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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Today, as I wait in an enormous line for an off-year election, I figured it was as good a time as any to go through our ballot propositions. There’s a lot of boring stuff on there about bond issuance. But what feels more exotic are the constitutional amendments.
That’s right! We can reenact the California proposition experience right here in our own state. Join me on an adventure through Texas state politics.
Should we enshrine the right to various outdoors industries—fishing, timber, etc.—in the constitution? Why? Apparently, city growth has led to risk of over regulation. But this is already covered by statute. Putting it in the constitution is one of those overreaches that Scott makes fun of. Frustratingly, none of the comments I found online cared about bloat, instead choosing to fuss about factory farms. I expect it’ll pass, but I’m voting No.
Should we allow local governments to issue property tax exemptions for child care? This is supposed to be an anti-inflation measure, subsidizing one particular good. Seems like a roundabout way to do it.
Should we ban wealth and net worth taxes? Texas doesn’t have one, and it remains, as far as I know, wildly unpopular. Sounds like political hay to me. This time, opponents remembered that unnecessary amendments might be a bad thing.
Should we expand a tax exemption and also boostpubliceducationfunding? Burying the lede, are we? Actually, there’s a complicated relationship between this tax and the public school system. I get the impression of many precariously balanced plates…Regardless, supporters are pretty open about wanting property tax relief. Maybe I’m just biased as a non-home-owner, but it feels like treating a symptom rather than a disease.
Should we modify the state research fund? Supposedly this is about spreading the wealth to schools that aren’t UT or A&M. I guess I’m fine with that. Except, wait, it also ties that fund to revenue from the state rainy day fund? Is that really how we want to use that money? Is the constitution the way to do it?
Should we create a fund to manage water projects? This hasn’t been a problem up here in DFW, but maybe has caused trouble elsewhere in the state. Opponents correctly note that we already have a water department. Just fund that instead.
Should we authorize funding to modernize the electric grid? My first instinct is “please, God, yes, this should have happened years ago.” Which leads me to believe that something is horribly wrong with it. But no, it does what it says on the tin, authorizing investment in backup capacity and infrastructure. Maybe this is a place for free-market solutions…but those really dropped the ball in the last few years. Infrastructure is the central example for public goods. So let’s go for it.
Should we finance high speed broadband? In theory, I guess this is another form of infrastructure. But proponents keep dropping phrases like “digital divide” that make me wonder if it’s what the kids call FOMO. If we’re only funding it this way because some senator heard the phrase, maybe it shouldn’t go in the constitution. Still, the opposition consists of people worried it will detract from federal funding for broadband. That’s pretty weak as far as complaints go.
Should we boost teacher pensions? This is literally helicopter money, but for old people. It’ll probably pass. I ask myself how many yes voters feel the same way about federal social security.
Should we add some medical and biomedical tax exemptions? This sounds boring, but really centers around a broader effort to “regionalize manufacturing.” Texas likes to think it’s an island. In this case, we’re not really unique in trying to lure investment, so…okay, I guess.
Should we let the state let certain El Paso conservation districts let El Paso county issue bonds? I feel like I’m losing my grip on reality just reading this sentence. I don’t understand how this is a state issue.
Should we abolish the Galveston County treasurer? Screw that guy, I guess.
Should we raise the retirement age for judges? Something tells me there’s a particular guy behind this one. I don’t know who, but I don’t like it. Personally, I think 75 is already too high.
Should we create a Centennial Parks Conservation Fund? This is the one I didn’t have time to read before making it to the front of the line, much to my chagrin. Thus…No comment.
Edit: Apparently everything passed except for raising the judge retirement age. Sorry, Hon. Nathan Hecht. You’ll have to maintain your grip on our reproductive organs from the shadows.
In all seriousness, he seems like a competent judge, and I don’t actually have a personal distaste for him. When I saw the text of the amendment, I immediately thought “this must benefit one guy in particular,” and voted against making exceptions. I wonder how many other Texans had the same gut reaction.
Pushing multiple complex issues to the voters in a single election may not lead to wise policy decisions. Without a strong opposition campaign, they are inclined to approve anything that sounds good. It should be some solace then, that these measures were not like California propositions in that they were not proposed through direct-democratic means, but have already passed both houses of the legislature by a 2/3 majority. It only takes a simple majority of voters to approve amendments to the Texas Constitution. I feel partially absolved of responsibility knowing that the voters are not the part of this process that is most able to prevent bad amendments.
More options
Context Copy link
What’s this even mean exactly? That the government can’t ban these industries? They can’t regulate them? Everyone’s allowed to conceal carry fishing rods and chainsaws?
It’s mostly political signaling fluff and property rights. The Texas constitution has 530 amendments, many of which deal with micromanaging property rights issues.
More options
Context Copy link
I had to look into it further when I was waiting in line.
Eudemonist is pretty close. It’s trying to preempt expanding cities—meaning suburbs—from upzoning existing farmers and ranchers. This is sort of an ongoing problem with the rate we sprawl out from our major metros. Texas already incentivizes agriculture through the tax structure; you’d be surprised how many glass office buildings have a pasture with a pair of cows outside.
More options
Context Copy link
It actually pertains to restricting the zoning ability of municipalities: the impetus is that Bob the Farmer, who's been in the country his whole life, has suburbs expanding around him, and all the dang suburbanites want to rezone his place so he can't keep a chicken coop.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For 12 my understanding is the current guy was elected on an 'eliminate this useless position' platform and supports the amendment.
More options
Context Copy link
Election night thread?
Reading accounts like this make me glad to live in a state that (1) mails everyone a ballot every election and (2) also mails everyone a voters guide a week or more in advance of any election. I get text of initiatives, statements for and against, candidate statements, all kinds of stuff delivered to my door well in advance of having to make a decision.
Election logistics aside, the actual elections were pretty boring. Bunch of state level judges (electing judges is dumb as hell) running unopposed. About half the local races also involved candidates running unopposed. The other half were against incumbents who'd been in the position a decade and would probably win in a landslide. No initiatives or ballot measures or anything interesting.
Looking outside my own state, Bolts has a massive round up of stuff to watch tonight. Big ones so far:
Andy Beshar wins re-election as governor of Kentucky.
Ohio passes Issue 1 and Issue 2. Enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution and legalizing marijuana respectively.
Dems projected to control Virginia Senate, denying Youngkin a trifecta.
Loudoun County School Board looks likely to be won by Democratic Party endorsed candidates.
What's up with Ohio? I know next to nothing about the place, but I lumped it in with places like Iowa and Nebraska. Has the been a shift or was it always this way? A quick Google suggests maybe Cleveland and Columbus have gotten bluer?
Ohio was a swing state up until ‘16, it’s now red maga country but not exactly social conservative HQ. More populist.
More options
Context Copy link
Cleveland has always been deeply blue. The Dem primaries are the local elections in most cases. The outer suburbs not as much, but what conservatives are there are mostly fiscal conservatives. A lot of boomer former hippies that became good earners in their middle age and and suddenly cared about taxes. Substantial gerrymandering of the state as a whole has produced a state house that doesn't accurately reflect the beliefs of the people in Ohio. Even the rural north eastern counties voted Yes on both issues. That area is historically more Catholic than Evangelical and many of them are only culturally Catholic and aren't really motivated politically by their religious beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link
Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana also shot down abortion bans via referendum. The median voter may not be in favor of unlimited abortion, but they have zero trust the GOP will only actually pass moderate abortion restrictions. It's the reverse of the gun issue - the median voter actually is uncomfortable with unalloyed access to guns, but doesn't trust the Democrat's on the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
Ohio is one of the more heavily gerrymandered states in the country. It's
slightlymoderately red, but not heavily red like the Ohio GOP supermajority would suggest. Probably could've legalized recreational marijuana back in 2015 if the Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative (Issue 3) didn't have language in the amendment that would've enshrined a marijuana oligopoly in the Ohio constitution.EDIT:
strikethroughadverbMore options
Context Copy link
I think it is less an Ohio thing and more a marijuana/abortion thing. My recollection is those two issues also passed as ballot measures in some other pretty red states last year.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who moved from a voters guide state to a non-voters guide state it's one of the things I miss most.
More options
Context Copy link
I hate to beat a dead horse about this after 2020, but does vote coercion or payment worry you at all? It worries me. Having a secret ballot is one of the last bulwarks against the mob (or your spouse). It's better if mail-in ballots are rare, with individually justified (and verified) reasons.
A better alternative to over relying on mail-in voting is holding elections on Saturdays rather than weekdays, as well as allowing in-person pre-polling. Mobile voting stations at places like hospitals and retirement villages also help. Mail-in voting can still be an option for those who truly need it.
At least that’s how we handle elections in Australia. But we also have mandatory voting (which is a whole separate topic I won’t get into), so the government aims to make sure the only legit reasons for not voting are things such as misadventure or medical incapacity.
When you said "misadventure", I initially imagined a guy going "Sorry, your honor, I was on a severe bender that week and forgot to vote" and it being totally legit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I definitely recognize the potential, though I'm not sure how often that potential is realized. Both of the things you mention are crimes in my state, which is not to say they don't happen.
There are also well known tradeoffs with requiring people to vote in person. People might have to take time off work since voting is often on a work day and can involve a wait of hours. Poll workers or observers might do a little voter intimidation.
The balance of which of these is worse is at least not obvious to me.
Vote coercion isn't happening in any numbers big enough to swing an election today, but with woke purity spirals moving in the direction they are, I don't want to wait to fight for this until the harms are realized. It'd be like waiting until after the government confiscates all the guns to protest encroachments to the second amendment -- you're choosing to fight after you've lost a strategic advantage.
More options
Context Copy link
There are quite a few states (and potentially smaller jurisdictions) that require employers to either allow reasonable employee absence to vote or, in many cases, provide paid time to do so.
I swear, the US is the weirdest country on Earth when it comes to voting.
Has no one considered having elections on a weekend?
At this point, Tuesday is a tradition that has been Federal law since the mid-1800s, although there are jurisdictions that choose to have local or state elections on other days: IIRC Louisiana votes on Sundays on odd years, and a few states have made it a civic holiday.
If that tradition is so important to you then make it a national holiday. Surely, if Juneteenth warrants one, you can spare a day for voting?
There's an awful lot of "holidays" that bankers or government employees take off that the rest of the American public does not. Checking my own calendar (as a federal contractor leech no less) our expected holidays are New Years, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and then a week of days off crammed into the last week of the year to cover Christmas and typical end of year home-for-the-holidays time off. Expected and typicial but we can shift the time off/paid Holiday time to suit personal priorities if for example you find Labor Day morally abhorrent and wanted to celebrate Ayn Rands birthday instead. Aside from government workers (if you have children, arranging for them to be cared for comes up) I don't think I've ever seen something like MLK Day or Washingtons birthday (still the official federal name, everyone else calls it Presidents Day) as anything but advertising banners for some sort of sale, people still going to work like a normal day otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
Most people in the private sector don't actually get Juneteenth off here, even though it is a recently added public holiday so that could change over time.
More options
Context Copy link
I wish!
Unfortunately, election holiday has become Democrat-coded, which means 40% of the population will oppose it on sight.
I exaggerate; it has bipartisan support. Still, it keeps failing despite significant popularity.
More options
Context Copy link
Juneteenth was added because of political pressure, not because it's actually important.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It just seems so obvious that VBM introduces so many problems I dont know why so many people support it (eg no chain of custody, return of machine politics). Is it just because Dems think it gives them an advantage?
I'm not a Democrat. I voted for Trump. I'm also disabled and likely would not have voted at all without VBM. My local board of elections also likes to move the polling places or reduce the number of locations if they think a lower turnout will produce better election outcomes and vice versa. After going to the normal polling place only to find it had been moved two weeks before the election once I'm not eager to do that again.
I think we're talking about universal vote-by-mail, not about need-based vote-by-mail (i.e., absentee voting) that you would undoubtedly qualify for.
I feel like that makes it even worse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think more people voting is a significant social good, and that the security concerns are overblown. If VBM was a significant threat to integrity, I would have expected the contested, chaotic 2020 elections to have turned up more fraud.
Plus, I would personally benefit if the time it took me to vote was reduced. I was in line for quite a while!
Why is more people voting good?
Voting is the safety valve of government. Most of the benefits of democracy come not from better decision making (ha!) or accountability, but from cultivating a sense of skin in the game.
Whether or not this is a real effect, I won’t speculate. The important part is that people feel like there is a normal process for their team to get power. This raises the threshold for any group to decide nope, now is the time for monsters.
I prefer the civic ritual of punching your ballot and getting the all-important “I voted” sticker, but engaging with the government by mail-in voting is better than nothing.
Given what I saw in the last US election, I'm not too keen on letting the average low-info, TV-enraged person have the process of voting greased up for them any further. It's an imperfect process, but I would afford a minimum of respect to people who at least took the time to leave their home, get in line, and sacrifice a few hours of their lives for democracy. Those who are not physically able can make a similar gesture to request their own mail-in ballots. I would say this miniscule effort demonstrates and engenders more skin in the game than automatically sending every Joe and Jane a ballot just waiting to be filled out after a CNN story on a candidate gives them a frowny. It's not evident to me why their input - lazy as it is - should be given any due by default, or further enabled. I can't think of anything positive or constructive they contribute to the process, but certainly a few negatives.
Democracy has always suffered from the dilemma of "what if the idiots vote the wrong way", but maybe we can stave off the worst of it by putting up these bare minimum of barriers? Like, I see a future where people can vote for their presidents via their X accounts or a similar platform. I'm sure that would be amazing for generating 'skin in the game', and also be utterly horrible precisely because said skin doesn't exist. You laugh at a GIF of Biden falling down AF1's steps, then punch the button for Trump without getting off your couch. I would like to stall that as long as possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It makes it easier for people to vote. In quite a few places this is the reason Republicans supported it (see PA), as rural voters can sometimes have to travel long distances to vote, and rural voters skew Republican so making it easier for them to vote might be advantageous.
That's why Republicans expanded mail in voting in PA prior to the 2020 election. It got more votes against it from Democrats than Republicans in the State legislature. Then the same Republicans who voted for it then tried to have it declared unconstitutional a year later after the 2020 election.
Prior to that election it was a much less partisan idea, and was common in a few states that weren't huge Democrat strongholds.
More options
Context Copy link
Unlikely, given this press release from the PA GOP a while back
More options
Context Copy link
Not sure what you mean by no chain of custody. My state at least has several measures.
On the ballot itself is a stub your're meant to tear off that identifies that specific ballot. That stub has what's basically a serial number on it you can take to the state election website to figure out if the particular ballot you cast has been counted.
As to the ballot itself, it's placed in a security envelope one is required to sign and date. I know signature matching isn't an exact science but I know there are at least some checks. One year I forgot to sign and got some helpful mail from the state informing me of that fact and outlining the process to cure the deficiency.
It is very convenient and enables people to vote who may otherwise have difficulty doing so.
You don’t know who had the ballot prior to it arriving at the voting station (assuming the ballot ever arrives)!
Do you mean after filling out a VBM ballot before it's been counted? It goes into a county-maintained ballot box. Or I could hand it off directly to a county elections official if I wanted to go out of my way (I think the closest place to do that is out of walking distance). I guess in rural areas, getting to a ballot box might be not worth the effort, so it would go to the mailman instead, so not in the hands of an election official. But that's why there's a notification when your ballot is received; then you can submit it sufficiently ahead of time to try again in the unlikely event it failed to reach the elections office.
No, the principal worry is that someone will coerce you to vote their way. Like, if you're an adult child living with your trad family or a senior citizen living with your woke family, you can be forced/pressured/manipulated to sign the envelope with the ballot someone else has filled in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of these wouldn't need to be constitutional amendments, as you note, if Texas had a sane constitution. Instead Texas has a reconstruction era constitution intended to prevent the government from being overly functional, which has been amended 517 times thus far and is, partly because of that, somehow only the 3rd longest state constitution in the US, setting lots of local government and tax issues that would normally be defined legislatively. Onto the amendments: 1, 3 and 9 are just populist political hay. More interesting are 7 and 8, which represent a thoroughly right of center technocratic tendency of a political faction led by, and backing for some sort of higher office in 2026, Glen Hegar, the current Texas comptroller of public accounts(equivalent to a state treasurer/finance minister) who has somehow managed to turn this into a partisan culture war office. Highlights include declaring venues that host drag shows strip clubs and demanding they pay excise taxes on nudity, leading an anti-ESG crusade, and finding ways to issue state reports blaming Biden for economic bad news, in particular inflation. As for the actual projects- 7 is about the grid, but more specifically it's about addressing a specific issue- most of Texas' recent power generation growth has been in renewables, because permits are easy to get in Texas and the federal government can be stuck with a lot of the bill. But renewables have times when they perform at well below peak generation- like when it's overcast or the wind isn't blowing- and when this matches up with peak demand times(eg 5 pm in august) it leads to a power supply crunch. So Texas needs some kind of backup power, and that's what this is about. Kelly Hancock(current president pro tem of the senate and more or less the public face of this technocratic faction in the Texas legislature) would like this to mostly get used for building nuclear plants, but I expect it'll wind up in natural gas in practice.
8 is about broadband, but you should read that as rural broadband, with the goal of increasing population growth in more conservative rural areas.
5 & 6 are probably similar in creating an opportunity for Hegar to demonstrate his conservative technocrat competence(his job includes administering state funds of this nature). So is 14.
11, like you note, is probably aimed at a specific person, doesn't seem likely to pass, and ultimately, no comment but I voted against. For 2 and 10, likewise, you kind of nailed the context.
The rest of these are because Texas has an utter trainwreck of overspecificity in the state constitution, but to note- the current Galveston county treasurer ran for office on a platform of abolishing it. I do want to talk about 4 in greater detail:
Texas property taxes are very high by world standards. The majority of most property tax bills goes to the local school district through a tax called the district maintenance and operations tax, which, as the name would suggest, is theoretically to fund the maintenance and operations of property owned by school districts(eg school buildings). Misuse of this source of funding should be, but isn't, a bigger source of political hay for proposals to reduce property taxes. But, relevantly to this proposal- school districts are allowed to tax a certain percentage of a property's appraised value, with that percentage being currently required to be one which doesn't bring in more revenue than the previous year's tax rate(and how to set that tax rate, or to just ignore the requirement, being a regular source of drama in local elections). Now single family owner occupied houses have a certain amount taken off their taxable value before the district sets the amount owed in taxes, and the current amount is $40,000. The proposal is to raise it to $100,000, and you'll note that due to the cap on tax rates this will result in tax bills going up for some properties that aren't owner occupied single family homes. The 'for' side would respond that $40k is an absolutely negligible amount exempted in Texas' current real estate market(which is true), that home ownership should be encouraged(which is true) and that home values have risen to the point that many owner occupants need help to afford their property taxes even though it was affordable when they bought it(which is also true), while not shedding tears for the plight of landlords(who will probably just pass on the tax increase to their tenants in the form of increased rents, rather than selling to owner-occupants as proponents would hope). So there are arguments for both sides(I voted in favor because I own my house, but if you rent this is not in your interest).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link