all 10 comments

[–]rdh2121 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Regulation at the state level is always preferable to federal mandate, but it's clear that the nationwide violations of voters' rights have gone too far at this point, and I'm looking forward to the impending federal regulations making this sort of blatant voter suppression illegal once and for all.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I look at it as more a voter fraud suppression, than actual voter suppression.

[–]rdh2121 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Since actual cases of voter fraud are practically nonexistent, there's really no other conclusion than voter suppression.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I have to call you out on that. Someone used signature verification to fraudulent vote as me, therefore suppressing MY vote. Super easy to do and ANY time it happens is too many. Besides, why would you want to remove safeguards for proper voting? None of what is in this law keeps anyone from voting that is a legal U.S. citizen legally living in the State of Georgia.

[–]rdh2121 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Anecdotes aren't data. If you have a reputable scholarly source that shows that voter fraud is a significant enough problem to be worth denying water to people waiting in line to vote (not to mention the whole "disenfranchising millions of voters" thing), I'd like to see it.

Everything in this law is designed to make voting orders of magnitude harder for minorities that overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and to act otherwise is transparently disingenuous, especially when all available evidence unanimously points towards the fact that US elections are already among the most secure in the world.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Anecdotes aren't data.

or: "fuck your truth".

arrogant cunt

[–]Nemacolin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Harvard Law school?

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's ok. I don't take it personally being called a liar or insignificant by a stranger on the internet. You shouldn't either.

Giving out water at polling lines can be a form of campaigning (or vote buying). There are laws that prevent campaign workers near the polling station, including the waiting lines. You want to talk about the good old days of voter intimidation?

I strongly disagree that being a minority makes a person any less physically or mentally capable. How do any of these laws make it harder for minorities to vote?

[–]rdh2121 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not calling you a liar; I'm saying that even if you're telling the truth, in absence of evidence of significant voter fraud, what happened to you in no way justifies this legislation. Also, I'm still waiting on that scholarly source.

Campaigning at the polls and vote buying are already illegal - the only reason to prevent handing out water is to further disincentivize people from standing in line for hours after you've already ensured that a) there's only one place to vote in huge urban Atlanta districts with hundreds of thousands of people b) there are no ballot drop-off boxes to alleviate the ridiculous volume, c) there are no absentee ballots to alleviate the volume, and d) there's no Sunday voting to alleviate the volume.

None of these are warranted, of course, and in comparison, giving out water hardly warrants fearmongering about voter intimidation, unless, y'know, that's not really why you're fearmongering about "voter intimidation". I've never found water to be that scary, myself.

It has nothing to do with being physically or mentally fit, and everything to do with systematically reducing access to voting in the most populous Georgia districts, which are all overwhelmingly black.

And, this is all beside the point anyway, since, once again, all available evidence unanimously points towards the fact that US elections are already among the most secure in the world. These measures will have zero effect on voter fraud (since, again, it's already effectively nonexistent), which makes me wonder why all of the Republican states would suddenly be so intent on forcing these bills through their legislatures after enormous losses in the presidency and Congress.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know you have your opinions based on helping others, as do most people. I shouldn't have gotten snippy. I guess I did feel personally attacked since voter fraud is a very personal attack and it seems that you are taking it lightly. It's like if your neighbors watched your house get robbed and told you that it's ok because the rest of them didn't get robbed.

Who gives the water out? Are they party line motivated? What voter demographic areas do they target? Republican groups are barred from doing this just like Democrat groups just like any other group. Where does it stop? Do we allow "advisors" to accompany voters into the booth? How can you say it's not voter influence within the restricted zone? Why can't they have a water station on the way to the polls outside this buffer zone if it's so innocent? There is no law prohibiting water to be handed out outside of the buffer zone. Inside the buffer zone, it is considered a "gift" and a felony to both the receiver and giver, just like anything else handed out. Election workers are allowed to set up self-serve water stations and the ones I've met are very civic minded and would do this if they felt the need. Do you see why I'm skeptical of the Democrat response? It's like my state: the Democrats gerrymandered to gain seats years ago. When the state flipped giving Republicans the advantage, they used their power to gerrymander in their favor. Then, the Democrats sued and made the Republican legislature redraw the districts. "Do as I say, not as I do". They're doing the same with voting laws in that it benefits their party by allowing easier access for invalid voters; either illegal voters or straight up fraud.

This article says that polling locations are based on population. Maybe you can educate me on how this is not fair. https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/politics/how-voting-precincts-are-decided-and-how-to-find-your-polling-place/ I don't feel like I have to even talk about the weeks of early voting before Election Day and absentee ballots for those with circumstances that keep them from in-person voting. This new law actually expands early voting except for run-off elections and retains the no-excuse absentee voting. There are drop boxes at each early voting place in this law. At least two Sunday voting days including the regular M-F and Sunday voting is left to the discretion of the local precinct for early voting.

We seem to agree that there is undeniable voter fraud and illegal voting. What is your level of significant voter fraud? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Why would you not want to make it more secure, even if it's "less than significant"? I can cite plenty of lists of vote "irregularities" in this last election, but we both know that these were not followed up past basic recounts. No recounts that happened allowed for verifying voter validity, only the vote. If no fraud happened, then why not show the believers and rub in their face, if not for public confidence? Also, the voting laws in more than the 4 key states were changed by other than the state legislatures as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme court refused to hear the case, not because it didn't happen, but because Texas has no legal standing on what happens in other states.

Article. 1. Section. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The voter fraud numbers are not accurate. I know because mine wasn't reported as fraud. The Board of Elections wrote it off as a mistake even thought the house the fraudster listed that I had moved to had been abandoned for decades. I checked. What do you think would happen if voter fraud turned out to be real and affected a major election? What do you think would happen if voter suppression turned out to be real and affected a major election? Would the Board of Elections speak up and admit to the mistake? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Republicans up to something since they are rushing through voting laws you say? What do you think about the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress and White House rushing this through? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-democrats-push-pass-election-reforms-gop-moves/story?id=76182685

I'm sure we want the same thing: every purposeful, legal vote counted. We have different ideas on how to accomplish that. I see voter fraud as active and you don't. You see voter suppression as active and I don't. Show me where polling places in Democrat areas are being squeezed and I'll back you up on that.