Voting Law Proposals and Voting Rights Efforts (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

This is, IMO, going to be a big topic in the coming year. Republicans have stated their aim to make voting more restrictive in just about every state where they have the means to do so. Democrats would like to pass the Voting Rights Bill named after John Lewis. I’m going to go look up the map of all the states which have pending legislation to restrict voting. Now that we have the election in the rear view, I thought we could try to make this a general discussion thread, where people who have concerns about voting abuses can post as well and we can discuss it from both sides. Please keep memes out of this thread and put them in the boards where we go to talk about the other side, lol.

 

[brandon]

Everything is wrong with mail in voting until it can be proven all across the country (especially in battleground states) that it's at least as secure as in person, precinct voting.

That has been proven.

 

[DaveXA]

As far as you've been told.

Everything is wrong with mail in voting until it can be proven all across the country (especially in battleground states) that it's at least as secure as in person, precinct voting.

Well, it's already proven to be as secure, if not moreso in Oregon. And that's just one example of a state doing it. There are others. It's been effective for 15 years, so I don't see the problem with it.

 

[Peace]

Not exactly.

So 26% voted in-person prior to Election Day, and an additional 31% voted in-person on Election Day. In total, 57% voted in-person compared to 43% mail-in.

Fair enough; I took the word of a trusted source, and didn't dig into the actual numbers myself. That's on me.

The important point is that 40% is still more than enough to cover what would've been needed in battleground states like Arizona.

Now, we've taken this as far as it needs to go. The Republicans either weren't willing or weren't able to dig deep enough to prove this one way or the other, so I'm going to cool it with talk of election fraud. I trust that you will do the same.

Also, you can't think of any reason in particular more people would have wanted to mail in their votes in 2020. Any reason at all?

Aside from the fact that it's more convenient?

Sure, people (mostly democrats) were afraid of getting Covid, hence the desire to mail in their ballots.

 

[brandon]

Aside from the fact that it's more convenient?

Sure, people (mostly democrats) were afraid of getting Covid, hence the desire to mail in their ballots.

Is convenience a bad thing? Should voting be difficult?

And yea, people were afraid of getting COVID. Isn't that a much more likely explanation for the increase in mail-in ballots than voter fraud that we have no evidence of?

 

[brandon]

Now, we've taken this as far as it needs to go. The Republicans either weren't willing or weren't able to dig deep enough to prove this one way or the other, so I'm going to cool it with talk of election fraud. I trust that you will do the same.

Cool. Head back over to the racism thread and let's discuss those CRT posts you asked for and I provided.

 

[Peace]

Cool. Head back over to the racism thread and let's discuss those CRT posts you asked for and I provided.

I'll knock that out this evening.

 

[Peace]

Is convenience a bad thing? Should voting be difficult?

Voting should be secure. And I'm all for taking the necessary steps to ensure that.

 

[DaveXA]

Voting should be secure. And I'm all for taking the necessary steps to ensure that.

Are you implying that mail in voting is somehow insecure? If so, why?

 

[brandon]

Voting should be secure. And I'm all for taking the necessary steps to ensure that.

So if it were possible to prove to you that mail-in voting is secure, or at least as secure as in-person voting, you would have no problem with it?

 

[Peace]

Are you implying that mail in voting is somehow insecure? If so, why?

For the reasons I've talked about before. Even though there's no proof available, the possibility is still there.

 

[Peace]

So if it were possible to prove to you that mail-in voting is secure, or at least as secure as in-person voting, you would have no problem with it?

I don't think it is possible without witnessing the process first hand.

 

[CoolBrees]

For the reasons I've talked about before. Even though there's no proof available, the possibility is still there.

So, just to make sure I understand you, you are saying that if there is a chance of crime we should do what ever we can to stop it ahead of time?

I can guess your opinion on the Second Amendment, so I will just go ahead and ask how you square those two things?

 

[Peace]

So, just to make sure I understand you, you are saying that if there is a chance of crime we should do what ever we can to stop it ahead of time?

Of course. Are we not doing that for the President of the United States? Isn't that why we learn self-defense? Are we not doing that with alarm systems? Are we not doing that for how many dozens of reasons?

I can guess your opinion on the Second Amendment, so I will just go ahead and ask how you square those two things?

Don't we buy guns for self-defense? I'm not getting your reasoning here.

 

[brandon]

I don't think it is possible without witnessing the process first hand.

How would one witness first hand ever single election in the country?

 

[Optimus Prime]

.........Georgia Republicans, however, are ready to claim victory on at least one front. They believe the high turnout represents vindication, proving that SB 202 – the “Election Integrity Act” that they passed last year – wasn’t an effort to suppress voter turnout, as Democrats had claimed.

But that boast about Georgia’s 98-page voting bill doesn’t hold up, for several reasons:

• The fear and anger apparently driving voters of both parties to the polls this year may have swamped whatever suppressive impact last year’s SB 202 was intended to have.

• Democrats have built an effective, well-funded voter-protection apparatus to help people overcome whatever bureaucratic hurdles are placed between them and the ballot box.

• Voter suppression isn’t intended to drive down overall turnout, but instead attempts to target specific subgroups. We won’t know its real impact until all the votes are counted and analyzed, and even then we won’t be certain.

• Attempted voter suppression, like attempted insurrection, is still attempted suppression even if it doesn’t succeed.

That last point is critical. To their base, Republicans have said the changes implemented in SB 202 – making absentee balloting more difficult, significantly reducing the number of drop boxes in urban areas – were necessary to fight voter fraud. But logically, that motive makes no sense.

Gov. Brian Kemp, who signed the bill into law, and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who advocated for it, had already conceded that voter fraud played no role in recent election outcomes. In Raffensperger’s words, “we had safe, secure, honest elections,” a conclusion shared by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, federal officials in former President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, and state and federal judges. And if fraud wasn’t the real reason for those changes, what was?

From the beginning, the entire “voting fraud” industry has been a bad-faith invention by the right to serve as cover for its voter suppression targeting minorities. We know that because every Republican administration in the last quarter of a century has tried desperately to find evidence of such fraud on a scale sufficient to swing elections, and every such investigation has failed abysmally.

When he served as Georgia secretary of state from 2010 to 2018, Kemp tried and failed to find such fraud. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis continues to try to find it, and so far he, too, continues to come up empty..........

Opinion: What Georgia's record-breaking early voting means

 

[DaveXA]

For the reasons I've talked about before. Even though there's no proof available, the possibility is still there.

You didn't state a specific reason, just some vague "it’s possible" claim.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't think it is possible without witnessing the process first hand.

What part of the process are you referring to?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Of course. Are we not doing that for the President of the United States? Isn't that why we learn self-defense? Are we not doing that with alarm systems? Are we not doing that for how many dozens of reasons?

Don't we buy guns for self-defense? I'm not getting your reasoning here.

Let me help. If there is a chance someone buys a gun with the intention of committing a crime, is that chance enough of a reason to severely curb gun ownership rights? By that same token, alcohol impairs a person's judgment, reflexes, decision-making, etc. There's a very good chance someone will die in a drunk driving incident. Is that enough of a reason to ban alcohol?