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.
MLB moves All-Star game in response to GA voter laws (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter The General
- Start date
AAABatteries
Footballguy
TBH, if you’ve read this thread and still don’t think it makes it harder then nothing I’m going to say would change your mind.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Why do you consider this racist? Why would you consider race at all in reference to voter id
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Scratches head. Colorado requires ID to register to vote, in-person voters need ID to vote, first time mail-in voters need ID to vote. What stand did MLB really take? And why again is it racist to require an ID to vote? Is it racist to require an ID to drive, fly, be gainfully employed, buy a house, take out a loan, purchase alcohol and cigarettes, apply for food stamps, welfare, medicaid, social security, unemployment, get married, purchase a gun, buy a cell phone, go to a casino, give blood. C'mon tim, Georgia doesn't even require an ID. If you don't have one, they'll provide you with an identifier so you can vote. All you have to do is check a box. My 8 year old can do that. The racism argument really isn't a good one when it comes to voter ID. What percentage of adult age voters haven't done at least one of the activities I listed above that require identification. It's a lazy argument that hold very little water.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
If you read what I wrote, I said I didn't see any good arguments, not that people aren't trying.
timschochet
Footballguy
You know I’m one of those who is really not big on comparisons of this type. I attacked AOC for using the term “concentration camp” to describe the refugee areas, and I detest it when people glibly use the word “lynching” to describe when they receive unfair treatment.
And yet, in this case I’ve been willing to accept the phrase “Jim Crow” being used, because I honestly think It’s a decent comparison. You and others dismiss it out of hand, but I believe this law was deliberately designed to repress black voting in a southern state with a long history of voting repression against blacks. It’s impossible to separate what’s happening here from that history.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Werent the crazy long lines in georgia just for early voting where they saw a massive influx of people compared to normal?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Why did they even pass the law? Honest question, just trying to figure out the problem they were solving for.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I believe that you believe that, because you tend to pick up narratives from talk radio and cable news and buy into them fervently, right up until somebody on talk radio changes that narrative, at which point you triumphantly announce that you've changed your mind. That's going to happen here too. After a week-long freak-out, most people seem to be willing to acknowledge that the Georgia law ended up as much ado about nothing. That narrative just hasn't made it to cable yet.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
Would the D’s care if the people waiting in lines for hours were voting R? How about in the rural areas?
timschochet
Footballguy
Demanding Voter ID is unnecessary because there’s no problem to solve. It’s racist ONLY when it’s promulgated in battleground states with large minority urban populations. Unfortunately that’s where Republican legislators have tended to push it the most in recent years.
Look, we can argue all day about the specifics regarding this in each state but instead I prefer to cut to the chase: all of these proposed restrictions are about one thing: a growing fear among a certain percentage of white people that, within a short period of time, whites will be the minority in this country. It was this same fear that led to the election of Donald Trump, the same fear that has turned the GOP into a nativist party, amd the same fear that is the cause of the new round of Jim Crow type voter suppression laws. I want to defeat these fears whenever they emerge.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I’m not a D but I would care. We should make it easier for everyone to vote and let the results be whatever they will be.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
So Colorado requiring an ID is okay because it's primarily white but Georgia is racist because they aren't? Stop mashing the keyboard and listen to yourself.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Anyone consider that the Georgia republicans are just trying to fortify the next election?
timschochet
Footballguy
You know, sometimes, not all the time certainly, but sometimes I’m able to think for myself. On rare occasions.
See, this is probably where we have a fundamental disagreement. IMO we shouldn't be framing things in this way. We should make it as easy as possible for any eligible person to vote. That would be a policy that balances the right to vote with the right of the rest of the electorate to be sure that the person voting is eligible to do so. The bolded should be our standard. Are we there yet? I don't know. But when a legislature passes a law we should be evaluating the law on it's own merits and against that standard, not relative to the previous law, other states laws, or our own opinions.
I'll bite.
What problem(s) were they trying to solve with a 90+ page bill? (I am assuming there are actually parts of the bill that are reasonably designed to address legitimate novel issues - but I don't know what those parts are.)
Because from where I sit - individual fraud is a complete non-issue, and a non-threat to the integrity of an election. There are already laws in place to deal with any that do happen to occur.
I go back to the notion that this was simply bad optics - even if it was not the underlying cause. GOP lost elections, and immediately decided to enact voter reform laws in response. That suggests that the GOP led legislature saw voter fraud as one of the reasons they lost the elections.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I always enjoy reading IK's posts even when we disagree because he makes his views clear and attempts to explain them in a compelling way. Here are the two reasons I think he and I see things so differently:
1) The role of a government in democratic society -- The way I read IK, it seems like his view is that democratic governments only have an obligation to make voting reasonably accessible so that it isn't "too hard" for people to vote. Obviously people can disagree about where that threshold line is. But my reading of IK is that governments are free to monkey around with voting requirements for basically any reason as long as they stay above that threshold line.
I view it differently. My perspective is that democratic governments have an obligation to make it as easy as possible for people to vote, subject to considerations regarding voter security and resources. If a government makes it more difficult for certain people to vote, and there are no compelling security or resource reasons for doing so, I see that as a betrayal of democratic principles by the government. And in the case of the Georgia law, there do not appear to have been any compelling reasons to make these changes.
2) Context -- IK seems to just want to talk about these laws in the abstract, without really discussing intent. As long as a law doesn't make it "too hard" to vote it's fine, and the Georgia law doesn't make it too hard to vote in his estimation. So it doesn't really matter why Georgia did this, as long as the final law is generally OK.
But in my view that misses the entire story. In 2020, due to the pandemic, voting restrictions were relaxed. As a result of these changes, voter turnout went up by A LOT, especially in the runoff Senate elections. In addition, the pandemic changes do not appear to have been particularly costly, and investigations turned up no evidence of fraud. This should have been greeted by a pro-democracy government as GOOD news. Somehow, Georgia had figured out a way to get more people to vote and it didn't cost much and it didn't appear to contribute to fraud. A well-meaning government should lean into that success to try to see if it can make it even easier for people to vote without the state spending a lot or inviting fraud.
But of course Georgia is a state that has been dominated by Republicans for decades, although it has been getting closer and closer. And in 2020 the Democrats finally won statewide elections there under the new voting rules, but by very small margins. So the Republican government chose to try to make it harder for certain people to vote, the exact opposite of what a well-meaning government should do in that instance. There does not seem to be any reasonable explanation for most of these changes other than partisanship. And due to the tiny margins in these Georgia elections, even slight changes to make voting harder can swing the state.
This context is why I don't think the "Jim Crow" comparison is so off the mark. Sure, the law here isn't as onerous as old-timey literacy tests or poll taxes. But it has the exact same intent (suppressing votes from certain populations) and has a reasonable chance of having the same impact (creating a mismatch between the preferences of eligible voters and the preferences of those that actually cast a ballot so that the party with less support can stay in power).
supermike80
Footballguy
Guys. Tim is an outlier. Please recognize that. His positions thankfully are viewed as extreme and un popular. If you just stop engaging the guy we might be able to have honest discussions about these things.
The Commish
Footballguy
Change it to "We should make it as easy as possible for any eligible person to get registered AND vote" and you have me on board.
This thought occured to me initially...before I read the legislation. After reading it, I was left trying to figure out what documented "problem" they were trying to fix with the new rules and I drew a blank.
I was left with a similar feeling when the head of the Florida GOP was on the state NPR program a couple weeks ago saying that there were no issues with the state's 2020 election and that our process was the "gold standard" that everybody should be trying to model....yet, the same guy feels all these other changes are necessary. It made no sense.
The new law allows people to use the last 4 of their social if they do not have a valid ID, so it's a moot point.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Well, when you start from the fact there is no evidence of voter fraud after countless attempts to find it, and no non-political justification at all to support that 250 new state bills are seeking to restrict voting, it is what it is.
parrot
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
You guys think you're in agreement but my guess is that you aren't.Let's get it done.
Imagine a hypothetical new law that makes voting and registration easier. Because I can see into the future with perfect accuracy, I know that this new law will result in 100 additional eligible voters who will now register and vote. But it will also result in one fraudulent vote cast by an illegal voter.
To me, it still seems obvious that the law is a positive change. The fraudulent vote is unfortunate but the 100 new voters justifies the change.
But to a lot of folks, that's a negative change. The 100 new voters could theoretically have voted in the old system, they just weren't willing to jump through all the necessary hoops to do it. We've now introduced a fraudulent vote into the system just to save some people a little inconvenience.
Insein
Footballguy
A very inconvenient fact that many will ignore now that the trenches have been dug.
Atlanta population 51% Black 41% White
Denver population 69% white, 10% black
Oops.
FairWarning
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
FEDERAL Law requires identification when a person registers to vote: Help America Vote Act of 2002
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER BY MAIL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg– 4(c)) and subject to paragraph (3), a State shall, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, require an individual to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) if— (A) the individual registered to vote in a jurisdiction by mail; and (B)(i) the individual has not previously voted in an election for Federal office in the State; or (ii) the individual has not previously voted in such an election in the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is located in a State that does not have a computerized list that complies with the requirements of subsection (a).
(2) REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual— (i) in the case of an individual who votes in person— (I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or (II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or (ii) in the case of an individual who votes by mail, submits with the ballot— (I) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or (II) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. (B) FAIL-SAFE VOTING.— (i) IN PERSON.—An individual who desires to vote in person, but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under section 302(a). (ii) BY MAIL.—An individual who desires to vote by mail but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(ii) may cast such a ballot by mail and the ballot shall be counted as a provisional ballot in accordance with section 302(a). (3) INAPPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a person— VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:06 Oct 31, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00252 Frm 00048 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL252.107 APPS31 PsN: PUBL252 PUBLIC LAW 107–252—OCT. 29, 2002 116 STAT. 1713
(A) who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) and submits as part of such registration either— (i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or (ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document that shows the name and address of the voter; (B)(i) who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) and submits with such registration either— (I) a driver’s license number; or (II) at least the last 4 digits of the individual’s social security number; and (ii) with respect to whom a State or local election official matches the information submitted under clause (i) with an existing State identification record bearing the same number, name and date of birth as provided in such registration; or (C) who is— (i) entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff–1 et seq.); (ii) provided the right to vote otherwise than in person under section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee–1(b)(2)(B)(ii)); or (iii) entitled to vote otherwise than in person under any other Federal law.
Requiring the same identifying information that you used to register to vote to actually verify you are the person casting the vote either in-person or absentee isn't racist. My goodness, people will call anything racist these days.
dkp993
Footballguy
How about we fix the problems that’s creating 11 hour lines and not focus on the possibility that maybe there might be some violence at some point. And again as I was saying if that was the true intent of the GOP I could get on board. We all know it’s not.
FairWarning
Footballguy
I have no idea why they felt there was a problem that had to be solved now. It’s blown up in everyone’s faces though.
dkp993
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I think the new law attempted to do that. They added three additional early voting days on the weekends. This should allow people to vote earlier and not wait until the last minute. We'll see if Georgians take advantage of that.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
I saw somewhere that the bill included a provision to either add additional polling stations and/or address the long lines. I can’t find it because when doing a google search everything comes back either partisan source titled Jim Crow or behind a paywall.
And there’s this to increase early voting accessibility, which should help decrease day of election lines.
“One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional,” Stephen Fowler of Georgia Public Broadcasting said.
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow. This post, particularly the second half about context, is everything I have been trying to get across but not nearly as eloquently as you have. Tremendous job, thanks.
dkp993
Footballguy
Like you I was unable to find that. If it did include that it would be the first thing from the bill I think makes sense.
Doug B
Footballguy
This is a better point than you'll get credit for.
People aren't supposed to wait hours in line to vote (IMHO, it should be more like 20-30 minutes max). If multi-hour waits are commonplace in your state, it's being done wrong.
As per the CNN article I read:
In addition to that:
So, yeah, I completely miss how that is "disproportionately likely to burden Black voters."
This whole thing seems to me to be much less about Jim Crow on steroids and way more about partisan virtue signalling on steroids.
This is true:
That quote is from a seemingly partisan web site, so I'll not link it here, but what is quoted is accurate. I provided the pertinent part and only left off the political slant. If anyone would like to check the validity I'd be happy to provide the link then.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Not sure where you're going GB. I am perfectly fine knowing that we will always have that 3-5% margin of error for a myriad of reasons. Systems aren't perfect, including this one. We stay in that long accepted range and I'm good
whoknew
Footballguy
The ID required to vote in Colorado and the one in Georgia are significantly different, right?
djmich
Footballguy
Similar threads
