• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Voter suppression in North Carolina..

Look at the source of the story. Accuracy is not her strong suit. I live in NC, have read the law (posted a link on this board if you want to do a search of my posts and read it yourself instead of relying on Maddow) and this is being overblown by hyperbolic rhetoric from the extreme left, as evidenced by the source of the OP's link.

Will some crazy right wing nut in some precinct somewhere go too far and break the law? Probably. Never underestimate the ignorance of extremists on either side. But what is being reported so far on the DNC's mouthpiece (MSNBC) should be scrutinized and verified before being reported here as empirical fact.

Just a suggestion, from a guy that actually read the law.
 
GOP-led board closes station, targets campus voting - Video on NBCNews.com

LOL seriously why is this crap even allowed? I can understand voter ID, but doing this is... beyond pathetic.

Got to love the 30 parking places, where 20 will be taken up by election workers lol. And no public transport to the place where about 9000 people have to vote.

Voter ID I can understand, making voting harder when you had an easy system in place is obviously wrong. This is pure gerrymandering and needs to be confronted.
 
Look at the source of the story. Accuracy is not her strong suit. I live in NC, have read the law (posted a link on this board if you want to do a search of my posts and read it yourself instead of relying on Maddow) and this is being overblown by hyperbolic rhetoric from the extreme left, as evidenced by the source of the OP's link.

Will some crazy right wing nut in some precinct somewhere go too far and break the law? Probably. Never underestimate the ignorance of extremists on either side. But what is being reported so far on the DNC's mouthpiece (MSNBC) should be scrutinized and verified before being reported here as empirical fact.

Just a suggestion, from a guy that actually read the law.

I am not a fan of MSNBC, but maybe the guy who has read the law can explain how this is improving people's ability to vote. We should be striving to allow people to vote as much as possible.
 
Look at the source of the story. Accuracy is not her strong suit. I live in NC, have read the law (posted a link on this board if you want to do a search of my posts and read it yourself instead of relying on Maddow) and this is being overblown by hyperbolic rhetoric from the extreme left, as evidenced by the source of the OP's link.

Will some crazy right wing nut in some precinct somewhere go too far and break the law? Probably. Never underestimate the ignorance of extremists on either side. But what is being reported so far on the DNC's mouthpiece (MSNBC) should be scrutinized and verified before being reported here as empirical fact.

Just a suggestion, from a guy that actually read the law.

Oh I agree fully, Maddow is biased... but that was not my point. Even if she is correct/factual in just one of her accusation, then it is voter suppression. And considering the tactics of the GOP across the US, then it is not exactly beyond belief that someone in the GOP would actually do this.

Lets take her on her word that this area votes considerably democratic. It is a matter of public record, so trying to fiddle with that would be stupid.

Now that leaves us with the other facts in her story.

It Was about 8000+ people who can vote in the area. They have gone from 3 places to 1 place where they can vote. That alone is nuts if true. Trying to get 8000 people through the voting booths in a normal day is... impossible, unless the voting area has tons of voting booths and is pretty huge. Considering that voting hours have been reduced, then getting 8000 people through in lets say 8 hours, would mean you would need about 67 voting booths (provided every voter takes 15 minutes to vote). Yea right... do you expect that to be provided or even anything close?

That brings us to the place that is shown. If it is the correct place, then one can only say wtf? It looks very small for 8000 people to go through. And the parking? 30 places.. I mean come on.. this is a rural area. People drive to places..

Then there is the bus route... smallest buses if true, with no bus stop outside this convention centre.. if true.. wtf?

No, the real question is, why did they remove the ability to vote at the university. As a rule of thumb, voting places are to be placed in areas where people can go or/and live/work. A university is a perfect place for this. Why move it from there? If they want to consolidate the 3 voting places to 1... fine, but put it in a place where people are and can easily get access too.. like a freaking University!
 
I am not a fan of MSNBC, but maybe the guy who has read the law can explain how this is improving people's ability to vote. We should be striving to allow people to vote as much as possible.

First, I'm not a fan of the entire law.

There are parts of it that I am opposed to, like the part that effect college students (I have a son in college 3 hours from home), but even those parts aren't restrictive because the kids can absentee vote if they want.

I do like the Voter ID portion, but would make it easier to get the ID's. The purpose of the law is neither to make it easier nor harder for legal citizens to vote. The purpose is to protect citizens from disenfranchisement. All the reasons that I have heard from the opposition to voter ID that are supposedly road blocks for certain people to get an ID are the exact same road blocks that already exist for anyone wanting to register to vote or actually vote on election day. The NC law even allows for a free birth certificate if you can't afford the ten bucks, so no poll tax.
 
First, I'm not a fan of the entire law.

There are parts of it that I am opposed to, like the part that effect college students (I have a son in college 3 hours from home), but even those parts aren't restrictive because the kids can absentee vote if they want.

I do like the Voter ID portion, but would make it easier to get the ID's. The purpose of the law is neither to make it easier nor harder for legal citizens to vote. The purpose is to protect citizens from disenfranchisement. All the reasons that I have heard from the opposition to voter ID that are supposedly road blocks for certain people to get an ID are the exact same road blocks that already exist for anyone wanting to register to vote or actually vote on election day. The NC law even allows for a free birth certificate if you can't afford the ten bucks, so no poll tax.

Still does not explain the OP story.. if even remotely true... it is pure voter suppression and NC allows that kind of crap.
 
First, I'm not a fan of the entire law.

There are parts of it that I am opposed to, like the part that effect college students (I have a son in college 3 hours from home), but even those parts aren't restrictive because the kids can absentee vote if they want.

I do like the Voter ID portion, but would make it easier to get the ID's. The purpose of the law is neither to make it easier nor harder for legal citizens to vote. The purpose is to protect citizens from disenfranchisement. All the reasons that I have heard from the opposition to voter ID that are supposedly road blocks for certain people to get an ID are the exact same road blocks that already exist for anyone wanting to register to vote or actually vote on election day. The NC law even allows for a free birth certificate if you can't afford the ten bucks, so no poll tax.

So you like one part, and the bad things do not effect you voting and they hurt people you think are your opponents so you are cool that unfair things are in it. The difference between me and you is if they were making it harder for a group of republicans to vote by closing down a geographical voting location to cause them harm I would fight against that too. I would not just let it pass because I don't like how those people vote. We should make voting easier and more accessible for everyone. Though I am cool with voter ID, there should not be this sort of BS put in there to make things harder. When you are trying to claim that your voter ID law is being done in the best interest of all people to make things fair this completely undermines that entire argument and shows it is considered to be a way to disenfranchise voters.
 
Oh I agree fully, Maddow is biased... but that was not my point.
So far we agree.
Even if she is correct/factual in just one of her accusation, then it is voter suppression. And considering the tactics of the GOP across the US, then it is not exactly beyond belief that someone in the GOP would actually do this.
Like I said, its possible for someone in some precinct somewhere to break the law, even this law.

Lets take her on her word that this area votes considerably democratic. It is a matter of public record, so trying to fiddle with that would be stupid.
Don't doubt that. There are many precincts that are heavily Democratic in this state.

Now that leaves us with the other facts in her story.
I would have said "points" rather than "facts", but that's just me.

It Was about 8000+ people who can vote in the area. They have gone from 3 places to 1 place where they can vote. That alone is nuts if true.
The new law doesn't reduce polling stations. The local election board sets the numbers and locations of polling stations in NC.

Trying to get 8000 people through the voting booths in a normal day is... impossible, unless the voting area has tons of voting booths and is pretty huge. Considering that voting hours have been reduced,
Voting hours have not been reduced by the NC law. They have been made all the same for equal access. And if you're in line, you get to vote. No matter how long it takes.
then getting 8000 people through in lets say 8 hours, would mean you would need about 67 voting booths (provided every voter takes 15 minutes to vote). Yea right... do you expect that to be provided or even anything close?
Refer to what I said above. If your in line, you vote.

That brings us to the place that is shown. If it is the correct place, then one can only say wtf? It looks very small for 8000 people to go through. And the parking? 30 places.. I mean come on.. this is a rural area. People drive to places..
This is NC where polling stations can be in a volunteer fire department where there isn't any parking. I vote at one of those, and we have to park along the side of the road. Been that way for decades. We're not gonna build huge parking lots to be used one day every two years.

Then there is the bus route... smallest buses if true, with no bus stop outside this convention centre.. if true.. wtf?
Last I saw, the Democrats like to bus their folks in on their own anyway. Free soda's and voting guides supplied on the way (although true, that was an attempt at humor). I go back to my precinct which is mostly poor farmers and farm workers. No buses. No bus routes. No public transportation.

No, the real question is, why did they remove the ability to vote at the university.
That one I don't like.
As a rule of thumb, voting places are to be placed in areas where people can go or/and live/work. A university is a perfect place for this. Why move it from there?
Because the kids aren't registered in that precinct and some were voting in local elections that took the power of the vote away from the locals that do live their permanently and pay local taxes. Some out of state students were also voting for state officials which they should not so due to not being a resident of the state. I still don't like that part of the law though.
If they want to consolidate the 3 voting places to 1... fine, but put it in a place where people are and can easily get access too.. like a freaking University!
That I can agree with. That's two we agree on. Three if you count the students voting at their university. Again, it wasn't the state law that changed the number of polling places. That's done by the local election board.

You make good arguments. And I appreciate the way you pose them.

Sorry for any typo's. I've been up all night working and jumping on here every now and then for a distraction.
 
So far we agree.
Like I said, its possible for someone in some precinct somewhere to break the law, even this law.

No one has claimed the law is being broken.... in fact I would claim that this is fully legal and it should not be.

The new law doesn't reduce polling stations. The local election board sets the numbers and locations of polling stations in NC.

Yes but again it has nothing to do with the new law per say. In fact the local election board should not have the power to reduce the number of polling stations.. the law should state clearly that X number of people = y number of polling stations. For every 2000 people or so there should be a local (stress the local) voting station. Having one small one for 8000 people is a disaster in waiting.

Voting hours have not been reduced by the NC law. They have been made all the same for equal access. And if you're in line, you get to vote. No matter how long it takes. Refer to what I said above. If your in line, you vote.

And that line is gonna be massive here.. and that will make some people say.. "**** it, lets go".. that too is voter suppression. It is no different than what the GOP did in Ohio in 2000 and 2004, where Democratic areas got fewer voting machines than rural GOP areas, and that caused massive lines in Democratic areas.

This is NC where polling stations can be in a volunteer fire department where there isn't any parking. I vote at one of those, and we have to park along the side of the road. Been that way for decades. We're not gonna build huge parking lots to be used one day every two years.

I understand, but as you said yourself, you have voted there for decades and most likely because it is in a central location. This is clearly not. This is moving your local voting place, relatively far away, and limiting your access to the site.. how would you feel? How would you feel if you had to travel several miles across town or the country to vote, and at the voting area there was no parking or access for public transport?

Like it or not, voting places have to be in the community, near where people live and work, not down a backroad with no parking.

Last I saw, the Democrats like to bus their folks in on their own anyway. Free soda's and voting guides supplied on the way (although true, that was an attempt at humor). I go back to my precinct which is mostly poor farmers and farm workers. No buses. No bus routes. No public transportation.

Irrelevant. Easy of access to a polling station should be the number one priority for any election board after of course the whole election process. Adding barriers to vote, to slow down voting or to create massive lines.. is against democracy.

That one I don't like. Because the kids aren't registered in that precinct and some were voting in local elections that took the power of the vote away from the locals that do live their permanently and pay local taxes. Some out of state students were also voting for state officials which they should not so due to not being a resident of the state. I still don't like that part of the law though. That I can agree with. That's two we agree on. Three if you count the students voting at their university. Again, it wasn't the state law that changed the number of polling places. That's done by the local election board.

Yes, I know not the law.. which I stated from the start. This is about voter suppression of a local GOP run election board in Democratic areas... voter suppression that the law allows and should not allow.

You make good arguments. And I appreciate the way you pose them.

Likewise... just the mixing up of the law and the actions of a local board .
 
So you like one part, and the bad things do not effect you voting and they hurt people you think are your opponents so you are cool that unfair things are in it.
Firstly, I don't have any opponents. The only reason I even am registered is so I can vote in the primary. I vote a split ticket every time. Why in the world would you think I would want to hurt anyone is beyond me.

The difference between me and you is if they were making it harder for a group of republicans to vote by closing down a geographical voting location to cause them harm I would fight against that too.
No. The difference between me and you is I would not presume who or what you are based on some abstract debate, or if you don't like Fox News. I don't like Fox, so does that make me a Democrat?
I would not just let it pass because I don't like how those people vote.
Please tell me, exactly why would you think I don't like how people vote, and why you would presume it would be "those people" as you put it?
We should make voting easier and more accessible for everyone.
Everyone that is a citizen and has a legal right to vote in the precinct that they are voting in, then yes, I agree. For a MS resident to vote in a NC precinct? Then no. For a Charlotte resident to vote in a Durham precinct? Then no again.
Though I am cool with voter ID, there should not be this sort of BS put in there to make things harder.
I told yo I don't like all of the law.
When you are trying to claim that your voter ID law is being done in the best interest of all people to make things fair this completely undermines that entire argument and shows it is considered to be a way to disenfranchise voters.
What? Maybe you want to rephrase that so that it's clear.

I have attempted to be respectful, and to not demean you or your opinion in any way. I would appreciate the same respect.
 
No one has claimed the law is being broken.... in fact I would claim that this is fully legal and it should not be.



Yes but again it has nothing to do with the new law per say. In fact the local election board should not have the power to reduce the number of polling stations.. the law should state clearly that X number of people = y number of polling stations. For every 2000 people or so there should be a local (stress the local) voting station. Having one small one for 8000 people is a disaster in waiting.



And that line is gonna be massive here.. and that will make some people say.. "**** it, lets go".. that too is voter suppression. It is no different than what the GOP did in Ohio in 2000 and 2004, where Democratic areas got fewer voting machines than rural GOP areas, and that caused massive lines in Democratic areas.



I understand, but as you said yourself, you have voted there for decades and most likely because it is in a central location. This is clearly not. This is moving your local voting place, relatively far away, and limiting your access to the site.. how would you feel? How would you feel if you had to travel several miles across town or the country to vote, and at the voting area there was no parking or access for public transport?

Like it or not, voting places have to be in the community, near where people live and work, not down a backroad with no parking.



Irrelevant. Easy of access to a polling station should be the number one priority for any election board after of course the whole election process. Adding barriers to vote, to slow down voting or to create massive lines.. is against democracy.



Yes, I know not the law.. which I stated from the start. This is about voter suppression of a local GOP run election board in Democratic areas... voter suppression that the law allows and should not allow.



Likewise... just the mixing up of the law and the actions of a local board .

I'm too tired to go on right now. And the other poster here has gotten me to where my responses may not be as civil. Suffice to say, you and I agree on many points, and are pretty close to agreement by my accounting on the ones where we differ.
 
Firstly, I don't have any opponents. The only reason I even am registered is so I can vote in the primary. I vote a split ticket every time. Why in the world would you think I would want to hurt anyone is beyond me.

If you support this rule you are hurting the people who are finding it much harder to vote because of the physical restrictions. They could allow voting on campus.
No. The difference between me and you is I would not presume who or what you are based on some abstract debate, or if you don't like Fox News. I don't like Fox, so does that make me a Democrat?

Your feelings on faux news does not make you anything. I would probably classify by many as a liberal, but I do not like MSNBC. You do share their opinions. The republicans like this because it eliminates college age voters and they know those voters are more likely to come out democrat as they have in the past.
Please tell me, exactly why would you think I don't like how people vote, and why you would presume it would be "those people" as you put it?

So you are cool with making it harder for those people to vote? You are trying to derail here to some other point, and let us bring it back to the reality that they are uneccesarily making it harder for these people to vote. Moving the vote to where they did has nothing to do with confirming the identity of people voting with ID. There is no argument that location somehow would prevent them from seeing a person's identification.
Everyone that is a citizen and has a legal right to vote in the precinct that they are voting in, then yes, I agree. For a MS resident to vote in a NC precinct? Then no. For a Charlotte resident to vote in a Durham precinct? Then no again.

Here is the problem with your reasoning and where your argument fails. They could keep the voting on campus while also requiring a person to travel to their proper district. They did not do that, they just made it way out of the way. They put another obstacle up for no reason. What is worse is that the people who would have to vote in another district actually have an easier time because they can vote absentee. So really they just made it hard for the residents of the town to vote because most of those residents were voting democrat.
I told yo I don't like all of the law.

Am I supposed to be psychic and read your mind? The only thing I have to respond to is your words. Express yourself properly, it is not my deficit.

What? Maybe you want to rephrase that so that it's clear.

I have attempted to be respectful, and to not demean you or your opinion in any way. I would appreciate the same respect.

There is a difference between respectful and agreeing with you. You are confusing the two. Disagreeing with you is not disrespect, and I do not feel any need to respect the wrong idea.
 
If you support this rule you are hurting the people who are finding it much harder to vote because of the physical restrictions. They could allow voting on campus.


Your feelings on faux news does not make you anything. I would probably classify by many as a liberal, but I do not like MSNBC. You do share their opinions. The republicans like this because it eliminates college age voters and they know those voters are more likely to come out democrat as they have in the past.


So you are cool with making it harder for those people to vote? You are trying to derail here to some other point, and let us bring it back to the reality that they are uneccesarily making it harder for these people to vote. Moving the vote to where they did has nothing to do with confirming the identity of people voting with ID. There is no argument that location somehow would prevent them from seeing a person's identification.


Here is the problem with your reasoning and where your argument fails. They could keep the voting on campus while also requiring a person to travel to their proper district. They did not do that, they just made it way out of the way. They put another obstacle up for no reason. What is worse is that the people who would have to vote in another district actually have an easier time because they can vote absentee. So really they just made it hard for the residents of the town to vote because most of those residents were voting democrat.


Am I supposed to be psychic and read your mind? The only thing I have to respond to is your words. Express yourself properly, it is not my deficit.



There is a difference between respectful and agreeing with you. You are confusing the two. Disagreeing with you is not disrespect, and I do not feel any need to respect the wrong idea.

Okay, let's put it this way. You keep accusing me of having opinions and an ideology that I do not have. You refuse to read my entire posts. You continue to speak to me in a disrespectful manner, and even state in your last sentence that you do not have to respect others ideas, which to not is debasing and demeaning and not debate.

So I'll make this easy for you. There are many others on this forum who I do not agree with and they do not agree with me, yet we can have a civil debate, where you and I cannot given your four ton chip on your shoulder. So I'm done trying with you. This is supposed to be entertaining and enlightening, not enraging.

I truly hope that you can find a way to either live with your rage and hatred, or quell it before it rots you from the inside.
 
Okay, let's put it this way. You keep accusing me of having opinions and an ideology that I do not have. You refuse to read my entire posts. You continue to speak to me in a disrespectful manner, and even state in your last sentence that you do not have to respect others ideas, which to not is debasing and demeaning and not debate.

So I'll make this easy for you. There are many others on this forum who I do not agree with and they do not agree with me, yet we can have a civil debate, where you and I cannot given your four ton chip on your shoulder. So I'm done trying with you. This is supposed to be entertaining and enlightening, not enraging.

I truly hope that you can find a way to either live with your rage and hatred, or quell it before it rots you from the inside.

look, I watched the footage and felt like here comes a stupid point by the administration's puppet princess madcow. If this is happening then it clearly is a problem with making it difficult for certain voters in certain areas to vote, and those areas happen to be democratic. The other purposes of the law may be right for the wrong reason, but including this into the law not only makes it obvious the intention of it was to make it harder for dems to vote, but it also makes the law wrong since it could continue to require ID and do all the other things it does while keeping voting on campus for those who are able to. I understand you want me to pat you on the back and say it is ok to be wrong, but I am not the type to do that. frankly, if you put a lot of effort into being wrong you really wasted a lot of your time, and you may have made things worse. So I do not know what you want me to do. If you want me to tell you it is all great you were wrong I am pretty much not going to do that, and you probably should go on with your life. I did not call you any names, nor did i mock you. I am not here to be your friend, so if that was what you were looking for you might want to bark up another tree because this one is empty.
 
If this doesn't count as voters suppression:

billy-cub-wielding-black-panthers-philadelphia-polling-station-2008.jpg



Then this sure as hell doesn't count as voters suppression:

Florida-voters-brave-long-lines-via-AFP-615x345.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom