Alternatively:
Humans are capable of adapting to intensely negative situations orchestrated by a few people in positions of great unearned power and privilege. Some people do their best to survive by betting on their own continued lack of survival, because they see no other options and the buy in is low.

"Don't get married, women. Or you no longer have the right to vote!"
-- MAGA, apparently

I guess all those blue haired feminists that refused to get married or change their last names still get to vote

I have nothing to back this up but it feels like this would hurt conservative women more than Democratic women? Like it feel more conservative to change to the husband's name, and liberal women usually keep theirs, no?

Not to mention like unmarried women are probably more common in the liberal side? Right?

Marginally yes they are, but it's still more common in my experience that the woman changes their name more often than not.

It's a bit of paperwork, but it does make things easier when you have the same last name. Until president asshat decided to disenfranchise people.

I'd say the important statistic is that more conservative women get married overall

Watch them try to tie it to the 15th or some dumb bullshit.

Hell, they just need it in place long enough to bork a single election, right? All it takes is a slow judicial and they can achieve the goal.

I suspect its more about creating extra paperwork hurdles to voting. More paperwork means it takes more time investment to be able to vote at all, thereby disenfranchising voters with less free time and Republicans have already done the math on that and enacted voter ID laws in many states because the math works out for them

Oh that makes sense I guess. It reads like states don't have to do this? Or is that just odd working, is it required? Are blue states actually following through on these things? I know California did their own gerrymandering to fight back right?

Depends on the immigrants, sadly.

Not having any form of national ID really does lead to some goofy shit when you need to positivly identify people.

It's just the first step in taking women's and trans right to vote away. There are other steps too. This is just the start.

Don't worry, they'll only enforce this with Democratic voters

Riiiight back to de medieval…

yes, but pollsters will try to account for that in their models

So do the bookies setting odds and the people betting. People don't win money by getting their bets wrong.

For every mathematician who beat the lottery there are millions who did not.

Ambiguity, which means that the rules will bend in favour of the priviliged.

Who sais MAGA women shot themselves in the foot? They dont want voting, they like fascism. Same for MAGA men. If they could withdraw from voting and let the king run the country uninterrupted, then they would gladly do so.

Are you being serious?

Are you?

Do most Americans actually change their names to match the man's last name?

Is this the same in all western countries?

What happens in same-sex marriage? 🤔

My mom's legal last name is still the same as her father's last name, and we're from China... which is kinda weird since the west is supposed to be more progressive in most areas...

I remember my teacher was like writing a note to my mom for some reason and wrote "Mrs.[My Last Name]" and I was like no, that's wrong... that's the first time I learn of this whole... "change last name to match the man's last name" was apparantly a thing.

They are also going after Mail-In voting already:

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans can’t sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-postal-service-missing-mail-7ce97a5b7d56373cdeaa6ecc9a9132f5

Can't speak for the entirety of the West ofc but here in the UK It's traditionally the norm that the woman takes the man's surname; but it's definitely become less common in the last 50 years or so.

It's not uncommon to see double-barrelled names; which are both surnames added together (IE: Mr Smith marrying Miss Jones could become the Smith-Jones') or as you say, retaining their family surname post marriage.

Same sex tend to go down the double barrel or retention routes from what I've experienced. I've met same sex couples where one elected to take the others name, but I'd be surprised if it was the most popular option in SSM, primarily because of where I believe this tradition stems from.

My theory is that the less theocratical a country is, the less prominent this situation is. Religion eh. Helluva drug.

That's not how bookies set odds! They do it based on what people bet, so if 10 people bet against something and 20 bet for it, the same account each, the odds will be 2:1, reduced a bit so the bookies makes a profit. This guarantees that the bookies make money.

Not the same in all western countries. Afaik it was tradition in most countries for the wife to take the husband's surname, except in Italy and Spain. Regular people also often didn't have surnames, instead they were "son of ..." or named after their or their parents' occupation. Edit with more musings: surnames could also be their place of birth, their farm, ... Names which would then get made hereditary in the early 19th century, but many people still kept using the old changing forms for generations longer. During his life, my great grandfather wasn't known by his official surname in his village, only the state called him that.

In the last few decades, most western countries (afaik again) are allowing the woman to chose if see wants to change her surname or not. Or to use both surnames. They also allow the man to change his name to that of his wife. Equality.

And that recent development is also why it's not a problem for same sex marriage. Back when the wife had to take the husband's name, same sex marriage wasn't allowed so there was no naming problem. Countries that allow official same sex marriages are typically also countries that will already have equality for surnames.

I'm worried that this is a distraction to introduce a similar, but somehow less widespread bill. Like "oh boy, yeah this would disallow more women than intended to vote. Here's the new bill that only disallows people with unmatching first names to avoid voter fraud (or whatever)." ...And thus trans people can't vote.

Well, nothing anyone would allow you to bet on.

How isn't showing your passport sufficient evidence to tell you are who you tell you are?

Not everyone has their passport. If you do, that should be sufficient. It also made updating my passport easier, way less paperwork to send in. I'd never gotten around to updating my passport to the correct name and it was much less paperwork to send in.

20-30% of women keep their maiden name after marriage.

Liberal women are roughly twice as likely as conservative women to keep their maiden name.

So yeah, conservative women screwing themselves and also handing a minor edge to liberal women.

Right? Imagine claiming to be the greatest country on earth and then not even have a national ID, something I bet even every third world country has lol. The US is such a circus lol.

Death by a thousand cuts. Each issue by itself might evoke a shrug, but put it all together, a very clear picture emerges.

BTW (and I'm sure you know) this has been going on for waaaay longer than MAGA. Arguably since the USA's independence. Every conservative president seems to have added a little bit. The system is near completely eroded.

It's not like it's impossible for such people to vote, but getting your documents in order costs money.
Same for voting on a weekday, voting offices being only in affluent neighbourhoods, voting demanding an ID .....

No money, no democracy.

Next they'll exclude anyone whose current hair color doesn't match their official one.

Basic rights with exceptions are like ads saying "Up to 20% off!*"

The fine print makes it a farce.

How is that any different from what I said? The simple ratio is an automatic adjustment for Bias.

It also takes weeks or months to get official documents in order.

It isn't the same in all Western countries. For example, it was not a tradition in Portugal for a woman to adopt her husband's surname, but during Salazar's dictatorship, the custom was implemented, inspired by other European countries that had this tradition, such as England and Germany. Here it was customary for people to have the last four surnames of their grandparents, first from the mother's side, then the father's.

Nowadays, the minimum number of surnames in Portugal is two, one from the mother and one from the father and without a specific order. Both men and women can adopt their partner's surname after marriage. However, many people choose not to adopt another surname.

Baboon butt face pedophiles.

Seems to me that if your birth name and married name match, this will disproportionately favor people who marry their siblings or other relatives. I wonder what political leaning that particular segment has 🤔

Our elections take place inside the state where we reside. We have state ID with a picture and the voting rolls match our address. It’s a pretty simple process that has worked for the last 40 years or so. I’ve always had to provide proof ID and residence to vote

We’ve fought having a national ID for decades, with consideration to an administration similar to the current one taking over. We didn’t want the nazis running around demanding papers 10 years ago. It was trumps voting base that was most opposed to it 😭😅

Wouldn't that also hurt all kinds oft people who changed their name for other reasons? Like people who had a Tragedeigh name or artists who took on a different name.

So are they advocating for child marriage this time? Can a birth certificate be changed to reflect a married name? Somebody ain't thinking straight

Yes, why would they care?

Yes, time too.

I'm aware they don't care, I was just thinking that they might make more people angry than 'only' the targeted out-group. Also it would be funny if some rich Hollywood stars couldn't vote because they changed their name for their career.

OK bear with me, I'm going to lay out an example to make sure we're really on the same page:

Suppose I am a horse racer in a two-horse race and have been paid to lose, so I know that the odds are 100% on the other guy. 100 people place bets of £1 each on each of us, believing we're equally matched, so there's £50 on me, £50 on the other racer. The bookies will now be offering evens odds - less their take - on each of us. Suppose now that another 100 people, tipped off by the racer fixer, place bets of £1 each on the (known) winner, so there's £150 on him, £50 on me. While this is going on, the bookie adjusts the odds so that what they offer is more like 3 - 1 for the winner.

The odds the bookie offers change in accordance with the bets placed by the punters, even though the actual odds of the race never changed. This was due to the the bias of the punters. If we re-ran the experiment but the punters instead for some reason believed I was likely to win, the bookies odds would reflect that biased belief - a bias that would then be incorrect rather than correct.

So, assuming you do agree with all that, where do we actually differ? My point is that while, sure, "people don't win money by getting their bets wrong", you can't rely on the people betting to be correct. "But FishFace" you may say, "you can rely on people in aggregate to be as accurate as it's possible to be! You can't beat the market!" And I'd agree with that too, so here is the crux: the people placing bets are not "the people in aggregate". The people placing bets may have some bias not reflected in the population as a whole. The bookies cannot correct for this: it only evens out the risk so the house always wins. If the bias is like people acting on a tip-off about a fixed race, they'll be more accurate than the general population. But if the bias is, for example, smart people being less likely to gamble, and smart people being more likely to think a particular outcome is likely, you might end up with bookies' odds being less accurate than the general population.

There's another confounder, which is the concept of emotional hedges where people bet not according to whom they think will win, but so that they get some money if their preferred outcome fails to materialise. Bookies' odds just fold this into all the rest of the bets to produce odds. But if for example a lot of people in favour of this bill emotionally hedged, the odds would say it has lower chances of passing than it actually does.

If you were paid to throw the race and half the betters knew it then either the odds are correct for favoring your opponent or you're about to have your legs broken.

Guessing you didn't read the rest. Have a good day.

My response being many times more concise than yours does not make it shallow.

Really stupid analogy to start with by leaning on a premise of everything being rigged.