46th President of the United States, Joe Biden

[anonymous-user]

LimSlip said:

How do they do this? How can democrat voters be incapable of following a simple procedure to ensure they are enrolled but republican voters can?

You end up in a logical cul-de-sac;

"Republican voters voting for Trump are stupid"

"The voting rules are too difficult for Democrat voters to understand, but Republicans work them out just fine"

[Countdown]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

LimSlip said:

How do they do this? How can democrat voters be incapable of following a simple procedure to ensure they are enrolled but republican voters can?

You end up in a logical cul-de-sac;

"Republican voters voting for Trump are stupid"

"The voting rules are too difficult for Democrat voters to understand, but Republicans work them out just fine"

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-op...

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-op...

Will the law be the same for everybody? Will everybody be able and allowed to vote?

[gregs656]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Will the law be the same for everybody? Will everybody be able and allowed to vote?

A law that applies to all people does not mean it effects them all proportionally. That should be obvious.

[Countdown]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Countdown said:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-op...

Will the law be the same for everybody? Will everybody be able and allowed to vote?

If I make a law that says "Anybody with the letters C A and T in their name should be neutered" then, just because that law "is the same for everybody" doesn't mean it's fair, proportionate, or necessary.

If I move your polling station to Outer mongolia you will still be entitled to vote. However that doesn't make it fair, proportionate, or necessary

The article explains, in great detail, why the laws being proposed are unfair and discriminate disproportionately against black people. Are you disputing any of that?

[captain_cynic]

They've gone from ignoring the voter disenfranchisement to actively supporting it.

I think we can put the "ThE'rE aLl As BaD aS eAcH oThEr" nonsense to bed now. They know which side is worse and are supporting it.

[anonymous-user]

gregs656 said:

A law that applies to all people does not mean it effects them all proportionally. That should be obvious.

The law should treat all people equally. That should mean people are not bribed to turn up, unless everybody is bribed to turn up, for example.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

If I make a law that says "Anybody with the letters C A and T in their name should be neutered" then, just because that law "is the same for everybody" doesn't mean it's fair, proportionate, or necessary.

It wouldn't be the same for everybody, because not everybody has C, A or T in their name. What you said makes no sense.

[Gameface]

I dunno why you bother trying to explain to LimSip etc.

No desire to actually understand.

[gregs656]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

gregs656 said:

A law that applies to all people does not mean it effects them all proportionally. That should be obvious.

The law should treat all people equally. That should mean people are not bribed to turn up, unless everybody is bribed to turn up, for example.

These elections laws advanced by Republicans do not seek to treat all people equally, so you should disagree with them in principle.

In fact, if you are interested in free and fair elections you would also disagree with these laws in principles, as you would recognise that putting up weird barriers to prevent people from voting is not how these things should work.

[gregs656]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Countdown said:

If I make a law that says "Anybody with the letters C A and T in their name should be neutered" then, just because that law "is the same for everybody" doesn't mean it's fair, proportionate, or necessary.

It wouldn't be the same for everybody, because not everybody has C, A or T in their name. What you said makes no sense.

Hilarious.

[anonymous-user]

gregs656 said:

These elections laws advanced by Republicans do not seek to treat all people equally, so you should disagree with them in principle.

In fact, if you are interested in free and fair elections you would also disagree with these laws in principles, as you would recognise that putting up weird barriers to prevent people from voting is not how these things should work.

Which parts of the new legislation prevent people from voting?

[blackrabbit]

Countdown said:

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Countdown said:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-op...

Will the law be the same for everybody? Will everybody be able and allowed to vote?

If I make a law that says "Anybody with the letters C A and T in their name should be neutered" then, just because that law "is the same for everybody" doesn't mean it's fair, proportionate, or necessary.

If I move your polling station to Outer mongolia you will still be entitled to vote. However that doesn't make it fair, proportionate, or necessary

The article explains, in great detail, why the laws being proposed are unfair and discriminate disproportionately against black people. Are you disputing any of that?

This so called article is such a bunch of crap its laughable, completely partisan and inaccurate. Another white elitist trying to stir up trouble by using racebaiting rhetoric from the 60's. For example the "no water in line" rule is not intended to discourage black people to vote. It is intended to stop political activists giving out food and drinks while influencing people inline to vote a certain way. That's why the rule is about distance. Or would you be happy with someone giving out a branded water bottle to people in line to vote?

I still don't see the problem with the new GA law and its overdue. Sure the timing is clearly a response to the recent election but I fail to see why anyone has a problem with someone showing an actual ID to vote. The same people whining about it don't seem to have a problem having and showing their ID for other normal day to day activities in the same neighborhoods.

Democrats are overplaying the race card and its going to bite them come midterms if they continue.

[HM-2]

LimSlip said:

HM-2 said:

The laws are designed specifically to impact primarily democrat-supporting demographics. The same laws may apply to Republican voters in principal, but they're far less relevant to them in reality.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 15:36

How do they do this? How can democrat voters be incapable of following a simple procedure to ensure they are enrolled but republican voters can?

First and foremost because the laws only really affect primarily Democrat demographics. Nobody is suggesting that these demographics can't follow these procedures, but they're legislative hurdles put in place that are designed specifically to impede their ability to exercise their rights. None of this is rocket science, and as already mentioned, several people closely involved in producing, promoting and passing this legislation have specifically stated that its intent is not to prevent fraud but to impede the ability of primarily Democrat demographics to vote.

Young people, such as those who have already been "one-striked" for not voting in an election they weren't eligible to vote in, vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Those living in urban areas, who are most impacted by reductions in the numbers of available polling stations, primarily vote Democrat.
Absentee voters is a slightly different story- this varied significantly from state to state before the Covid-19 pandemic, with states like Texas previously seeing higher proportions of Republicans casting postal votes than Democrats; however, the false attacks on the security and credibility of the absentee voting system have reversed this trend and now those Republican states which were actively championing it four years ago, relaxing restrictions when it primarily benefited their own voters, are clamping down on it now that Democrats are favouring it.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Ok, so think strategically. If there's little or no fraud now, the changes are unlikely to make much difference.

The changes are unlikely to make much difference in respect of non-existing voter fraud. They're likely to impact the ability of eligible voters in primarily Democrat demographics to vote (IE, voter suppression).

The consideration isn't whether or not there's further ammunition to make the claim for fraud- there's not any actual ammunition this time around but the claims are still being made. They're a transparent attempt to try and make sure that the events of 2020 don't happen again, and to try and overcome 4 more years of America's demographics shifting further in support of Democrats. Rather than changing policies and approaches to appeal to a wider voter base, they'd rather just prevent people who don't already align with them ideologically from voting.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Countdown said:

If I make a law that says "Anybody with the letters C A and T in their name should be neutered" then, just because that law "is the same for everybody" doesn't mean it's fair, proportionate, or necessary.

It wouldn't be the same for everybody, because not everybody has C, A or T in their name. What you said makes no sense.

It would be the same law for everybody, in exactly the same way that a law saying "you can only have 1 polling station per 10 square miles regardless of whether 100 or 1 million people live in that area" is nominally the same for everybody even though it's self-evidently prejudiced against the latter group.

blackrabbit said:

For example the "no water in line" rule is not intended to discourage black people to vote. It is intended to stop political activists giving out food and drinks while influencing people inline to vote a certain way. That's why the rule is about distance. Or would you be happy with someone giving out a branded water bottle to people in line to vote?

Which would be a valid contention if what you described every actually happened, and wouldn't already be covered under laws.

But it doesn't, and is.

Nobody is giving water to people to entice them to vote for certain candidates; it's nonpartisan groups making four hour waits in the baking sun tolerable for people who've been intentionally made to wait for four hours in the baking sun in the hope that they just go home instead of exercising their democratic rights in ways that are inconvenient for Republicans. There's a specific exemption under federal law for non-partisan actions designed to encourage voter turn-out- it's the same law that lets organisations provide free or subsidised transport for individuals otherwise unable to get to polling stations, something that Republicans also briefly looked at gutting until they realised how many Republican-supporting senior citizens were reliant on these services.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 17:04

[Countdown]

blackrabbit said:

This so called article is such a bunch of crap its laughable, completely partisan and inaccurate. Another white elitist trying to stir up trouble by using racebaiting rhetoric from the 60's. For example the "no water in line" rule is not intended to discourage black people to vote. It is intended to stop political activists giving out food and drinks while influencing people inline to vote a certain way. That's why the rule is about distance. Or would you be happy with someone giving out a branded water bottle to people in line to vote?

Let's say you've turned up to vote, and you've aite din line for several hours. Are you going to change your vote purely because somebody gives you a bottle of water? I doubt you would, because it's unlikely you're that stupid, but you seem to assume that other people would.

blackrabbit said:

I still don't see the problem with the new GA law and its overdue. Sure the timing is clearly a response to the recent election but I fail to see why anyone has a problem with someone showing an actual ID to vote. The same people whining about it don't seem to have a problem having and showing their ID for other normal day to day activities in the same neighborhoods.

Democrats are overplaying the race card and its going to bite them come midterms if they continue.

Whining? You don't think "we lost the election so let's stop the other side from voting" is whining?

[Countdown]

Gameface said:

I dunno why you bother trying to explain to LimSip etc.

No desire to actually understand.

I'd hoped that once Trump lost his ish supporters would crawl back into the woodwork. it seems not.

[Countdown]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Ok, so think strategically. If there's little or no fraud now, the changes are unlikely to make much difference. Next time around, the Republicans will have 1 less way to allege the election was fraudulent, because they have introduced their measures. It will point out to them they're unpopular because they're unpopular, not because of a few regulations that never made much difference.

Given that THIS time they're alleging fraud when there's no evidence for it, what's to stop them alleging fraud NEXT time when there's no evidence for it?

[blackrabbit]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

HM-2 said:

You either misread, misunderstand, or intentionally misrepresent my point. Legislation to "reduce voter fraud" is unnecessary, becasue voter fraud is, statistically speaking, nonexistent.

Ok, so think strategically. If there's little or no fraud now, the changes are unlikely to make much difference. Next time around, the Republicans will have 1 less way to allege the election was fraudulent, because they have introduced their measures. It will point out to them they're unpopular because they're unpopular, not because of a few regulations that never made much difference.

I think we all know that in reality in an election as close as this that each side wants all the advantage they can get. Fulton and Dekalb county in GA have the highest portion of fraud in unemployment claims, pandemic claims, medicare claims etc in the state in the past decade. Also by far the highest crime statistics. These two counties were the ones that enabled the Dems to win recently in the presidential elections and the senate by unusual party swings and the highest levels of postal voting. Is it a now really a coincidence that these counties are the ones where the Dems are whining about so called voter suppression by the state changing laws and asking for IDs?

My sense is that the Dems deep down know there was some voter fraud and they worry that bringing in an ID will maybe cut it down enough to make a difference next election

[anonymous-user]

blackrabbit said:

My sense is that the Dems deep down know there was some voter fraud and they worry that bringing in an ID will maybe cut it down enough to make a difference next election

My sense is that the Dems sincerely believe the new regulations will hamper 'their' voters and the Republicans hope it will.

Whether they're right or not we'll see, but I find it hard to support a system that allows inducements to one group and not another. All voters should be treated the same. In other words, if water and food is necessary due to long queues, make all polling stations offer food and water to all voters and control how its offered to ensure impartiality.

[blackrabbit]

Countdown said:

blackrabbit said:

This so called article is such a bunch of crap its laughable, completely partisan and inaccurate. Another white elitist trying to stir up trouble by using racebaiting rhetoric from the 60's. For example the "no water in line" rule is not intended to discourage black people to vote. It is intended to stop political activists giving out food and drinks while influencing people inline to vote a certain way. That's why the rule is about distance. Or would you be happy with someone giving out a branded water bottle to people in line to vote?

Let's say you've turned up to vote, and you've aite din line for several hours. Are you going to change your vote purely because somebody gives you a bottle of water? I doubt you would, because it's unlikely you're that stupid, but you seem to assume that other people would. [quote]

Edited by blackrabbit on Wednesday 28th April 17:26

You assume people are too stupid to get an ID clearly!

It is also a fact that activists will give gifts including food and drink to people in line to vote to influence them. If you actually read the law you would see that water stands are allowed but must be set up by the polling stations themselves and not private companies or activists wearing for example BLM regalia within a certain distance.

Edited by blackrabbit on Wednesday 28th April 17:27