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all night. Sounds like you might be a better fit at RationalWiki. Toa Nidhiki05 03:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It was meant as a joke, just like your previous ad hominem. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about the effect of a policy position, it is about the policy position itself. These sources describe how Republicans masquerade legislation that disenfranchises voters behind the guise of "election security" and "fraud prevention". ––FormalDude (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If it is about the policy position itself, show me writings endorsed by the party that contain the information stating it as a policy position. Your assertion that the Republican party uses the phrasing or the concept of "voter suppression" as a policy position is not backed up by any sources that say that. Show me what the Republican policy positions are, not what others say about them. --Jayron32 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting we have to take the Republicans at their word for what their policy positions are? Obviously that is not the case, we follow what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is are two different things: There is the policy positions themselves and there are the effects of those policy positions. When we say "Republicans support X" then we need to be clear and use their own words. We can also then say "According to X, the effect of the Republican policy X is Y". What you are trying to say is "Republicans support Y", which is not a true statement. In the terms of this topic here, the correct way to handle this is "Republicans support greater regulation of the voting process, including voter ID laws and regular purges of the voter roles, as well as rolling back expansions of voting availability such as universal absentee ballots and early voting times. According to XXXX, the effect of these policies is to suppress voter turnout, even among eligible voters." See, that is what the sources say in these cases; we need to separate, in the article, what the Republicans say, and use their words when describing things we are putting in their voice and then use analysts words only when describing what analysts say. That's what I have been, am, and always will be saying. Accuracy demands that we are clear with who is saying what. We are not accepting anything, we are being accurate in reporting what people say, and not ascribing to them words they are not saying. --Jayron32 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"we need to use [Republican] words when describing things we are putting in their voice and then use analysts words only when describing what analysts say."

So then, Jayron32, please explain why you oppose my edit changing "Opponents argue" to "Political analysis suggests" for a sentence that is explicitly about what analysts say. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. --Jayron32 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I assumed you were participating in the discussion because you had an opinion about its dispute... ––FormalDude (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections" via FiveThirtyEight:

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Republican lawmakers have pushed new voting restrictions in nearly every state. From making it harder to cast ballots early to increasing the frequency of voter roll purges, at least 25 new restrictive voting laws have been enacted, with more potentially on the horizon. The GOP has introduced such measures in the name of “election integrity,” but at the heart of this effort is former President Donald Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

––FormalDude (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Is purging ineligible or inactive voters voter suppression, or routine maintenance? Is reducing the amount of days of early voting (increased during a pandemic emergency) voter suppression? The answers aren't entirely straightforward. Toa Nidhiki05 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

According to who? You? Reliable sources make it extremely straightforward. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A judge just slapped down all the VRA complaints about voter purges, so start there. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Source? SCOTUS has been killing the VRA softly for decades anyways, so that's not really applicable. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Leave the partisan talking points out of this. Toa Nidhiki05 20:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you fucking quit it with the ad hominems? That's not a partisan talking point, it's a fact. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll quit calling out blatant partisan talking points when you stop using them. An example: you just posted an opinion piece from the spokesman for a left-wing advocacy group and declared it to be "fact". It is not, in fact, a fact. Toa Nidhiki05 22:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, it's a news piece–not an opinion. Secondly, this is obviously the case if you had read the lead section of Voting Rights Act of 1965. And third, this fact is widely reported by reliable sources like the NYT and 538.

Your hasty dismissal of any source that you don't personally agree with is becoming quite insufferable. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I am going to hastily dismiss your "facts" because they aren't that. Bite me. Take your partisan talking points to RationalWiki or somewhere else where they will be respected. Toa Nidhiki05

• At the very least, we should improve the sourcing in the article (and remove the note, which is plainly WP:SYNTH in that it seems to be trying to argue with the rest of the sentence using sources that don't really discuss it.) With the improved sourcing I don't think it's proper to summarize this perspective as one only held by "opponents", since it creates a WP:DUE issue by giving undue weight to the opinions of politicians and talking heads by weighing them equal to academics. Some people above have suggested that there might be high-quality academic sources arguing that these restrictions are not intended as voter suppression, not intended to benefit Republicans, and / or won't have disproportionate racial impact; but we'd actually need those sources in the article to weigh them equally in the current "supporters / opponents" framing. Without that, the current "supporters / opponents" wording is clearly not at all WP:NPOV because it is giving undue weight to the views of non-experts by weighing them equally to experts. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your change of sourcing is an improvement and thank you for it. I do think we have to be careful about stating a consensus effect vs stating motive. Studies have concluded these changes do reduce voting in minority/low income/etc demographics. However, it's opponents to claim the motives are vote suppression vs election integrity. Springee (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any source that verifies problems with "election integrity" that would be remedied by "these changes"? And these problems suddenly arose across the US, while virtually every recount, investigation, court challenge and other due process failed to find such problems? I am asking you to document your assertion, not questioning your motive in stating it. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm speaking to stated motives, not impacts. The problem with many of these discussions is much of the data is sparse or hard to come by. Also, efforts to limit things like mail in/drop off voting are relatively new. Only very recently have we seen such a huge shift to remote voting vs in person voting. As an example, a key part of voting is the idea of a secret ballot. In person voting basically ensures privacy in a person's voting choices. That isn't ensured in the case of mail in/drop off voting. So people are left with a trade off. We can have more voter participation with remote voting but the voting process loses control of the ballot in the process. How big is the issue? That's hard to say. Presumably we can signature match but how robust is such a system? Next, assume the person filling out the ballot is the owner of the ballot. How do you know if the vote was cast free and clear vs with someone suggesting/intimidating/enticing them to vote a certain way and verifying that they mark the correct spots? How do you prevent ballot harvesting in places where it's not legal? I think we can all assume that in the case of a national election the number of instances is more than zero. But how much more and how would you prove it? Anyway, we have to be careful when accepting claims that these actions are done specifically to suppress opposition votes vs to close holes in the system even though the size of the holes is not clear. Springee (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  A quick websearch found this site discussing harvesting [5]. I haven't read through it so please forgive me if it turns out to be partisan crap. Also, I am not suggesting this as a RS for article level content. I don't know enough about the site. Springee (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds like you are answering "no". We need to work from RS such as those provided above rather than go from casual impressions that have no basis in mainstream documentation. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do we have RS that states with evidence that the GOP's motives are voter suppression vs election integrity? If not, we need to be IMPARTIAL. We can say "NYT says the intent is X" but we can't say "GOP's intent is X". Also, a claim that "every court" etc found against the GOP is something that would also need to be supported. If some of these laws have survived court challenges that would undermine such a claim. Springee (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Springee If you're not going to WP:READ any of the numerous sources provided above I suggest you stop participating in this discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  No FormalDude, progressive think tanks do not county as reputable reliable sources and arbiters of fact. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you continue to make false claims about sources without any evidence it's not going to end well, Toa Nidhiki05. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oh no, I'm so scared! What are you going to do? Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Which sources say the GOP's intent and what evidence do they provide (vs offering their opinion) Springee (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Intentional Voter Suppression in the Wake of the 2020 Election." via Mercer Law Review provides an in-depth study of the GOP's intent and states:

  Whereas the Democrats focused on putting together an investigatory team to ensure those involved in the January 6th insurrection were held responsible, the Republicans shifted their focus to tightening voting laws in ways that had not been seen since the Jim Crow era. Unable to convince courts that there were any indicia of election fraud that affected the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election, the Republican focus shifted to what caused them to lose an election they believed they were so certain to win. For Republicans, the answer boiled down to two issues: historic voter turnout; and unprecedented vote by mail usage. The strategy to address the issues is nothing short of voter suppression.

  ––FormalDude (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Judging off of the author's unprofessional remarks ("First and foremost, I would like to thank God for this opportunity and the honor of being published in The Mercer Law Review! I would also like to thank my beautiful wife Lauren Watts for her unending love and support, as well as my parents Heidi and Don Watts, and brothers Dmitri Mitchell and Zachary Watts. Finally, I would like to thank (former Dean of Mercer Law, now President of Georgia College and State University) Cathy Cox for serving as my faculty advisor for this comment and my high school English teachers Jamie Hofford and Janice Stalder for giving me an outstanding writing foundation.") and the "journal" itself ("The Mercer Law Review, the oldest continually published law review in Georgia, is edited and published by students of Mercer University School of Law. There are five issues each year including an Annual Survey of Georgia Law, an Annual Eleventh Circuit Survey, and an online companion highlighting student scholarship"), this is very clearly a college student writing in what amounts to a student newspaper. There's no indication this author is remotely reliable or notable in any way - in fact, I can't find any information about the author at all. Like the rest of your sources - which all predictably make the same hyperbolic, hyperpartisan claims - this is very clearly a glorified partisan opinion piece from a non-expert. I expect nothing less from you at this point, honestly. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's hilarious how you'll just make shit up about sources you don't like. Mercer Law Review is a highly reliable peer-reviewed academic journal that is used hundreds of times in citations on Wikipedia already. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's clearly no use arguing with a brick wall, so I'm not even going to bother at this point. Your sources are terrible and insufficient to back up your inflammatory, hyperpartisan claims. Simply yelling hyperpartisan talking points over and over isn't arguing and won't establish consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Your sources are terrible and insufficient" you say after looking over one out of dozens and dismissing it as a student newspapers when in actuality it's a peer reviewed journal. I guess you have to resort to red herrings when you don't have any legitimate counterarguments. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  The Mercer Law Journal is, in fact, a student journal run and edited by students. The article you cited is effectively an opinion piece from a school paper. But given how utterly divorced from reality your argumentation has been, this doesn't surprise me. I'll once again advise you to head to RationalWiki, where your hyperpartisan arguments and information will be accepted readily with open arms. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just utterly ridiculous. I suppose you discount the Harvard Law Review for the same reason? ––FormalDude (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't regard any and all contributors to the Harvard Law Review as undisputed subject-area experts, no, nor would I regard it as an unambiguous outlet declaring only facts. However, articles by individual contributors are certainly reliable for their opinions, and obviously articles by professors and judges and whatnot (ie. people with credentials) would be very reliable in general. But since you seemed so convinced, I invite you to establish that Wesley N. Watts is a reputed subject area expert on election law. Go ahead - I'll give you all the time you need! Toa Nidhiki05 15:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  He doesn't have to be a subject-matter expert because it's not a SPS, it's an established reputable peer-reviewed journal, and I'm sure it would pass an RfC at WP:RSN. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'll take that as a "no, I can't establish Wesley N. Watts as a subject area expert". Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Show me the policy that says a source's author must be a subject-matter expert in order for it to be considered reliable. Go ahead - I'll give you all the time you need! ––FormalDude (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking to Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples in the Voting rights section

Could someone please explain to Toa Nidhiki05 that this edit adding a wikilink is completely appropriate? ––FormalDude (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an inflammatory edit in line with the problematic additions above. Should be fairly obvious unless you're trying to make a pointy edit. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is "inflammatory" about adding a link to an established Wikipedia article that is directly related to the content in that section? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WTF is going on here? Just because an editor's political beliefs are offended does not justify political censorship. That is not allowed. NPOV tells us to leave those editorial POV behind when editing. It's a perfectly appropriate and on-topic link that should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It's quite literally linking to a random, unrelated page and section. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Now that is just patently false. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess you missed that both articles talk about the exact same topics using many of the same sources? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Inserting a link that implies the efforts are specifically voter suppression vs addressing gaps in the system to verify voters are eligible etc is a NPOV issue. Such claims require sourcing. While certainly it is possible to find sources that argue this is voter suppression, absent some effort to find sources that don't agree this becomes a NPOV issue. The link in the tag implies something in Wiki-voice that isn't supported in sourcing. Springee (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The Voting rights section is explicitly about the restriction of voting access by Republicans, and so is Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples. That it uses "suppression" instead of "restriction" is inconsequential and any NPOV concerns about the title of Voter suppression in the United States should be taken up at that article's talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The linked article section looks like a collection of cases where someone claims something is vote suppression, not much more than a list article. The problem here is there is a dispute between vote suppression and vote integrity as well as making sure voting laws are followed. For example, if a state's voting laws claim the legislative branch is solely responsible for voting rules, is it legal for the executive or judicial branch to change the rules? Is a law attempting to clarify this voter suppression? I suspect most would agree that there is some tradeoff between say how strictly residency is established vs voter integrity. At one far extreme might be anyone who claims to be a resident on a mail in ballot has a vote that counts. At the other extreme is some rule that requires say you prove you have lived at the address on your license for at least 5 years before you are allowed to vote and then only in person etc. These extremes illustrate a tradeoff between access and integrity. To describe things only in one term as if it were the only applicable concern is not NPOV. Springee (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to just link to the whole article and not the section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Or not link to the article at all since it caries an implication that is disputed. Springee (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no implication that is disputed. These articles talk about the exact same cases and even use some of the same sources. One just uses a synonym that you're for some reason not comfortable with. You need to take up that concern at Talk:Voter suppression in the United States, not here. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The amount of outright denial on this page is astounding and concerning. The GOP have been very public about their vocal support for voter suppression. To claim that this is just an opinion or an unintended "effect" of their polices is blatant misinformation. We have hundreds of examples. One of my favorites is from former Republican John Kavanagh of Arizona, who repeatedly told the media why Republicans didn’t want most people to vote.[6]. This isn’t an "effect", this is the GOP policy. The attorney for the Arizona Republican Party told the Supreme Court the same thing.[7]. They’ve passed hundreds of bills to prevent people from voting. Anything less than admitting this is a real policy position of the GOP, when they’ve repeatedly admitted it, is denial. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

We’re not here to listen to a political rant, Viriditas. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Using magic buzzwords doesn’t make your ridiculous political tirades any more convincing. In fact, it makes it less convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 01:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Facts are not an "argument". Besides distraction and denial, what do you offer here? Don’t you have a Q drop to attend to? Tova Wang: "Contemporary Republicans have made [voter suppression] a central part of their election strategy…Republican advocacy for restriction has been widespread across the United States".Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while since Toa has made a comment here with any substance. Their goal at this point seems to be detracting the discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2022 (

It’s another day that ends in -y. Read this background chapter from Wang’s book about Republicans and voter suppression. The full book is available as an online ebook from most libraries. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I could say the same about you. There's no point in having discussion with a brick wall that is dogmatically shouting partisan talking points like they are the be-all, end all of reality. Toa Nidhiki05 03:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please challenge a single historical data point about the Republican Party and voter suppression highlighted by Tova Wang in the chapter linked above. All of your refutations consist of ad hominems, distractions, and denials. You can’t directly challenge anything Wang says about the relationship between voter suppression and the Republican Party because it is established, historical fact. All you can do is trot out the same old "she’s a mean old liberal who is funded by George Soros" BS. Other than that, you are out of ideas, just like the Republican Party. Just do everyone a favor and admit for once that voter suppression is the primary strategy of the GOP and we can move on to other things. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me know when you're going to drop the political talking points and maybe it will be possible to have a rational discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I take it this is your way of saying you agree with Tova Wang’s historical summary of Republican voter suppression as a primary political tactic? Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I take it you're imagining things again. Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the record straight. Which specific parts of Wang's chapter on the history of Republican voter suppression do you disagree with? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have better uses of my time than to try and justify why an opinion piece from a left-wing think tank isn't a reliable source to prove Republicans are racist. Toa Nidhiki05 23:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Another ad hominem. You can't participate in a talk page discussion about content that *you* dispute, so you continue to question not the content, but the claimant, while ignoring the material in question. Thank you for demonstrating the invincible ignorance fallacy. I suppose you will now be taking this talk page off of your watchlist? Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't link to the article at all. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC) UTC)

I agree with FormalDude, Viriditas, and Valjean inasmuch as the voter suppression story is a critical part of the history of the Republican party. A salient part of the history would discuss the Solid South and the impact of the Civil Rights movement, characters like Strom Thurmond, who left the Dixiecrats to become a Republican in 1964. You can then look at the Republican reactions and the current debates on voter suppression such as the Election Integrity Act of 2021, Fair Fight Action and Brian Kemp. Andre🚐 18:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The link is not only appropriate. We need such links to give context for our readers, who may not be familiar with it. We have all kinds of disturbing content on WP, but that's not a problem when it's necessary and appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this should not be included as it completely fails IMPARITAL. Springee (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you not understand about the only way this edit fails NPOV being if the title of Voter suppression in the United States is also not NPOV? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, IMPARTIAL is about choices of tone in our prose. Not relevant here. Maybe there is some other link you had in mind? SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I just read Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States#Modern_examples. Except for two incidents (2004 tire slashing in Wisconsin and a 2008 Detroit incident involving the Black panthers) every modern example mentioned was a Republican effort. How is that a random, unrelated page and section? Also, why isn't the Republican_Party_(United_States)#Voting_rights section called "voting rights restrictions"? That seems to better reflect the content of the section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Economist recently published an article which may be of some benefit here. It argues that irrespective of the motives of Republicans pushing stricter laws regarding voting procedures the impacts on turnout are negligible, and in the case of restrictions on early voting such laws may increase participation. It reads, in part, as follows:

"A study by Barry Burden of the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that early voting can actually decrease turnout when implemented without other measures, such as automatic voter registration. When voting becomes a private, homebound activity, people no longer have the reminder or sense of civic participation that comes with a common election day. Voter-id requirements, which determine what people need to prove their identity in order to cast a ballot, incite the most criticism from Democrats. Demands can be simple—a voter’s name and address, for instance. Or they can be more onerous: Texas, for example, accepts a concealed-handgun licence but not a student idfrom a state university. Even if id restrictions are a cynical attempt by Republicans to craft rules that give them an advantage, Democratic anxieties over widespread voter suppression appear unfounded. Such laws have a negligible impact on turnout or the parties’ respective vote share, according to a countrywide study published last year by Enrico Cantoni of the University of Bologna and Vincent Pons of Harvard Business School. Almost all registered voters who habitually vote have the requisite id, so the affected population is in fact quite small (one study estimated that 0.5% of registered voters in Texas lacked the id to comply with the state’s strict law)."

Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This will have to be balanced with the many articles and studies that find the opposite. Voter suppression can and does have a significant effect Andre🚐 13:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Did you mean to comment this in the section above? Not seeing how it applies to the dispute here about adding the link. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is paywalled but available here. Their cited study (you can read it here) was published in January 2014 and is based on data that’s 10 years old or older. Is that data still relevant today, having experienced a pandemic and a president, his supporters in Congress, and a mob trying to overturn election results? Also, if you add the "modest effects" of the restrictions to the built-in imbalances (electoral college, two Senators each representing e.g. a population of 579,000 in Wyoming and 39 million in California, local gerrymandering, etc.), modest effects might be all it takes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this practice in the US, limited to the Republican Party? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What practice, voter suppression? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

In the past 20 years or more, yes (Brennan Center, ACLU). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Brennan Center is, of course, a left-wing think tank, as is the ACLU. It's akin to using the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute to prove that Democrats are bad because they want to take private health insurance plans away from people. Toa Nidhiki05 17:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

International Affiliation

I’m not sure if this was already discussed but why don’t the “Democratic Party (United States)” and “Republican Party (United States)” articles’ infoboxes list their international affiliations? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)