Republican Anti-Democracy and Voter Disenfranchisement

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

As for me, picture this: 

 

At a GA polling location, in May or November, there is a line of folks waiting to vote. A person pulls a wagon that contains a cooler full of bottled water, and asks folks in line at the polling place if they are thirsty. A large photo of Stacy Abrams or Jon Ossof (or Brian Kemp) is posted on the side of the wagon and cooler. The politician depicted may not even be in the race for this election, but are popular representatives for each party in GA.

This was already illegal, so there was no point in changing the law if that's what you're trying to prevent.

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Do you disagree that it might encourage voters in line believe that Abrams party, or Kemp's party, should get their vote because they were thirsty and were given water?

No, because it was already illegal as I previously mentioned.

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

That is what I meant by quid pro quo, and it was not in reference to your previous repeated non answers. Who does this "disenfranchise" and how in the world does it affect POC more than anyone else on election day?

Because POC have MUCH longer wait times to vote in Georgia.

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

My other point still stands. If I believe I will have to stand in line an inordinate amount of time, and I might get thirsty, I would take a beverage with me. I think that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion for the optics. 

Now imagine there's someone next to you in line that has already drunk their water (or forgot it at home or in their car, etc.) and now has to choose between voting or getting more water. Previously you could have given them water. Now it's illegal for you to show basic human decency.

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

And, regarding the weather in GA for elections, the average daily high temp in May is 80 and the average for November is 63. 

And? Do you not drink liquids during the winter?

[DevoHusker]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It was already illegal to give anything as a gift that could influence a vote including food and water. This change in the law was specifically to make standing in line to vote more difficult.

 

This is the only thing you typed in the post I referenced, along with the Tweets from Mr Doucette.  Thanks for including your quote regarding the rest of the law. 

Again why does this specific part of the new law make it more difficult to stand in line, how does it affect POC more than anyone else, and if it was already illegal via "gifts" how is it earthshattering to actually spell it out?

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electioneering.aspx

 

Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place.

These restrictions usually include limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. Some states also address what apparel voters can wear within polling places (read NCSL's blog on the electioneering apparel case that made it to the Supreme Court).

This webpage provides a breakdown of prohibitions in each state. Here is a summary:

• 15 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards  
• 37 states prohibit campaign materials/signs/banners/literature 
• 28 States prohibit influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion        
• 17 states prohibit circulating petitions/soliciting signatures         
• 9 states prohibit projecting sounds referring to candidates/issues             
• 6 states prohibit polls/exit polls
• 9 states prohibit loitering           
• 3 states prohibit peddling/advertising   
• 10 states prohibit voter intimidation/interfering with voter         
• 10 states prohibit obstructing entrance/hindering voter

[RedDenver]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

This is the only thing you typed in the post I referenced, along with the Tweets from Mr Doucette.  Thanks for including your quote regarding the rest of the law. 

Again why does this specific part of the new law make it more difficult to stand in line, how does it affect POC more than anyone else, and if it was already illegal via "gifts" how is it earthshattering to actually spell it out?

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electioneering.aspx

 

Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place.

These restrictions usually include limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. Some states also address what apparel voters can wear within polling places (read NCSL's blog on the electioneering apparel case that made it to the Supreme Court).

This webpage provides a breakdown of prohibitions in each state. Here is a summary:

• 15 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards  
• 37 states prohibit campaign materials/signs/banners/literature 
• 28 States prohibit influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion        
• 17 states prohibit circulating petitions/soliciting signatures         
• 9 states prohibit projecting sounds referring to candidates/issues             
• 6 states prohibit polls/exit polls
• 9 states prohibit loitering           
• 3 states prohibit peddling/advertising   
• 10 states prohibit voter intimidation/interfering with voter         
• 10 states prohibit obstructing entrance/hindering voter

We were posting at the same time I imagine, so check out my post.

[DevoHusker]

Just now, RedDenver said:

We were posting at the same time I imagine, so check out my post.

 

lol

doing so now!

[FrantzHardySwag]

12 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Do you disagree that it might encourage voters in line believe that Abrams party, or Kemp's party, should get their vote because they were thirsty and were given water?

I would have no problem with the law if it just barred handing out food and water if you are associated with a political group; but its banned for anyone. Keep in mind the poorer the community, the longer the line. It wouldn't be a big jump to assume republican law makers don't want ANY groups to give people food or water so people in these poorer communities that generally vote blue, don't stay in line and end up voting. The barring of non-political groups handing out food and water is that part that is really dumb. 

[DevoHusker]

@RedDenver I don't think this back and forth is going to bring us any closer to agreement. You think it is a big deal, and I do not. 

 

Please check out the rest of the law, and you will see there were many concessions in the final draft from what was first posted when this came out a month ago. 

 

I guess it boils down to the fact that conservatives (in general) believe there needs to be checks and balances on the voting procedure, and liberals (in general) believe in more of a free for all. 

[DevoHusker]

4 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I would have no problem with the law if it just barred handing out food and water if you are associated with a political group; but its banned for anyone. Keep in mind the poorer the community, the longer the line. It wouldn't be a big jump to assume republican law makers don't want ANY groups to give people food or water so people in these poorer communities that generally vote blue, don't stay in line and end up voting. The barring of non-political groups handing out food and water is that part that is really dumb. 

 

Go more than 150 feet from the polling place (in most cases) and hand out water to your hearts content. 

 

Another new rule that affects both in-person early voting and election day voting would prohibit anyone except poll workers from handing out water to voters in line, and outlaw passing out food and water to voters within 150 feet of the building that serves as a poll, inside a polling place or within 25 feet of any voter standing in line. Depending on the location, it is still possible for third-party groups to have food and water available  — and it is possible for the lines to extend beyond 150 feet.

[FrantzHardySwag]

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I guess it boils down to the fact that conservatives (in general) believe there needs to be checks and balances on the voting procedure, and liberals (in general) believe in more of a free for all. 

That's not it at all. 90% white communities in GA had a 6 min wait to vote. 90% non-white communities had a 51 min wait to vote. No one is even talking about this food or water thing if it doesn't take 9x longer to vote in non-white communities. That's not checks and balances - that's voter suppression. 

[DevoHusker]

From Athens Georgia

 

https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/state/2021/03/28/new-georgia-voting-law-what-does-sb-202-change-elections/7038406002/

Just now, FrantzHardySwag said:

That's not it at all. 90% white communities in GA had a 6 min wait to vote. 90% non-white communities had a 51 min wait to vote. No one is even talking about this food or water thing if it doesn't take 9x longer to vote in non-white communities. That's not checks and balances - that's voter suppression. 

 

If you don't think to bring water with you, I doubt that 51 mins will leave you dehydrated.

[FrantzHardySwag]

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

If you don't think to bring water with you, I doubt that 51 mins will leave you dehydrated.

Why would it bother you that someone with a 51 min (AVERAGE) wait would be given a bottle of water or food from an un affiliated group? Is it cause you don't want people in the long wait groups to vote?

[RedDenver]

11 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I guess it boils down to the fact that conservatives (in general) believe there needs to be checks and balances on the voting procedure, and liberals (in general) believe in more of a free for all. 

I strongly disagree. As does the vast amount of evidence in this thread.

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Why would it bother you that someone with a 51 min (AVERAGE) wait would be given a bottle of water or food from an un affiliated group? Is it cause you don't want people in the long wait groups to vote?

 

It doesn't bother me at all. I am merely providing commentary on the GA situation, and added commentary that I can't believe it has blown up into this big a deal. 

[DevoHusker]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I strongly disagree. As does the vast amount of evidence in this thread.

 

I don't believe it does. But again, I doubt that either of us will sway the other on this one. Have a good Easter weekend. 

[RedDenver]

57 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I don't believe it does. But again, I doubt that either of us will sway the other on this one. Have a good Easter weekend. 

You too.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I don't believe it does. But again, I doubt that either of us will sway the other on this one. Have a good Easter weekend. 

 

 

Use Occam’s razor more please. This is clearly an attempt to make it harder to vote. It’s obvious and there is no other reason to do it. It doesn’t matter how small you think it is, that’s why it was added. 

 

I was given a water bottle when I voted last year and it was convenient. The people who handed them out said nothing political whatsoever and were not wearing anything political. You know why? Because it’s against the law to do that. It’s also against the law in Georgia and was before they added this uneccesary rule which has the sole and obvious purpose of making it less convenient to vote. 

 

You are looking at this from the complete opposite angle that you should. Allowing people to hand out water is completely harmless, and adding a law to prevent it is an increase in bureaucracy, is just plain stupid, and is anti-conservatism. Conservatives love to b!^@h about big government except when it’s convenient for them to argue the other side. Just look at what you’re arguing for. It’s a stupid and unnecessary law made for one obvious reason.