Assault on democracy, or how the GOP hate voting

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,130
Location
Michigan USA

jack_christie

Forum Addict
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
6,485

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,194
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '11 Multistrada, Yamaha R6
I'm fast running out of hope that our country will be able to claw its way back from this path towards corruption.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,130
Location
Michigan USA

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9,404
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
This seems like a quick and easy way to lose your seat come next election. Especially if your constituents are expecting you to stand and fight for your interests. Running away just means they are just postponing the vote on them at best.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,894
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Democrats did the same thing before and were rewarded
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,130
Location
Michigan USA
This seems like a quick and easy way to lose your seat come next election. Especially if your constituents are expecting you to stand and fight for your interests. Running away just means they are just postponing the vote on them at best.


It's not like they plan on hiding in a cabin in the woods. They are going to D.C. to try to help get two Federal laws passed to stop laws like the Texas law.
 

awdrifter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
3,182
This seems like a quick and easy way to lose your seat come next election. Especially if your constituents are expecting you to stand and fight for your interests. Running away just means they are just postponing the vote on them at best.

The mainstream news will sweep this under the rug during the next election, that's why they are probably not worried. You already see most MSM trying to spin this as a positive that they are stalling the vote.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,894
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
They have nothing to lose. These voting laws are terrible it's not about voter security it's about voter suppression. They will lose their seats if this law is passed so why not stay in DC and try to get some protection.


If they really wanted a secure vote why not mirror Colorado who has the gold standard for vote security and voter turnout of over 85%? Why not? Because it has voter turnout of over 85%.
 

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9,404
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
They have nothing to lose.

Except their seats.

As for this new voting law they are supporting on DC, rather distressingly named the "For the People Act" (I'm of the mind that you should never trust a law that has a name so good sounding and that means nothing), it has rather a couple of things that don't strike me as right.

The expansions of early voting seem unnecessary and a security risk on light of it making election day a federal holiday. with a day off all you have to do is greatly expand the amount of voting centers to minimize queues. The changes done to the FEC are likely to give a simple majority to the incumbent party, who, we'll all be shocked later, will be unable to discover any misdeeds on their parties' behalf. The section on revealing tax returns seems to be a knee-jerk because Trump didn't do something that so far was just a voluntary thing.

I do like the aforementioned making the election day a holiday and at least the token efforts for campaign finance law. I have little to say in the matter of DC statehood apart from joking remarks that you now get to change the flag again.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,894
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Except their seats.
They believe they will lose their seats if the Texas voting law passes.
As for this new voting law they are supporting on DC, rather distressingly named the "For the People Act" (I'm of the mind that you should never trust a law that has a name so good sounding and that means nothing), it has rather a couple of things that don't strike me as right.
It's going to be a combination of SR 1 and SR 4 the John Lewis voting bill that probably will get passed. The reasoning why Republicans don't want either is that they are constructed around Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) meaning both would likely have a tough time being dismantled by the Roberts Court. Second it would insure greater turnout and they believe voters don't like the Republican platform of not having a platform? Or their policy of not having policy? What is the problem of having more voters? Oh they don't like you.
The expansions of early voting seem unnecessary and a security risk on light of it making election day a federal holiday. with a day off all you have to do is greatly expand the amount of voting centers to minimize queues.
I don't understand what you mean "a security risk" by early voting.

The point is that because of Shelby County v Holder the Federal Government cannot stipulate coverage. So they have no way of "minimizing queues" if the state constructs it's law like that. For example before the new Georgia voting law:


10 hour lines! People passing out from dehydration and lack of food... Now it's illegal to provide those things and the number of polling locations and drop boxes has been reduced.

It was bad they have only made it worse.

Neither SR1 or SR4 changes this although SR4 would bring preclearance back for future state laws. SR1 would standardize federal elections allowing for the greatest number of people to vote even with these newly crafted voter suppression laws.
The changes done to the FEC are likely to give a simple majority to the incumbent party, who, we'll all be shocked later, will be unable to discover any misdeeds on their parties' behalf.
So right now Ellen L. Weintraub FEC chair has created an interesting situation for the FEC because Republicans refused to apply the law to their candidates Democrats who have the chair don't send attorneys to court forcing the court to decide and find against Republicans.


I do like the aforementioned making the election day a holiday and at least the token efforts for campaign finance law.

Holidays are meaningless for the poor and middle class.

The question I have anyone who opposes these voting laws is why make it difficult to vote? Everyone would suffer with long lines to vote! why? Why do this? Why?
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,130
Location
Michigan USA
Show me evidence of mass voter fraud in states that allow early voting and I will be convinced.
 

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9,404
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
Show me evidence of mass voter fraud in states that allow early voting and I will be convinced.

I am not attempting to convince you of anything, merely presenting my opinion. Conversation is not PvP.

The problem with that argument is that it states that I shouldn't worry about the possibility of fraud in early voting unless we demonstrate massive fraud in early voting. To make an inadequate equivalency, it's like saying you shouldn't worry about the oil in your engine until it begins to clatter or whether your roast is done until smoke is bellowing from the oven. To address this and answer Momentum's question of "security risks": In regards to early voting in physical locations, the longer a ballot box is available, the more likely it is that it could be tampered with. Ballots can be replaced during transport, damaged, or stuffed. This is compounded with cameras being banned in voting areas (as it should be) and a varying amount of staffers during extended hours. As for early voting by mail, you need only see that nonsense in the Florida USPS offices, people sending fake ballots to make people think they voted, and the incident in California where people were sent ballots without a choice for president to see why it could be an issue.

Election day being a holiday is a huge step for US democracy. Entirely aside from the fact that it brings the US in line with the rest of the planet, I am baffled with Momentum's assertion that it's "meaningless for the poor and middle class", when the entire argument for making election day a holiday is to benefit this people and has been for decades. It should also be pointed out that with 66% of the registered population voting this election, you're on par with countries such as France, Germany, and Canada for turnout even without that.

But my argument goes hand in hand with yours. The only way the risks of early voting can be removed while maintaining all of its advantages is to make sure that every American has the possibility to vote during election day at regular hours so that ballot locations are adequately staffed and the ballots are scrutinized at every moment of their journey except when the citizen casts their vote. The only way to do this is greatly expand voting centers across the country. per your statement, this voting law omits this, which (to me) implies increased reliance on early/mail voting, with the aforementioned risks.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,894
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
The problem with that argument is that it states that I shouldn't worry about the possibility of fraud in early voting unless we demonstrate massive fraud in early voting.
You should be less worried about voter fraud because no proof exist of large scale fraud vs being worried that those laws to protect against something that hasn't happened is disenfranchising thousands. Thus @GRtak was pointing it out

To address this and answer Momentum's question of "security risks": In regards to early voting in physical locations, the longer a ballot box is available, the more likely it is that it could be tampered with. Ballots can be replaced during transport, damaged, or stuffed. This is compounded with cameras being banned in voting areas (as it should be) and a varying amount of staffers during extended hours. As for early voting by mail, you need only see that nonsense in the Florida USPS offices, people sending fake ballots to make people think they voted, and the incident in California where people were sent ballots without a choice for president to see why it could be an issue.
That's ridiculous you basicly are a step away from saying its too risky to have a ballot box at all... why vote. If you had an example of massive voter fraud that could swing a state sure but that doesn't exist. You really only have a moral panic.
Election day being a holiday is a huge step for US democracy. Entirely aside from the fact that it brings the US in line with the rest of the planet, I am baffled with Momentum's assertion that it's "meaningless for the poor and middle class", when the entire argument for making election day a holiday is to benefit this people and has been for decades. It should also be pointed out that with 66% of the registered population voting this election, you're on par with countries such as France, Germany, and Canada for turnout even without that.
Im saying if it was down to a holiday or early voting ill take the early voting, I never had the Independence Day off or Memorial Day... Its a nice gesture to government employees but meaningless.
But my argument goes hand in hand with yours. The only way the risks of early voting can be removed while maintaining all of its advantages is to make sure that every American has the possibility to vote during election day at regular hours so that ballot locations are adequately staffed and the ballots are scrutinized at every moment of their journey except when the citizen casts their vote. The only way to do this is greatly expand voting centers across the country. per your statement, this voting law omits this, which (to me) implies increased reliance on early/mail voting, with the aforementioned risks.
Yeah and the Republican states anti-voting laws go out their way to limit early and mail in voting besides reducing drop boxes they also reduce polling locations for all voting. The only argument that is left is why would you not support SR1 and SR4?
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,130
Location
Michigan USA
@gaasc first, my remark was not directed squarely at you to do, but more as a general statement.

Second, there is more than enough proof through states that allow early voting that show that the security risks can be managed.

Third, ballot boxes are changed out regularly with various security measures taken to keep them secure and extremely difficult to tamper with.
 

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9,404
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
Fair enough. I am still rather concerned by them and would greatly preferred elections being on-the-day and scrutinized intensely by staffers, with early voting reserved for the people that would actually be working. Again. not trying to change minds here, just presenting my point. It did read like you were asking me personally.

@Momentum57, one step away from ballot boxes being too risky is "having ballot boxes but having them heavily scrutinized and observed." So yes, I am. I fail to see the problem with this. Your personal preference and experiences re: early voting and holidays seems to fly in the face of actual studies saying that making it a holiday would "Improve turnout dramatically". And it most likely will. Doing it so also pisses off republicans, which I believe to be a personal goal of yours :p.

One final note, in the midst of insane people calling it a witch hunt and stupid showmanship, and other crazy people calling it something that will utterly change the results of an entire election; That annoying Arizona audit has now found "70,243 mail-in ballots where there is no clear record of them being sent". The fact that we're still on this, going on for a year after the election does not especially help the case for mail-in ballots. And you go in for data and it follows clear across political lines. Hence my use of "annoying".

It undermines the trust of the election if nothing else.
 
Last edited:

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,894
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
The fact that we're still on this, going on for a year after the election does not especially help the case for mail-in ballots. And you go in for data and it follows clear across political lines. Hence my use of "annoying".

It undermines the trust of the election if nothing else.
The fact were still on this only proves that there are people who are bringing it up. Its like if I kept screaming chicken fucker over and over till someone said shut up and I said well I've been hearing chicken fucker alot.
 

NecroJoe

Stool Chef
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
20,831
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
That "annoying" audit also initially said their audit would take 3 weeks, and it's been going on since April. If having ballot boxes available too early makes it more likely to be tampered with, then this circus is on a whole 'nother planet of that exact thing.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,130
Location
Michigan USA
Fair enough. I am still rather concerned by them and would greatly preferred elections being on-the-day and scrutinized intensely by staffers, with early voting reserved for the people that would actually be working. Again. not trying to change minds here, just presenting my point. It did read like you were asking me personally.

@Momentum57, one step away from ballot boxes being too risky is "having ballot boxes but having them heavily scrutinized and observed." So yes, I am. I fail to see the problem with this. Your personal preference and experiences re: early voting and holidays seems to fly in the face of actual studies saying that making it a holiday would "Improve turnout dramatically". And it most likely will. Doing it so also pisses off republicans, which I believe to be a personal goal of yours :p.

One final note, in the midst of insane people calling it a witch hunt and stupid showmanship, and other crazy people calling it something that will utterly change the results of an entire election; That annoying Arizona audit has now found "70,243 mail-in ballots where there is no clear record of them being sent". The fact that we're still on this, going on for a year after the election does not especially help the case for mail-in ballots. And you go in for data and it follows clear across political lines. Hence my use of "annoying".

It undermines the trust of the election if nothing else.


The whole plan was to undermine the election.

The Arizona Senate has ordered a third count to see if there are any anomalies that pop up in The second recount because the company that is doing the recount has not done a credible job.
 
Top