Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

MLB moves All-Star game in response to GA voter laws


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, whoknew said:

The ID required to vote in Colorado and the one in Georgia are significantly different, right?

Every registered voter in Colorado gets a mail in ballot.  You have to show an ID to register the first time. You can vote in person on election day if you want. Probably have to show I'd. You  can also register to vote and vote on election day at a polling place. One thing different is Colorado has passed laws making it easier to vote, not try to make it harder. 

Edited by Mile High
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Every registered voter in Colorado gets a mail in ballot.  You have to show an ID to register the first time. You can vote in person on election day if you want. Probably have to show I'd. You  can also register to vote and vote on election day at a polling place. One thing different is Colorado has passed laws making it easier to vote, not try a make it harder. 

As you mentioned, Colorado sends a mail ballot to all active registered voters, and unlike Georgia’s new law, Colorado doesn’t require ID for mail voters except for first-timers. In 2016 and 2020, more than 90% voted by mail.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the Georgia law that would prevent someone who really wants to vote from jumping through the hoops to be eligible to vote.  But that, of course, is not the point.  

The point is that the reason these new laws were implemented is to discourage black people from voting.  The "election integrity" justification is absolute nonsense.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zoonation said:

There is nothing in the Georgia law that would prevent someone who really wants to vote from jumping through the hoops to be eligible to vote.  But that, of course, is not the point.  

The point is that the reason these new laws were implemented is to discourage black people from voting.  The "election integrity" justification is absolute nonsense.  

 

Cute talking point.  That's all it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zoonation said:

There is nothing in the Georgia law that would prevent someone who really wants to vote from jumping through the hoops to be eligible to vote.  But that, of course, is not the point.  

The point is that the reason these new laws were implemented is to discourage black people from voting.  The "election integrity" justification is absolute nonsense.  

 

Is it keep black people from voting or to keep people on general from voting? Every state requires an ID to register to voter, it's how they handle voting after that matters. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zoonation said:

There is nothing in the Georgia law that would prevent someone who really wants to vote from jumping through the hoops to be eligible to vote.  But that, of course, is not the point.  

The point is that the reason these new laws were implemented is to discourage black people from voting.  The "election integrity" justification is absolute nonsense.  

 

Setting aside the racist notion that black people are too lazy to vote if imaginary obstacles are placed in their way, Please point to the provision you feel does that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

Cute talking point.  That's all it is

No.  There is no evidence that election integrity in Georgia was ever a real concern.  On any level.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Do you seriously dispute that less black people will vote than otherwise would have because of these new laws?  Less apathetic whites will vote too.  But, IMO, far more apathetic black people in poorer communities will not vote now.  And I would wager that is the exactly calculus the GOP did.  And it will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, whoknew said:

What are you basing that on? Because these Georgia requirements look more restrictive than these Colorado requirements.

I got that from here NBCNews

 

 

Under the new Georgia law, voters who do not have a state-issued ID card can also provide a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or other government document that shows their name and address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Insein said:

Setting aside the racist notion that black people are too lazy to vote if imaginary obstacles are placed in their way, Please point to the provision you feel does that

Poorer urban communities are generally more politically apathetic.  In Georgia, those communities are predominantly black.  I did not call them lazy and your suggestion I did is offensive quite frankly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zoonation said:

Poorer urban communities are generally more politically apathetic.  In Georgia, those communities are predominantly black.  I did not call them lazy and your suggestion I did is offensive quite frankly.

So what provision is making them more apathetic than before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Insein said:

So what provision is making them more apathetic than before?

It is easier for people like Abrams to convince apathetic voters to vote if they do not have to do anything other than show up.  This is poli-sci 101 stuff here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zoonation said:

It is easier for people like Abrams to convince apathetic voters to vote if they do not have to do anything other than show up.  This is poli-sci 101 stuff here.

So the problem then is Abrams saying that they can't vote now? Seems like a simple solution then. Tell them they can still vote and nothing changed on that front.

And that still wasn't a provision in the updates GA law.

Edited by Insein
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, I'm not saying that the new laws make it difficult to vote.  They do not.  I am saying the reason the new laws were enacted is to make it harder for Abrams to turn out the black vote.  It is so obvious I cannot believe I have to keep repeating it.

Election integrity is a giant strawman.  It is not a real issue.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zoonation said:

Listen, I'm not saying that the new laws make it difficult to vote.  They do not.  I am saying the reason the new laws were enacted is to make it harder for Abrams to turn out the black vote.  It is so obvious I cannot believe I have to keep repeating it.

Election integrity is a giant strawman.  It is not a real issue.

What exactly is stopping her from getting out the black vote?

And yes it did address voter integrity. The key change is requiring ID instead of a signature on mail in ballots. As it stood if your signature on the mail in ballot was deemed different than the signature you made however many years ago when you registered to vote, your mail on ballot would not be counted. That should concern all citizens from both parties. 

Edited by Insein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, djmich said:

I got that from here NBCNews

 

 

Under the new Georgia law, voters who do not have a state-issued ID card can also provide a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or other government document that shows their name and address.

Huh. I missed that. Seems like they are similar if that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Insein said:

What exactly is stopping her from getting out the black vote?

And yes it did address voter integrity. The key change is requiring ID instead of a signature on mail in ballots. As it stood if your signature on the mail in ballot was deemed different than the signature you made however many years ago when you registered to vote, your mail on ballot would not be counted. That should concern all citizens from both parties. 

Doing nothing other than turning up is easier than doing anything more than that.  It is that simple.

there is no evidence whatsoever that the integrity of the Georgia election was in any way compromised by mail in voting.  In fact the opposite is true. the several audits they did confirmed it was as free and fair as one could ever hope to have.  That is not the reason they enacted these laws.  It is what they are selling, for sure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Huh. I missed that. Seems like they are similar if that is the case.

I thought it actually looked less restrictive.

I really don’t know what to believe anymore because between this, the language to address long lines and the extending the early voting days...the omission of these elements in the media narrative makes the 60 minutes DeSantis abomination look balanced.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FairWarning said:

Anyone consider that the Georgia republicans are just trying to fortify the next election?

Fortify from what?  Was their last election not secure?  Was it affected by a bunch of water being handed out?  Were the times one could use a drop box a bad thing?  Was there too long between sending applications for absentee ballots out and expecting them back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hoodoo said:

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.

Sure...I was not applying my thoughts on ID to just GA...which is why I left it out of my bulleted points earlier.  Was just clarifying to IK where I stand on the issue overall.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Fortify from what?  Was their last election not secure?  Was it affected by a bunch of water being handed out?  Were the times one could use a drop box a bad thing?  Was there too long between sending applications for absentee ballots out and expecting them back?

Fortifying it to benefit them.  It was a spin-off of the D’s in the last election from the Time article.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Doing nothing other than turning up is easier than doing anything more than that.  It is that simple.

there is no evidence whatsoever that the integrity of the Georgia election was in any way compromised by mail in voting.  In fact the opposite is true. the several audits they did confirmed it was as free and fair as one could ever hope to have.  That is not the reason they enacted these laws.  It is what they are selling, for sure.  

So I'm trying to understand your position here. You feel that by making any changes to preexisting laws, regardless of what those changes are, they are being made in an effort to suppress the vote. Despite not being able to point out anything specific that would cause the vote to be suppressed or even more difficult to cast, you feel that just the act of updating the law makes it so.

Is that correct?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FairWarning said:

Fortifying it to benefit them.  It was a spin-off of the D’s in the last election from the Time article.  

Exactly.  They are not preventing anyone from voting.  Getting a current ID is not that hard.  But many won't do it.

Abrams team:  "you coming down to the polls this weekend to vote?"

"yeah my mom is going so I guess I'll go too."

Abrams team: "awesome! do you have a current ID?"

"No, we moved last year and I haven't got around to it."

Abrams team: "Well, you need to go get that sorted out before you can vote."

"No thanks, I'm good."

Abrams team:  "well, you can still vote if you bring a bill with your current address on it."

"I don't pay the bills, my parents do."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Insein said:

So I'm trying to understand your position here. You feel that by making any changes to preexisting laws, regardless of what those changes are, they are being made in an effort to suppress the vote. Despite not being able to point out anything specific that would cause the vote to be suppressed or even more difficult to cast, you feel that just the act of updating the law makes it so.

Is that correct?

That's close to correct.  Adding more stringent requirements to be able to vote (however incrementally different those changes to the requirements are), will necessarily result in fewer people voting than otherwise would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Doing nothing other than turning up is easier than doing anything more than that.  It is that simple.

there is no evidence whatsoever that the integrity of the Georgia election was in any way compromised by mail in voting.  In fact the opposite is true. the several audits they did confirmed it was as free and fair as one could ever hope to have.  That is not the reason they enacted these laws.  It is what they are selling, for sure.  

There were 63 cases of fraud in the Georgia elections.  24 of them were passed on to prosecutors.  Does the Georgia Legislature just wait until there is an election that the fraud could affect the outcome or does it act in a proactive manner to ensure that it doesn't happen.  To sit back and say, "well the fraud didn't affect the outcome" is ludicrous.  There will come a day where an election is won by 100 votes or less, that isn't the time to amend the laws.  

https://wdef.com/2021/02/18/breaking-24-election-fraud-cases-georgia/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hoodoo said:

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.

I think its a good thing they are finding a better way than signature matching.  This should be more efficient for counting and verifying those ballots.

I also don't think this is something many are stating is burdening black voters.  But I would guess some still are.  That isn't the only provision in the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

There were 63 cases of fraud in the Georgia elections.  24 of them were passed on to prosecutors.  Does the Georgia Legislature just wait until there is an election that the fraud could affect the outcome or does it act in a proactive manner to ensure that it doesn't happen.  To sit back and say, "well the fraud didn't affect the outcome" is ludicrous.  There will come a day where an election is won by 100 votes or less, that isn't the time to amend the laws.  

https://wdef.com/2021/02/18/breaking-24-election-fraud-cases-georgia/

Did you read the article?

 

1 case of an out of state republican voter attempting to register using his brothers address. 
 

I don’t think that kind of voter fraud warrants a legislative response - given that there are already laws on the books to deal with they. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

There were 63 cases of fraud in the Georgia elections.  24 of them were passed on to prosecutors.  Does the Georgia Legislature just wait until there is an election that the fraud could affect the outcome or does it act in a proactive manner to ensure that it doesn't happen.  To sit back and say, "well the fraud didn't affect the outcome" is ludicrous.  There will come a day where an election is won by 100 votes or less, that isn't the time to amend the laws.  

https://wdef.com/2021/02/18/breaking-24-election-fraud-cases-georgia/

did you read your own link?  the cases of voting irregularities cited - 24 of them over a period of several years - would not be substantively addressed by the provisions in this new bill.  

The article only underscores how safe and secure Georgia elections actually are.  24 cases, almost all of which do not relate to voting fraud, in millions and millions of votes.

Thanks for posting!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Fortifying it to benefit them.  It was a spin-off of the D’s in the last election from the Time article.  

To benefit who?  The state as a whole?  Id ask how so.  To benefit the GOP...yes, I think that is most certainly their goal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Exactly.  They are not preventing anyone from voting.  Getting a current ID is not that hard.  But many won't do it.

Abrams team:  "you coming down to the polls this weekend to vote?"

"yeah my mom is going so I guess I'll go too."

Abrams team: "awesome! do you have a current ID?"

"No, we moved last year and I haven't got around to it."

Abrams team: "Well, you need to go get that sorted out before you can vote."

"No thanks, I'm good."

Abrams team:  "well, you can still vote if you bring a bill with your current address on it."

"I don't pay the bills, my parents do."

 

I’m trying to figure out if you are providing an example supporting the ease of voting or some corner case where it’s not something you can just fall out of bed and do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Exactly.  They are not preventing anyone from voting.  Getting a current ID is not that hard.  But many won't do it.

Abrams team:  "you coming down to the polls this weekend to vote?"

"yeah my mom is going so I guess I'll go too."

Abrams team: "awesome! do you have a current ID?"

"No, we moved last year and I haven't got around to it."

Abrams team: "Well, you need to go get that sorted out before you can vote."

"No thanks, I'm good."

Abrams team:  "well, you can still vote if you bring a bill with your current address on it."

"I don't pay the bills, my parents do."

 

This is what I don't understand.  You don't need an ID to register in the State of Georgia.  You don't need a utility bill either.  If you don't have a DL, state ID or SSN you check a box on the form and the State provides you with a voter ID number.  Then you use that number when you send in your absentee vote or go vote in person.  The ID requirement literally doesn't make you take any additional steps, it doesn't make it harder to register or it doesn't make it harder to vote.  All you have to do is check a box and sign the affidavit on the registration form.  Abrams knows this.  But by parroting this black voter suppression angle in the MSM and getting large influential corporations to hop on board she effectively gives a black eye to Republicans even though the law will actually provide all Georgia citizens more access to vote. 

Here's the GA Voter Registration Form. 

https://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/GA_VR_APP_2019.pdf

Top of the page, number 5, "If you do not possess a GA Drivers License or Social Security number please check the appropriate box and a unique identifier will be provided for you."

You fill out your name, address, telephone, birthday.

Then you go down to Line 5, "Check if you do not have a GA Driver’s License, GA. I.D. No. or Social Security No".

Then you sign the affidavit, "I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT: I reside at the address listed above. I am eligible to vote in Georgia. I am not serving a sentence for having been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude. I have not been judicially declared to be mentally incompetent."

Bing, bang, boom.  That's it.  You don't need anything.  It's not restrictive.  It's not racist.  It's not voter suppression.  Is it such a big hurdle to require the voter to provide the identifier they used to register when they vote either in person or absentee?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zoonation said:

did you read your own link?  the cases of voting irregularities cited - 24 of them over a period of several years - would not be substantively addressed by the provisions in this new bill.  

The article only underscores how safe and secure Georgia elections actually are.  24 cases, almost all of which do not relate to voting fraud, in millions and millions of votes.

Thanks for posting!

As I said before, you don't wait until the fraud effects the outcome of the election.  Georgia wanted to move away from signature verification.  They wanted to limit people waiting hours at the polls to vote.  They wanted to expand access to people to be able to vote on a day other than election day.  It's not hard to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, djmich said:

I’m trying to figure out if you are providing an example supporting the ease of voting or some corner case where it’s not something you can just fall out of bed and do.

Neither.  I’ve conceded getting a current ID to vote is easy.  My point is many still won’t do it.  And the GOP knows that, which is the reason they are passing the law.  Not because of fake election integrity issues.  

Again, I’m somewhat surprised that this is in any way controversial.  It is obvious.  

I am not particularly sympathetic to people who can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum to vote.  Another thread could be started about whether a society really wants uninformed apathetic people voting.  A lot has been written on the subject.  

But none of that changes why the GOP is doing what they are doing here.  And it ain’t election security.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Commish said:

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.

 

How difficult is it to register to vote?

Shouid the govt send people door to door to register voters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

I just don’t understand this

 People are allowed to have food and drink when waiting in line correct?

Nothing is stopping them from bringing a drink and/or food, right?

Why must anyone be provided free food or drink while waiting to vote? 
 

Im not trying to be a smartasss, but I just can’t wrap my head around why people can’t eat before or after voting, and take a drink with them when they go to vote.
 

Seriously....wth am I missing? Why must anyone be provided a drink/food while waiting to vote?

Why must people be banned from giving out water? Its ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zoonation said:

But none of that changes why the GOP is doing what they are doing here.  And it ain’t election security.  

After highlighting all the changes that actually make it easier to vote, this line is getting more and more silly and really is just a retort when you aren’t arguing the facts.

Everyone know the Democrats want no election security so they can harvest as many illegal votes as possible.  Ohhh sick burn!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, zoonation said:

Doing nothing other than turning up is easier than doing anything more than that.  It is that simple.

there is no evidence whatsoever that the integrity of the Georgia election was in any way compromised by mail in voting.  In fact the opposite is true. the several audits they did confirmed it was as free and fair as one could ever hope to have.  That is not the reason they enacted these laws.  It is what they are selling, for sure.  

I'm sorry, but if you're not good enough to get apathetic voters out to support you then maybe you don't deserve to be elected in the first place. Rounding up warm bodies who really couldn't care less just to stack the vote in your favor is really no way to run an election. People who want to vote & care will go out and get it done. If you can't get people to care then that's not a process problem, that's a you problem

52 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Exactly.  They are not preventing anyone from voting.  Getting a current ID is not that hard.  But many won't do it.

Abrams team:  "you coming down to the polls this weekend to vote?"

"yeah my mom is going so I guess I'll go too."

Abrams team: "awesome! do you have a current ID?"

"No, we moved last year and I haven't got around to it."

Abrams team: "Well, you need to go get that sorted out before you can vote."

"No thanks, I'm good."

Abrams team:  "well, you can still vote if you bring a bill with your current address on it."

"I don't pay the bills, my parents do."

Abrams team: "Do you have a Social Security number?"

"No"

Abrams team:  "well, you can still vote, they'll just ask you to sign an affidavit.

Edited by Hoodoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

 

I'm sorry, but if you're not good enough to get apathetic [poor/working full time] voters out to support you then maybe you don't deserve to be elected in the first place. Rounding up warm bodies who [have a difficult time standing in long lines/getting transportation/taking time off work] really couldn't care less just to stack the vote in your favor [let them exercise their constitutional right to vote] is really no way to run an election bad for Republicans. People who want to vote [should be given every opportunity to vote in the most convenient way possible].    & care will go out and get it done. If you can't get people to care then that's not a process problem, [win an election without suppressing votes] that's a you problem

 

fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rubiobot said:

Why must people be banned from giving out water? Its ridiculous.

Thought behind it the way I understand it is this

Jane Doe shows up to vote for prez and has no clue or care who they’re voting for down the ballot

”Joe Smith” is on the ballot and is handing out water and snacks on the line

Jane thinks “Bless joe smiths heart” and votes for him.

 

Now, why can’t someone bring a bottle of water with them? I find that ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John123 said:

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. 

If you think my post in any way implied that people not eligible to vote should vote then I can’t help you - if you think these laws do anything to curtail ineligible people from voting then I’d suggest you aren’t paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Thought behind it the way I understand it is this

Jane Doe shows up to vote for prez and has no clue or care who they’re voting for down the ballot

”Joe Smith” is on the ballot and is handing out water and snacks on the line

Jane thinks “Bless joe smiths heart” and votes for him.

 

Now, why can’t someone bring a bottle of water with them? I find that ridiculous

I think Joe Smith being on the ballot and handing out water and snacks to those standing in line would be a violation of the law in most states as a form of electioneering.

Edited by rct
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

 

I'm sorry, but if you're not good enough to get apathetic voters out to support you then maybe you don't deserve to be elected in the first place. Rounding up warm bodies who really couldn't care less just to stack the vote in your favor is really no way to run an election. People who want to vote & care will go out and get it done. If you can't get people to care then that's not a process problem, that's a you problem

Abrams team: "Do you have a Social Security number?"

"No"

Abrams team:  "well, you can still vote, they'll just ask you to sign an affidavit.

I am reading up on the affidavit option.  Snotbubbles (I can't believe I just typed that, lol) makes a good point there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Thought behind it the way I understand it is this

Jane Doe shows up to vote for prez and has no clue or care who they’re voting for down the ballot

”Joe Smith” is on the ballot and is handing out water and snacks on the line

Jane thinks “Bless joe smiths heart” and votes for him.

 

Now, why can’t someone bring a bottle of water with them? I find that ridiculous

This also doesn't prevent family members from bringing food or water either. The provision is an expansion of the anti electioneering law already on the books. No one is allowed to give gifts of any kind to people waiting in line to vote. They expanded it to include food and drink because some candidates in Georgia have done that recently. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zoonation said:

I am reading up on the affidavit option.  Snotbubbles (I can't believe I just typed that, lol) makes a good point there.

BTW, you still need some form of ID in every state in order to register to vote, so if you had it when you registered then it's likely you'll still have it when you go to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hoodoo said:

BTW, you still need some form of ID in every state in order to register to vote, so if you had it when you registered then it's likely you'll still have it when you go to vote.

Might not show current address though.  I am not sure how it works administratively in Georgia, but in my province (Alberta), one barrier to getting a new ID is municipal or provincial fines/tickets.  They will not issue you a new license (or identification card) unless you pay your fines/tickets.  That could be a barrier for some if it is the same case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...