• 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 that wasn't

No, it isn't.

Just because it arguably didn't work, doesn't mean it wasn't tried.

If an eligible person under one law is made unable to vote under the new one, that's the effort.
But that wasn't the case. More people voted this time around.
 
They were not proven incorrect. They are proved liars. Incorrect implies it was an unintentional mistake. This was a political calculation intending to misslead

Maybe-- but as a rule of thumb I generally don't like calling people liars.
 
If an eligible person under one law is made unable to vote under the new one, that's the effort.
But that wasn't the case. More people voted this time around.

Just because more voters turned out than last primary, does not mean that attempts to suppress the vote were not and are not being attempted.

There are plenty of other factors involved.

And even if I except your premise that higher turnout means suppression didn't work, that still does not mean it wasn't tried.
 
Well those who cast absentee ballots had to write an ID number on the ballot as opposed to a signature.
Not quite clear why the former is more of a difficult task than the latter.
There were more days available to vote-- not sure how that made things more difficult.
Good. It's good if it wasn't more difficult, but the things that were proposed, such as I said about Texas, and threats of closing polling places in certain areas is what caused the outcry. Glad to hear it wasn't an issue if that is indeed the case for everyone. Was it all just a baseless threat? If so, why?
 
Just because more voters turned out than last primary, does not mean that attempts to suppress the vote were not and are not being attempted.

There are plenty of other factors involved.

And even if I except your premise that higher turnout means suppression didn't work, that still does not mean it wasn't tried.

When the Georgia law was propsed, critics said it would suppress the vote and that was the objectives.
The defenders of the proposed law said 'no' to both.

When the law was passed, critics said this would result in voters being suppressed.
Defenders of the law said 'no' it would not.

We now evidence that:
1. The Georgia law did not suppress votes.

2. That the defenders of the law were correct in what they said.

3. And that the critics of the law were wrong:
A. About the impact actual law.
B. About the objectives and motives of those who supported the law.
 
Record breaking early voting in Georgia.

This cowardly piece of shit president won't walk back his own Jim Crow on steroids rant, and neither will his (D) cultists here on DP.
Well, I can't remember off hand any president ever walking back any dire statements they made that proved to not come to fruition or just fell into the flat out incorrect category.

I am very happy all the nay sayers appear to have been proven substantially wrong about the Georgia Election Law Changes.

I truly hope that it has to do with folks promoting education of the electorate in how to easily comply with the changes and with members of the electorate just simply PAYING FREAKING ATTENTION.

There are still aspects of the law change to play out but of that it is with the change that took the oversight away from the Secretary of State and created a new administrative position chosen by the legislature. I am apprehensive as to how well this major change is going to play out. We will not really know until at least a midterm and a presidential election have come and gone.

But the other changes, I see them as positives.

Moving Ballot Drop Boxes indoors, I can live with that, especially in that it eliminates (or should) the whining from folks like those falsely claiming illegal ballot stuffing in the 2020 and special Senate runoff elections in Georgia.

The update to better identifying how a person qualifies for and qualifies their Absentee Ballots upon return by USPS and or Ballot Drop Boxes via proactive identification requirements is a plus in my opinion.

I understand the reasoning behind the outlawing of folks distributing free snacks or water to electors standing in line to vote. But I have an issue with the Georgia legislature's seeming belief it was all illegal electioneering. I think the Georgia Legislature needs to redouble efforts to eliminate Election Day lines where folks are queued up for hours on end. If that is happening then perhaps the Election Authorities themselves need to distribute snacks and drinks if they are fearful of undue influence when others do that?

I was happy to see that then early in person voting option was not eliminated and supposedly was increased.

OK, the change to the law regarding outlawing outside financial aid to county election authorities via such sourcing as 501c3 grants, I know, was a response to the OMG OMG OMG "Zuck Bucks" from CEIR and CTCL that many Republicans are certain was criminal and intended to sway the election for Joe Biden. But the thing is, if you are going to eliminate that needed and useful option to better the election process then you better be prepared to legislate more funding from the State to ensure no election agency across the state is falling short in the cash it needs to safely and securely conduct elections.

Just some of my thoughts on all of this.
 
https://images2.americanprogress.org › web › AL...
VOTER ID ACT. SUMMARY. This legislation requires any United States citizen desiring to vote in a state to provide proof of identity at the polls, ...

Voter ID Act Exposed

https://www.alecexposed.org › wiki › Voter_ID_Act_E...
ALEC has attempted to distance itself from this piece of legislation after the launch of ALECexposed.org in 2011, but it has done nothing to get it repealed ...



Flurry of photo ID laws tied to conservative ALEC group

https://www.minnpost.com › politics-policy › 2012/08
Aug 20, 2012 — A News21 analysis finds that more than half of state photo ID bills had a “connection” to the American Legislative Exchange Council.



ALEC Lied About Its Work on Election Suppression Bills - The ...

https://prospect.org › civil-rights › alec-lied-about-its-w...
Sep 3, 2021 — New insights into its model bills on voting restrictions. ... the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in June because of its voter ...


ALEC Members Lead Voter Suppression Efforts in 2020 ...

https://www.exposedbycmd.org › 2021/04/13 › alec-m...
Apr 13, 2021 — Nearly a decade after losing scores of major corporate sponsors due to its support for controversial voter ID and "stand your ground" laws, ...


The League condemns the American Legislative Exchange ...

https://www.lwv.org › expanding-voter-access › league...
Jun 14, 2021 — In 2019, ALEC created a secret working group on redistricting, ballot measures, and election law, known as the “ALEC Political Process Working ...
Missing: id ‎| Must include: id


New Evidence of ALEC Connections in All Successful Voter ID ...

https://genprogress.org › new-evidence-of-alec-connect...
Sep 8, 2011 — Caption : Key ALEC leaders were among the co-sponsors of successful ALEC Voter ID legislation. Research conducted by Campus Progress reveals ...

and this:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...candidate-training-recruiting-aegis-strategic
 
I've been using Voter ID for decades aka drivers license = I am still who I am.

The concept behind more BIG GOVERNMENT VOTER ID is the time it would take for a voter to obtain another NOT necessary document thus voter misses a voting opportunity. Or perhaps some voters would not be aware that a NOT NECESSARY document is required thus showing up without the NOT NECESSARY
document ....... could never acquire one in time to vote.

I know a bit about how much time is required. When putting my VOTER PROTECTION PACKET together
some items took some time and money.

Who is going to pay for this NOT NECESSARY VOTER ID? Would this not be the same as a tax increase no matter who pays?

Thus far those committing voter fraud are GOP conservative voters and in some cases GOP conservative elected officials.
 
Why did I put a VOTER PROTECTION PACKET together?

1. I wanted to know what could be involved considering I am suggesting such.

2. I am convinced that voter suppression is alive and well. Any voter that is one of them of course will not experience voter suppression.

3. Me on the other hand should expect to be a target.
 
Who is going to pay for this NOT NECESSARY VOTER ID? Would this not be the same as a tax increase no matter who pays?

I will donate to any group or charity that assists in getting a government-issued ID to those who:
1 - Don’t have one, and
2 - Want to get one specifically so they are able to vote

No, it’s not a tax. There are always going to be tasks a citizen has to undertake to vote. The question is how reasonable those steps are and are they worth it in the name of election security.
 
“Retarded”
ahhh gotcha, thank you!
sorry but i wont be stopping the usage of that word as an adj of posts, lies, conspiracy theories etc as I do in this part of the forum
I can only make you a promise to never use it in conversation with you as long as your posts/reputation stay respectable
 
ahhh gotcha, thank you!
sorry but i wont be stopping the usage of that word as an adj of posts, lies, conspiracy theories etc as I do in this part of the forum
I can only make you a promise to never use it in conversation with you as long as your posts/reputation stay respectable
It’s kind of offensive to some people but thanks for responding.
 
Georgia, ground zero for claims of 'voter suppression' 'Jim Crow 2.0' and other assorted villainies had their primary elections.
And more people voted in both the Democratic and Republican primaries than had voted in the last statewide primary.

Our Progressive have been proven incorrect in their claims that the voting law changes in Georgia would lead to voter suppression.
Is it is also fair to say they are incorrect in general about changes in voting laws that have occurred nationwide over the past few years?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Turnout does not equal no suppression. Suppression becomes clear when you look back at actual voting data. There is nothing that drives people to take extra steps that they shouldn't have to as saying 'We are going to try to stop you from voting.
 
When the Georgia law was propsed, critics said it would suppress the vote and that was the objectives.
The defenders of the proposed law said 'no' to both.

When the law was passed, critics said this would result in voters being suppressed.
Defenders of the law said 'no' it would not.

We now evidence that:
1. The Georgia law did not suppress votes.

2. That the defenders of the law were correct in what they said.

3. And that the critics of the law were wrong:
A. About the impact actual law.
B. About the objectives and motives of those who supported the law.
The recent voter turnout =/= evidence that the vote was not suppressed.
 
The recent voter turnout =/= evidence that the vote was not suppressed.
how dare you post, facts and common sense like that sir!!!!!!!

you should be ashamed!!!
 
You have no idea what you are talking about. Turnout does not equal no suppression. Suppression becomes clear when you look back at actual voting data. There is nothing that drives people to take extra steps that they shouldn't have to as saying 'We are going to try to stop you from voting.

Nobody ever said "We are going to try to stop you from voting" except Progressives in what they conjured up in their fervid imaginations.

But even if those who believed that the new Georgia law would suppress their vote and thus were motivated to vote, they voted under the new law.
In other words, they were wrong about what they thought the Georgia election law would do.
Nobody was 'suppressed."
 
Ah I see. Cheat how?

Shit...look at the new GA voter law. Perhaps the worst in the history of this country.

If Republicans don't like the election result in Nov, Nazi Repug legislators in the state can try to change the result.
 
The recent voter turnout =/= evidence that the vote was not suppressed.
To the contrary, it is excellent evidence. Results were exactly the opposite as predicted, indicating the hypothesis is false.
 
Overcoming an obstacle and the obstacle doesn’t exist are two entirely different things.
Besides these were primaries. With only one major party (the Democrat) that believe in this Republic any longer, it would make sense to wait for the two major parties have to face each other again to determine what is and is not working in Georgia.

Georgia still has to face the hurdle of putting elections in the hands of its state legislature, decidedly Republican at the moment.
 
Shit...look at the new GA voter law. Perhaps the worst in the history of this country.

If Republicans don't like the election result in Nov, Nazi Repug legislators in the state can try to change the result.
Aren’t those laws already a thing?
 
Back
Top Bottom