Republican Anti-Democracy and Voter Disenfranchisement

[Moiraine]

59 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Kind of. You prompted me to look at it closer. Thanks.

 

 

Ok. Our government holds businesses to it. We should probably do the same for elections. The part that can be debated is whether there should be laws on it, but if we make businesses comply we should make our own government comply.

Just a hypothetical for you, not asking you to believe the Republicans are doing this on purpose. Do you think someone could find out where their voters and non voters (people who don't vote for them) are, what their tendencies are, and come up with policies that are more likely to negative impact their non voters? E.g. # of polling places or the population in that area that can impact wait times, or maybe the average age which can impact how many hours they have available to vote because they are working more hours than retirees. I'm sure anyone wanting to purposely impact people who don't vote for them would hire statisticians or data scientists to come up with 500 other things I'm not thinking of. That's the kind of thing people are accusing the Republicans of doing, and the reason it seems they are doing it is because there hasn't been a legitimate reason listed to make these changes.

 

None of these things is ever going to be overt or if it is too overt there is a public outcry and they walk it back, as they have done with some of the changes they proposed. If you're waiting to hear someone say they're making it harder for Black people to vote, you're going to be waiting forever. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[DevoHusker]

45 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You're JUST NOW learning about disparate impact?!?!?

 

 

Again, kind of. It's always cool to learn new things, don't you think!

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Again, kind of. It's always cool to learn new things, don't you think!

 

It's cool to be informed before you dismiss things like the new Georgia law, I think.

[DevoHusker]

5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Ok. Our government holds businesses to it. We should probably do the same for elections. The part that can be debated is whether there should be laws on it, but if we make businesses comply we should make our own government comply.

Just a hypothetical for you, not asking you to believe the Republicans are doing this on purpose. Do you think someone could find out where their voters and non voters (people who don't vote for them) are, what their tendencies are, and come up with policies that are more likely to negative impact their non voters? E.g. # of polling places or the population in that area that can impact wait times, or maybe the average age which can impact how many hours they have available to vote because they are working more hours than retirees. I'm sure anyone wanting to purposely impact people who don't vote for them would hire statisticians or data scientists to come up with 500 other things I'm not thinking of. That's the kind of thing people are accusing the Republicans of doing, and the reason it seems they are doing it is because there hasn't been a legitimate reason listed to make these changes.

 

None of these things is ever going to be overt or if it is too overt there is a public outcry and they walk it back, as they have done with some of the changes they proposed. If you're waiting to hear someone say they're making it harder for Black people to vote, you're going to be waiting forever. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

I did note in brief reading that it is more for hiring practices and Title 9 type stuff. But it might be worthwhile to have a disparate, bipartisan, neutral group study the effects on voting. Thanks.

 

Regarding your hypothetical, I think it is more likely than not that it has happened, e.g. these studies to determine who votes where and when. I would imagine that the Dems have done it too, would you not? Seems like prudent information to have regardless of affiliation.

 

Those statisticians hired by Dems (hypothetically of course) may say that not requiring valid photo ID to vote, shotgunning out ballots to every address, allowing one person to "harvest" hundreds or thousands of ballots from their neighborhood, having unlimited drop boxes with no video security or physical security (indoors/set hours) might allow unregistered citizens, non-citizens, or people who died since the last election, etc to "vote". Now, those same data scientists would say that a large percentage of those fraudulent ballots are likely to be discovered, but there might also be a sizeable percentage that are allowed to count. Of course, if those that are undiscovered votes are primarily for Dems, then they likely wouldn't ever admit that those practices take place. 

 

Look...hypotheticals aside 

 

I don't discount the reasoning that you and others have included. I personally believe in organized, structured, secure elections. I think that there is middle ground between "its so easy that even a child can operate it" with no time limits and no scrutinization and "one day from noon to one". I am just not sure how to get there. 

 

 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's cool to be informed before you dismiss things like the new Georgia law, I think.

 

Hey at least he's willing to admit there are things he doesn't know or fully understand; and then takes the time to research and learn. That is that self awareness thing I was talking about. Some right leaning folks will just ignore what they don't know/ understand and repeat the same false claim over and over again.

[Scarlet]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Kind of. You prompted me to look at it closer. Thanks.

Wait.. you're this far into this and it never dawned on you that the whole intention of this and other laws around the country are to target specific demographics?  

 

The first thing you needed to look at was "what was the intention of the Republican Party to pass this law?" There was no election fraud and the past election was the most secure in our country's history.  Fact. 

 

Yet the Republicans tried to overturn our country's free and fair elections. They tried to subvert our democracy.  Right in plain sight with the whole Stop the Steal sham that culminated in the assault on our nation's capitol.  Somehow now you'd believe that they are the honorable arbiters of election law?   For some reason you've ignored this quandary in your argument.  How did the Republicans suddenly become the noble patron saints of our elections when they literally just tried to overturn the very foundation of our democracy? 

 

Just look around the world for how utterly scary that is.  Now we're supposed to accept their latest attempt to steal power?  

 

Furthermore, when the people who are most impacted by these laws and their leaders speak out claiming it will make voting access more difficult who am I to argue that?  I haven't walked in their shoes.   

 

So again what is the intention of this law?

 

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Is that a greater or worse harm than the decades of misrepresentation caused by the republicans' voter disenfranchisement bill?

There is no disenfranchisement bill.  It has more voting times than many blue states. 

6 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

(According to the democrats)

 

And, I think that at this stage of the entire argument, it is worse than any perceived/unproven slights you think might be incurred. 

 

It amazes me that the left doesn't think that blacks in Atlanta can manage to follow the same rules as EVERY other voter in Georgia. Kinda racist if you ask me. 

This has been my point all along too.  

[Moiraine]

42 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

There is no disenfranchisement bill.  It has more voting times than many blue states. 

This has been my point all along too.  

 

 

And it’s a bad point from both of you.

 

Using wait time as an example; if a policy is more likely to adversely effect high population areas it’s going to adversely affect everyone in that area regardless of skin tone. But it just so happens Black people in Georgia are more likely to live in those areas than are White people. No one is suggesting they can’t work with what they’re given as well as the other people living in those areas. But the areas they are more likely to live in are more impacted. 

 

All of those are facts. The question is if it was deliberate by the Republicana based on the demographics. All signs point to yes since there is no logical explanation for them making/attemping to make these changes. 

[ScarletRevival]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

... it never dawned on you that the whole intention of this and other laws around the country are to target specific demographics?  

 

lol

 

Quote

 There was no election fraud and the past election was the most secure in our country's history.  Fact.

 

 Actually, that is not a fact. There were reportedly over 1100 signed affidavits from poll workers, watchers, etc that detailed suspicious activity. We all saw the tape of the Republicans get kicked out of a Fulton County poll, only to have cases of ballots that were hidden under tables being counted shortly after they were removed. James O'Keefe posted a recording (scrubbed by Big Tech) of one of the higher ups of Dominion saying that he told some of his allies in Facistfa that "they took care of it, Trump wasn't going to win."

 

If this really was the "most secure election in our history" please provide the next most secure elections. I would like numbers 2 to10, but I'll be generous and just ask for the next 2-5 most secure elections.

 

Quote

Yet the Republicans tried to overturn our country's free and fair elections. They tried to subvert our democracy.  Right in plain sight with the whole Stop the Steal sham that culminated in the assault on our nation's capitol.  Somehow now you'd believe that they are the honorable arbiters of election law?   For some reason you've ignored this quandary in your argument. 

 You mean like the Dems tried to overturn the Bush/Gore election? Or how Pelosi was trying to steal a house seat from SE Iowa that a (R) won after numerous recounts? 

 

Quote

literally just tried to overturn the very foundation of our democracy? 

 

1) nobody actually thought that the "Stop the Steal" rally would stop China's pedo on retainer from being placed in the White House.

2) Maybe having a discussion with you is a waste of time considering that you don't know that the United States isn't a democracy.

 

Quote

So again what is the intention of this law?

 

So that we won't have a free-for-all election like we just saw back in November.

 

We understand that self loathing white progressives/liberals/leftists think that p.o.c are stupid, lazy criminals, but guess what.......we need IDs to drive, to see a doctor, to get medication, to legally purchase firearms, to get a hunting or fishing license, to buy alcohol and smokes, to pick up products in store that we ordered on line, etc.   Shoot, the neighborhood school requires an ID to pick up a pre-ordered lunch.

 

Guess what, we're also smart enough to fill out absentee voting applications or to bring our own water bottle or other drink should we need to stand in line for a few minutes. We also will likely not die from standing in line for a little while. Many of us have stood in lines for hours to get into clubs without water and didn't die.

 

Showing an ID should be a requirement for voting.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

But it just so happens Black people in Georgia are more likely to live in those areas than are White people.

At some point you need to put the blame where it belongs and that is with the Democrats with this. 
 

In my view, if people can’t vote either, from 7-7 on Election Day, minimum of 9-5 with option of expanded 9-7 at least three weeks before the election, or decide to apply for absentee within a 3 month period, provide voter ID for absentee when it’s already required for in person, then I guess morons shouldnt vote. 

[commando]

1 hour ago, ScarletRevival said:

 

 Actually, that is not a fact. There were reportedly over 1100 signed affidavits from poll workers, watchers, etc that detailed suspicious activity. We all saw the tape of the Republicans get kicked out of a Fulton County poll, only to have cases of ballots that were hidden under tables being counted shortly after they were removed. James O'Keefe posted a recording (scrubbed by Big Tech) of one of the higher ups of Dominion saying that he told some of his allies in Facistfa that "they took care of it, Trump wasn't going to win."

 

If this really was the "most secure election in our history" please provide the next most secure elections. I would like numbers 2 to10, but I'll be generous and just ask for the next 2-5 most secure elections.

where was the proof about all those trump claims of election fraud?   when they went to court they went with allegations and never showed any proof of all that.  it's why the judges threw the cases out of court.   there was no evidence presented by trumps team to justify a trial.   if there was evidence i don't know why they didn't show it.

 

also....didn't we just hear 1 of trumps lead lawyers says that no rational person who heard the claims they presented would believe them?

 

so..in short....show me the convictions to back up the far right mantra of massive voter fraud.

[DevoHusker]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

It's cool to be informed before you dismiss things like the new Georgia law, I think.

I've not dismissed the GA law...obviously...I just happen to disagree 

[Archy1221]

The funny part of the GA law is all the people who b!^@h and moan about “Jim Crow” laws yet fail to realize the GA law is more voter friendly than many “progressive” blue states.  
 

It’s not shocking to anyone that those who whine the loudest seem to know the least about various states voting laws. 

[commando]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The funny part of the GA law is all the people who b!^@h and moan about “Jim Crow” laws yet fail to realize the GA law is more voter friendly than many “progressive” blue states.  
 

It’s not shocking to anyone that those who whine the loudest seem to know the least about various states voting laws. 

trump and the far right was the loudest crier of them all.  they even attacked the capitol over their misunderstanding of the laws.   guess they knew nothing about various  state election laws.

[Born N Bled Red]

Perfect solution. Election Day is made a federally paid holiday. That way no one loses income from waiting in lines for hours and has to decide on voting or feeding their family.