What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Voter Suppression (1 Viewer)

jon_mx said:
I see you are grossly partisan and instead of understanding opposing opinions and using logic, you instead fall back to mocking because you have nothing.  
Click to expand...
I'm mocking you because I gave you a link to the findings themselves. watching my prediction come to fruition.  Clearly you didn't read it and you have sense spent your time posting about the people writing the articles about it and the other people here discussing it.  If that makes me "grossly partisan" then sobeit.  Which side am I on again?  Do I get cake?

On a side note, I appreciate you have grown in your self awareness that you knew I was referring to you...that's a positive :thumbup:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the situation was reversed and white districts had Sunday voting and black districts did not, you would be screaming bloody murder at how discriminatory it was. Not an honest person in the bunch. 

 
jon_mx said:
If the situation was reversed and white districts had Sunday voting and black districts did not, you would be screaming bloody murder at how discriminatory it was. Not an honest person in the bunch. 
Click to expand...
If the situation was reversed then black districts would have more voting time than whites.  Did you even read this thing?  Your body of work in your last few posts suggests that you did not.  And if blacks had more voting time than whites, I don't see how that wouldn't be discriminatory.  What am I missing?

 
jon_mx said:
The more logical reason is that one group is being given more opportunity to vote than another group which is unfair.   Taken to extreme, if group A is given 365 days to vote and group B is given a one-hour period to vote would that not be discriminatory?  That is black and white. 
Click to expand...
The idea that the State of North Carolina was simply trying to promote general fairness, and not trying to suppress the black vote, is impossible to maintain with a straight face in light of the facts. Here's a brief summary.

North Carolina has a long history of suppressing the black vote. (Undisputed at trial.) The 1965 Voting Rights Act constrained the state's ability to suppress the black vote. The very day after The Voting Rights Act's preclearance obligations were eliminated, the NC legislators announced that they'd have some new legislation about voting on the way.

But first, the legislature requested and received data regarding various voting patterns separated out by race.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked driver's licenses and used other forms of government ID instead. The new legislation excluded many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans (while retaining the kinds of ID that white people are more likely to have).

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting, especially in the first week. The new legislation eliminated the first week of early voting.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used same-day registration when it was available. The new legislation eliminated same-day registration.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used provisional ballots outside their resident precincts. The new legislation eliminated out-of-precinct voting.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used preregistration. The new legislation eliminated preregistration.

Maybe this was all just a big coincidence, and the legislature really had no intention of targeting black voters in particular? That's where the evidence about eliminating Sunday voting comes in. The state acknowledged that it was eliminating Sunday voting specifically because African Americans made disproportionate use of it.

That renders the innocent explanation for all the other stuff untenable, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
If the situation was reversed and white districts had Sunday voting and black districts did not, you would be screaming bloody murder at how discriminatory it was. Not an honest person in the bunch. 
Click to expand...
Wow.  This (the NC stuff at least) is so in your face voter suppression, I dont get this reaction from someone who doesnt appear to be racist or a huge Trump supporter.

But alas , I've seen enough of your work to know what you're up to.

 
JIslander said:
Wow.  This (the NC stuff at least) is so in your face voter suppression, I dont get this reaction from someone who doesnt appear to be racist or a huge Trump supporter.

But alas , I've seen enough of your work to know what you're up to.
Click to expand...
You guys assume you knoe a lot of stuff which isn't true.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The idea that the State of North Carolina was simply trying to promote general fairness, and not trying to suppress the black vote, is impossible to maintain with a straight face in light of the facts. Here's a brief summary.

North Carolina has a long history of suppressing the black vote. (Undisputed at trial.) The 1965 Voting Rights Act constrained the state's ability to suppress the black vote. The very day after The Voting Rights Act's preclearance obligations were eliminated, the NC legislators announced that they'd have some new legislation about voting on the way.

But first, the legislature requested and received data regarding various voting patterns separated out by race.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked driver's licenses and used other forms of government ID instead. The new legislation excluded many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans (while retaining the kinds of ID that white people are more likely to have).

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting, especially in the first week. The new legislation eliminated the first week of early voting.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used same-day registration when it was available. The new legislation eliminated same-day registration.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used provisional ballots outside their resident precincts. The new legislation eliminated out-of-precinct voting.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used preregistration. The new legislation eliminated preregistration.

Maybe this was all just a big coincidence, and the legislature really had no intention of targeting black voters in particular? That's where the evidence about eliminating Sunday voting comes in. The state acknowledged that it was eliminating Sunday voting specifically because African Americans made disproportionate use of it.

That renders the innocent explanation for all the other stuff untenable, right?
Click to expand...
Thanks for expanding the examples of what the state has done, which makes it harder to defend.  I don't see the Sunday voting as the smoking gun though, either everyone in the state should have Sunday voting or no one should.  I also think it is more of a Republican vs. Democrat thing than a racial issue.  For instance, when Democrats we're challenging every absentee ballot in Florida 2000 which lacked a proper postage mark, which inevitably was because it was processed by a military base, it was not because Democrats hate people serving in the military.  It was because the Democrats know those votes are more likely for Republicans.  Wrapping it up as they hate the military or they are racist, is political rhetoric.  

 
jon_mx said:
So whoever wrote the headline literally does not know what literally means.  
Click to expand...
I don't see the word "literally" in the headline or anywhere else in the article.  But sure, focus on that instead of the confirmed fact that Republicans are trying to stop black people from voting.  Priorities!

 
Going to save you some time jon_mx...the NC GOP has already been down the "It isn't racist, those Democrats just happen to all be black" road and neither the court or the appellate court bought it.  Even the GOP has dropped that approach at this point.  And even if they did buy it, it wouldn't make their actions any more correct.  They'd still be 100% in the wrong for making it harder for one group of the electorate to vote than another which is the issue here.  The "why" of that action really doesn't matter all that much from a morality perspective.

 
Not sure what the current argument is in the thread but it all boils down to one simple question, “why is voting getting more difficult to do?”

If taking away Sunday voting is the argument to add equality to voting... why not offer voting on Sunday for those places that don’t currently have voting on Sunday? Seems like that would offer equality by making it easier for everyone. 

So, why is voting getting more and more roadblocks?

 
Mario Kart said:
So, why is voting getting more and more roadblocks?
Click to expand...
Because Republicans are scared crapless. They know they're the minority party when everyone has an equal say so they're always looking for ways to minimize the voices of those that don't support them.

Which is really stupid and lazy. How about listening to the majority of American people and adjusting your party's platform to conform to their real-time views and values instead of stubbornly clinging to the antiquated values of your ancestors? If that were to occur, I believe things would be very different.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
Because Republicans are scared crapless. They know they're the minority party when everyone has an equal say so they're always looking for ways to minimize the voices of those that don't support them.

Which is really stupid and lazy. How about listening to the majority of American people and adjusting your party's platform to conform to their real-time views and values instead of stubbornly clinging to the antiquated values of your ancestors? If that were to occur, I believe things would be very different.
Click to expand...
This is one interpretation. However, no matter what spin anyone can put on this unfortunate stance, “make voting more difficult (MVMD),” the question I posed earlier should be able to be answered by proponents of this stance. So, your interpretation, while it may be correct, I’d love to hear from people that are okay with this. 

Republicans on this board, please answer, “why is voting getting more and more roadblocks?”

 
Why isn't it a part of the GOP platform to support the expansion of voting rights? It's the right thing to do, why won't they do it?

 
roadkill1292 said:
Why isn't it a part of the GOP platform to support the expansion of voting rights? It's the right thing to do, why won't they do it?
Click to expand...
Expanding voting rights would doom their party. They know this. They obviously feel that disenfranchising specific categories of potential voters is the only way to maintain their status quo. Also, it's a helluva lot easier than introspective evaluation of their core values and tenets.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
Expanding voting rights would doom their party. They know this. They obviously feel that disenfranchising specific categories of potential voters is the only way to maintain their status quo. Also, it's a helluva lot easier than introspective evaluation of their core values and tenets.
Click to expand...
I would like a Republican here to explain if they think their party is on the right side of this issue. Or if it's just a question of politics.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The idea that the State of North Carolina was simply trying to promote general fairness, and not trying to suppress the black vote, is impossible to maintain with a straight face in light of the facts. Here's a brief summary.

North Carolina has a long history of suppressing the black vote. (Undisputed at trial.) The 1965 Voting Rights Act constrained the state's ability to suppress the black vote. The very day after The Voting Rights Act's preclearance obligations were eliminated, the NC legislators announced that they'd have some new legislation about voting on the way.

 But first, the legislature requested and received data regarding various voting patterns separated out by race.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked driver's licenses and used other forms of government ID instead. The new legislation excluded many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans (while retaining the kinds of ID that white people are more likely to have).

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting, especially in the first week. The new legislation eliminated the first week of early voting.

 The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used same-day registration when it was available. The new legislation eliminated same-day registration.

 The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used provisional ballots outside their resident precincts. The new legislation eliminated out-of-precinct voting.

The data showed that African Americans disproportionately used preregistration. The new legislation eliminated preregistration.

Maybe this was all just a big coincidence, and the legislature really had no intention of targeting black voters in particular? That's where the evidence about eliminating Sunday voting comes in. The state acknowledged that it was eliminating Sunday voting specifically because African Americans made disproportionate use of it.

 That renders the innocent explanation for all the other stuff untenable, right?
Click to expand...
:goodposting: :goodposting: :goodposting: :goodposting: :goodposting:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

????? (not sure what those are but they came up when I started typing :clap:)

 
@krassenstein
BREAKING:  Democratic officials in DeKalb County, Georgia say that there are now 4,700 vote-by-mail applications missing.

 
Kansas voters receive strange texts, purportedly from Trump
Democrats worried the messages were part of efforts to "steal" a close governor's race featuring Republican Kris Kobach, who the president has endorsed.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas election officials are reviewing text messages claiming to be from President Donald Trump and telling residents that their early votes hadn't been recorded, as Democratic leaders worried Thursday that they were part of efforts to "steal" a close governor's race.

State Elections Director Bryan Caskey said the Kansas secretary of state's office received 50 or 60 calls about the texts Wednesday, mostly from the northeastern part of the state. Caskey said the office is trying to determine whether the texts broke a law before determining what to do next.

One text says "Your absentee ballot is ready. Remember to vote for Pres. Trump's allies." A follow-up text says, "This is President Trump. Your early vote has NOT been RECORDED on Kansas's roster." It urges the voter to confirm his or her polling place.

Democrats are on edge because Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the state's top elections official, is a Trump ally and the Republican nominee for governor. He's in a dead heat with Democratic state Sen. Laura Kelly after defeating GOP Gov. Jeff Colyer in the August primary by only 343 votes out of more than 317,000 cast.

Kansas Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat, and Kansas House Minority Leader Jim Ward, a Wichita Democrat, said during a Statehouse news conference that they worry the texts are confusing voters because at least a few Democrats received them. Ward said some new voters may conclude that the voting process is too complicated and give up.

"The whole purpose of sending it out is to sow confusion," Ward said. "Remember, we're talking about an election that can be determined by 300 or 400 votes. So, 50 here, 50 there, 50 there, pretty soon, you've stolen an election."

They called on Kobach and his chief deputy, Eric Rucker, to step aside from administering elections so that final decisions in the secretary of state's office are left to Caskey.

Kobach spokeswoman Danedri Herbert said he does not plan to step aside because he has a responsibility under the state constitution to oversee elections. She noted that most states, including Kansas, give the job to an elected official.

As for the top Democrats, she said, "Their claims are ridiculous."

County election officials handle the actual counting of votes. The job is overseen by an elected clerk in 101 of 105 counties. Election commissioners appointed by Kobach are in charge in the state's four most populous counties, which are home to almost half of the state's more than 1.8 million registered voters.

Ward and Hensley sent an open records request Thursday to Kobach demanding copies of all written and electronic communications between him, his employees and his county election officials since the Aug. 7 primary.

Recommended

Kindergarten class learns to sign ‘Happy Birthday’ in heartfelt surprise

Colleges report unusual outbreak of hand, foot, and mouth disease

"We're not trying to cause chaos. We're trying to make sure they know we're watching and we're not going to let them steal an election, OK?" Ward said. "This is an incredibly close election and any mistake or any action that diminishes or suppresses the vote could swing an election."

The texts to voters link to a website for the Republican National Committee, and Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kelly Arnold said he suspects that's who sent the messages. He said the texts didn't come from state party officials.

The RNC didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

But Arnold said the texts appeared to be part of a get-out-the-vote effort. He said party officials pay for regular updates on who has requested and returned advance ballots or voted early in person, though that information can sometimes be slightly outdated.

"We are trying to get out as much information to our voters as possible," Arnold said.

Caskey said voters should only trust voting information that comes from state or local election officials. He added that this is the first time the state has received a complaint about the content of a text, which campaigns have increasingly used this election cycle.

Lyon County Clerk Tammy Vopat, a Republican, said she spoke to one man who received one of the texts after voting early and assured him that his vote would be tabulated on election night. She said the texts, which she described as "bogus" were discussed Wednesday during a routine weekly phone call with state and county election officials.

"It worries me that information like this is being sent out that puts doubt in our voters' minds," Vopat said.

Associated Press

 
urbanhack said:
https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/1055597797947424768?s=21
Click to expand...
Gee, just another unfortunate accident. But I loved reading this part.

Nearly 600 people have volunteered to come to Dodge City to give people rides to their polling place on election day, Dunlap said. The advocacy group Voto Latino is trying to provide Lyft rides to voters who need transportation. The party is also leasing vans for election day voting, canvassing in neighborhoods and advertising to inform voters of available rides.

“We are doing everything we can think of and putting as many hours as we can with as many volunteers as we can just to try to mitigate this thing as much as possible,” Dunlap said.

And after city offices were flooded with angry phone calls from citizens, officials announced this week that they were expanding regular city bus routes to the polling site on election day.
Click to expand...
 
Ilov80s said:
I am not saying the GOP is a racist party, just that it's the party most racists support. 
Click to expand...
Since I never get an answer to this question (this isn't the first time I've posed it) I will therefore imagine the response to be something along the lines of "we're more concerned with ineligible people voting." I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Since I never get an answer to this question (this isn't the first time I've posed it) I will therefore imagine the response to be something along the lines of "we're more concerned with ineligible people voting." I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Of course, it is all under the guise of there being lots of voter fraud. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
This has long been an issue discussed in other threads but I think it deserves its own thread.  Two big stories today highlighting what I consider voter suppression tactics that may influence close elections.

A North Dakota law requiring registrants to have street addresses was allowed to stand by Supreme Court (link). The law disproportionately affects Native American voters in the state, who often use PO Boxes as their mailing address and who carried Democratic senator Heidi Heitkamp to a narrow win in 2012.

The Georgia Secretar y of State, who is also the GOP candidate for Governor in a very close race, conducted a massive purge of the voter rolls based on an "exact match" process where the name must be a perfect match to a name on file with the SSA or the DMV (link). The move disproportionately affected African American- the list of voter registrations "on hold" are nearly 70% black according to reports. The Democratic candidate for governor is an African-American woman.

Not long ago, increasing voter participation was considered a noble non-partisan goal.  Everyone across the country was pleased when turnout was up, and when it went down it was a national issue that we all wanted to fix.  What has happened? I have my own ideas but I want to see what others think. Does anyone want to defend either of these state policies?
Click to expand...
I think it is a noble goal, but physical address influences which district you can vote in. I know in Idaho the Reservation south of Couer d'Alene contains a number of precincts (3, I think it was). While we tried to keep the Reservation all in one district, there is no law to say that we had to. The Reservation also laps over two counties. You can't tell where people on the reservation live based on a POB.  

 
bueno said:
I think it is a noble goal, but physical address influences which district you can vote in. I know in Idaho the Reservation south of Couer d'Alene contains a number of precincts (3, I think it was). While we tried to keep the Reservation all in one district, there is no law to say that we had to. The Reservation also laps over two counties. You can't tell where people on the reservation live based on a POB.  
Click to expand...
So they shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

 
squistion said:
Native Americans in North Dakota if you have been following the news, although it probably hasn't been mentioned on Fox, Breitbart or Daily Caller.
Click to expand...
No, they can vote if they produce an address on their ID, like everyone else.. No one is denying them the right to vote under any circumstance. 

 
Leroy Green said:
No, they can vote if they produce an address on their ID, like everyone else.. No one is denying them the right to vote under any circumstance. 
Click to expand...
Don't be disingenuous. Please. Mr. Leroy Green.

North Dakota changed the laws to require a street address for voter ID, knowing that most Native Americans on reservations don't have that  (they don't live on traditionally named streets) and use PO Boxes instead, thus preventing Native Americans on reservations from voting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
780
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
A
Republican Officials In New Mexico County Refuse To Certify Election Results
2
Replies
61
Views
2K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292
GordonGekko
Oregon’s Gubernatorial Battleground: Phil Knight's Big Nike Money Vs Extremist Identity Politics (10/23/22 12:29 PST)
Replies
4
Views
404
quick-hands
quick-hands

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top