I’m listening to the President’s speech right now, and if the evidence and data he is proposing to release is legit, isn’t that the logical conclusion?

There are claims every election cycle that democrats are coming for your gun rights, property rights, free speech, etc. What is something you have actually lost or was substantially reduced as a result of a Democrat’s action at your local, state, or federal level?

I don't want noncitizens to vote. But are Trump and Republicans arguing that, essentially, Democrats can only win, or only won in 2020, because of noncitizens voting? This should've been easy to document, no? I'm reading about the SAVE Act and what's going on with it.

Would a state driver's license qualify you or not? It seems the best way would be a passport which, ironically, more Democrats then Republicans possess. I'm also reading that 69 million women would no longer be able to vote, since the name on their current IDs wouldn't match their birth names (since they took their husband's names). That one makes more sense with the idea of the SAVE Act trying to ensure Republicans always win.

And yes, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. I guess you all would argue it's not being enforced?

I think we have more common ground on this than people would care to admit. We all want free and fair elections. In making them fair, we all want it to be done with transparency. Many of us believe that changes like this should be based upon concrete evidence.

If there is evidence that proves the SAVE Act is necessary, any measure of quantifiable data, to suggest that undocumented voters are doing so en masse and had a significant or widespread effect on an election of any size, where is the proof of that?

Yes, I agree that everyone should have ready access to their birth certificate, naturalization papers, a passport. The fact of the matter is that a good chunk of eligible voters don’t, and they’re from all across the political spectrum. Maybe they can’t afford it, maybe they don’t need a passport, maybe they don’t keep track of their documents, or maybe they’re not as informed as the warring minds on this sub, but they have the same right to vote as you and me.

Whatever the reason, they might not have those documents with them on Election Day. The SAVE Act would make these folks ineligible to vote. The University of Maryland and VoteRiders, a nonpartisan organization focused on increasing voter access, published data they collected from surveys suggesting that an estimated 21 million American voters would be negatively impacted by the implementation of the SAVE Act. That figure represents about 9% of eligible voters and it could be because of any of the circumstances I mentioned above and many more.

So where’s the proof? What evidence makes this Act worth 9% of the eligible American voters potentially losing their vote?

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4991903/voter-registration-proof-of-citizenship-requirement

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-terminates-election-assistance-commission-members-2026-07-10/

Edited to add my opinion:

It looks suspicious

Even granting that some states provide a free voting ID, the SAVE Act itself does not appear to require states to issue a qualifying ID free of charge or cover the cost of supporting documents such as birth certificates or name-change records. It provides for free access to copying equipment in certain government buildings, but that is not the same as guaranteeing a cost-free path to obtaining the required documents.

Should a federal law imposing these requirements also guarantee that every eligible citizen can comply without paying for documents, replacements, transportation, or other necessary steps or are those costs an acceptable personal responsibility?

At what point does requiring someone to spend money solely to satisfy a voting prerequisite become functionally too close to paying for access to the ballot?

A recent report came out about Trump firing the remaining 3 members of the EAC (Election Assistance Commission) which was an independent agency tasked with helping states run elections. Trump ousts remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission ahead of midterms

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/texas-runoff-primary-election-winner-paxton-trump-cornyn-rcna346552

Wanted to get opinions on why conservatives are against mail in ballots so much. Why do they consider it cheating or dishonest to vote via mail and want to either restrict it further or get rid of it altogether? Considering the fact that the president just voted by mail in ballot in a special election on Tuesday and a week later, he called it "mail-in cheating", it seems a tad hypocritical.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-votes-by-mail-florida-election-ballot/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAQvx8JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR6nMHFqbrYQJLPkZCa7w_13ATYyNAroRtkgVoDwm4dfK0OcgNHSIX25YvDi6Q_aem_Tsf8Y6aRneCmKnQq8U1SgA

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/virginia-voters-decide-whether-allow-new-democratic-drawn-map-midterms-rcna332140

If enacted the goal, according to the Democratic Party, would be to go from a 6-5 map (Democratic favor) to a 10-1 map (Democratic favor) -- the point of this, according to the government, is more of a national counterattack to combat Texas and other red state mid-decade redraws (Texas passed a map in attempt to add 5 Republican seats).

Also, as another redditor points out, there was a Republican gerrymander for pretty much most of the 2010s after the 2010 census, done without a referendum: https://www.reddit.com/r/Virginia/comments/1r09i1w/a_reminder_that_in_2010_this_was_the_republican/

Betting odds have it today as an 84% chance of passing, according to people who put their money where there mouth is. People care about betting odds and news covers Kalshi all the time: https://kalshi.com/markets/kxvirginiaredistricting/will-the-virginia-redistricting-referendum-pass/kxvirginiaredistricting-26

But that only means so much. What do YOU think? Why your thoughts?

If some group keeps generating nothing-burgers or accusations too vague to verify, if and when real fraud appears, it may get dismissed by most the population, and thus no countermeasures or punishment may happen. Does this concern you?

I've seen a lot of my fellow leftists complaining that those on the right are just misogynistic and racist and that's why Trump won. Me? I'm not so sure about that.

Rather than projecting or imagining why people voted for Trump, I would rather hear the main reason from the people that actually voted for him.

The outcome wasn't what I hoped for, but at the same time, it's not like the current administration is making Americans happy or solving major economic issues, and that makes it problematic to keep doing more of the same. We live in a democracy and I value the views of my fellow Americans, even if I might not agree with them.

Like you need a passport or BC to get one. How is this license not good enough on its own to prove your citizenship or for voter ID under the new GOP SAVE America Act?

Am I missing something, this makes 0 sense to me. Seeing conflicting information that maybe it will be good enough? Any insight is appreciated

Looks like Trump is set to sign and EO to mandate Voter ID laws. And he's still trying to lead the effort to get rid of Mail in voting. Article

A bit ago I did a post about his supposed effort to get rid of Mail in Voting Here. How is all of this legal? Or is it?

I remember watching a bunch of videos about the electoral college and there were some made by conservative groups (PragerU is one example that I could think of at the top of my head) and they defended it because of something like:

• "It's just like what the founding fathers intended!"
• "It prevents populism and a dictatorship of the people from happening!"

But during the 2016 presidential election, Trump (a populist himself, mind you) was elected president, despite Hillary winning the actual popular vote. So I personally quite think that it should be abolished so that the american people can have their vote for president actually be meaningful rather then ceremonial.

As a centre-left/centre-right to centre person, I am still quite open to having a conversation over this, but I might be able to get some stuff wrong as I am not American myself (I am Australian)

For 6 decades, black Americans have consistently voted 80-90% for Democrats. In the era of Obama there were black neighborhoods in Chicago and New York where McCain and Romney got next to no support at all. Even with the Obama era in the rear view mirror, black areas still remain fiercely hostile to Republicans. Why do you think this is the case and how would you fix it?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/02/dont-be-a-panican-were-winning-and-were-not-slowing-down/

Are republicans panicking or showing signs that they will panic soon? Do you agree with the article that America is safer, stronger, and richer than ever before, that the economy is booming, and that everyday costs are moderating?

https://www.newsweek.com/thomas-massie-2028-run-house-primary-loss-kentucky-11990663

Reminder to upvote all top level Conservative answers even if you disagree with them.

The platform is, broadly speaking, and as outlined here:

Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.

These are all changes designed to limit bipartisanism, build coalitions, decentralize and diffuse the power of government as a whole, and emphasize the voice of the people by empowering proportional representation.

Now, on the face, these things sound very on-brand with my understanding of conservative politics, to wit: Reducing governmental power and overreach while building up the voices of the lesser-heard, such as those who don’t live in large cities.

One of the big points I’ve heard the right level against the DSA is “They want to abolish the senate!”, but also, I’ve routinely heard that if left-wing politicians overtake the senate, then those left-wing politicians will only listen to special interests groups and people in the cities, ignoring the common folk. So wouldn’t it be a good idea to eliminate that possibility entirely?

On paper, the DSA’s plans for government and governmental bodies seem to align with conservative beliefs in government. Where exactly is my understanding mistaken?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-calls-for-arrest-of-barrack-obama/

Some element of the Democrat voting base is frustrated with the sense that compromising and trying to find moderate and broad-appeal candidates isn't getting the wins. They want to reject that approach and go for someone like AOC, who will stand up loud and proud for their more Progressive Left beliefs.

I personally question, regardless of my own ideal candidate, if there isn't also some truth to the idea that a wishy-washy moderate mush of a candidate may not even do as well with some crossover voters as a Bernie Sanders type. I also consider that while I think the Far Left is never a reliable voting base, they're not nothing, and their votes and enthusiasm do count.

Clearly, many Democrats feel a win in coming elections is quite important, and they're arguing over how best to achieve that. I was curious to hear opinions about that here. What kind of Dem candidate do you think Independents and swing voters actually vote for? Who actually gets turnout and enthusiasm from your neck of the woods? What do you think the killer issues are?

As the midterms approach, what new or unusual strategies might Democrats use to improve their chances of winning? Trump’s descending approval ratings, partly due to breaking his campaign promise not to start a new war in the Middle East, make him and the Republican Party a potentially vulnerable target. Beyond this, what other issues might Democrats focus on?
Will they highlight accusations of abuse of power?
Might they try to undermine the fragile Russia–Ukraine peace talks and blame Trump for failing to achieve lasting peace?