OT Georgia GOP: Allowing People To Vote Will Be Devastating to Republicans

[Chris Craig]

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/georgia-absentee-voting-republicans-david-ralston-161229426.html

"The Republican speaker of the Georgia state House is not happy that election officials are making it easier for residents to vote from home in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

The state is mailing every registered voter a form so that they can request an absentee ballot for the May 19 primary election. Voters will also be able to cast ballots in person on Election Day, as well as during the three weeks of early voting beginning on April 27, but the state is trying to make it easier for people to vote from afar.

David Ralston, the state House speaker, has deep concerns about this system, in part because the “possibilities of fraud are incredibly prevalent in this kind of voting,” as he said in an interview
But he also admitted he doesn’t like the fact that absentee ballots will make it easier for people to vote ― and presumably increase turnout ― because that will hurt Republicans.

“The president said it best ― this will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia,” said Ralston.

“Every registered voter is going to get one of these. Now I ask you ... what was turnout in the primary back in 2018 or 2016. Was it 100%? No. No. It’s way, way, way lower. This will certainly drive up turnout,” he added.
President Donald Trump, as Ralston noted, has made similar comments.

In the coronavirus stimulus bill, Democrats pushed for more funding to increase absentee and vote-by-mail options. The final version of the legislation had $400 million for the effort, which was less than they originally wanted.

“The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said in a Fox News interview last week. “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

For years, Republicans have fought to make it harder to vote. They’ve cut back on polling locations and hours, restricted early voting, stopped automatic registration and imposed voter ID requirements.

Usually, they tried to justify these moves in the name of fairness and concerns about fraud.

But Ralston and Trump are admitting outright that if more Americans have a voice in the political process, Republicans will lose.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opposed Democratic-sponsored legislation last year that would make Election Day a federal holiday ― meaning people could vote without having to take time off work. He called it a “political power grab” by Democrats.

A number of Republican legislators in Georgia want to delay the May 19 primary, but the governor and the secretary of state ― both Republicans ― say they don’t have the power to do so under emergency powers that last until April 13.

If and when the governor extends the state of emergency,” said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, “we can re-evaluate the situation and determine if moving the election is appropriate in light of the circumstances in order to best protect the health and safety of voters, election officials and poll workers.”

A number of other states have already pushed back their primary elections to help stop the spread of the coronavirus."

Wow, republicans admitting that unless they supress voting, the Democrats will win. Shame on the GOP fo trying to make excuses to stop people from voting.

There is no valid argument for supressing votes. I thought republicans loved the constitution. Why then do they want to shit on it when it doesn't benefit them.

 

[yankeesince59]

Hmmm...and I always thought that an increase in "voter turnout" was a good thing...silly me.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Hmmm...and I always thought that an increase in "voter turnout" was a good thing...silly me.

Not that I care which crappy side wins, but I'm never sure how I feel about increased voter turnout, it sounds good. It's interesting I hear people on here, call others, "sheep" all the time, and "people are idiots", and the list goes on and on, we all tend to think everyone (especially if they disagree with us) are a bunch of morons. Yet we want more of them to have a voice in politics, which seems a little ironic to me.

 

[Minstrel]

There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. Republicans are competitive or win because a greater percentage of Republicans turn out to vote (largely because the elderly skew conservative and are the most reliable voters, but also because minority voters skew Democrat and a number of states have measures in place to try to suppress minority votes).

So, in general, larger turnout does hurt Republicans because their voters are already voting. A hypothetical 100% turnout would turn Republicans into a clear minority party for the foreseeable future.

 

[theprunetang]

There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. Republicans are competitive or win because a greater percentage of Republicans turn out to vote (largely because the elderly skew conservative and are the most reliable voters, but also because minority voters skew Democrat and a number of states have measures in place to try to suppress minority votes).

So, in general, larger turnout does hurt Republicans because their voters are already voting. A hypothetical 100% turnout would turn Republicans into a clear minority party for the foreseeable future.

Let the people have what they want. Anyone who can legally vote should be encouraged.

 

[Minstrel]

Let the people have what they want. Anyone who can legally vote should be encouraged.

Absolutely.

 

[barfo]

Not that I care which crappy side wins, but I'm never sure how I feel about increased voter turnout, it sounds good. It's interesting I hear people on here, call others, "sheep" all the time, and "people are idiots", and the list goes on and on, we all tend to think everyone (especially if they disagree with us) are a bunch of morons. Yet we want more of them to have a voice in politics, which seems a little ironic to me.

The only fair alternative to letting everyone vote is to have some sort of qualification test. Weed out the idiots who can't name the current president, or don't know there are three branches of government, can't estimate within 5% the Department of Commerce budget in fiscal 1987, etc.

barfo

 

[julius]

The only fair alternative to letting everyone vote is to have some sort of qualification test. Weed out the idiots who can't name the current president, or don't know there are three branches of government, can't estimate within 5% the Department of Commerce budget in fiscal 1987, etc.

barfo

We do the same test for those who want to be President. On the bright side, it'd eliminate the current one.

 

[wizenheimer]

anybody who has paid any attention at all knows that the GOP has long had a strategy of disenfranchising democratic voting blocks. It's been obvious for 20 years. It's a multi-prong strategy: Gerry-mandering the shit out of legislative districts; passing all kinds of voting restrictions; closing precincts in minority and democratic districts; kicking voters off registration lists and erecting difficult hoops for those disenfranchised to get back on the rolls. And finally, stacking the courts with right-wing assholes who don't give a shit about justice when justice conflicts with the right-wing grip on power

and Obama played right into that strategy by spending the first 2 years of his presidency trying to compromise with republicans instead of fighting hard for what he campaigned on. He lost the energy of the voters that gave him the election in 2008, and the result was a crushing defeat at all levels for his party in 2010 allowing the republicans to massively warp the 2010 census into a giant advantage for them. Party over justice; party over country...fuck those guys

 

[CupWizier]

Not that I care which crappy side wins, but I'm never sure how I feel about increased voter turnout, it sounds good. It's interesting I hear people on here, call others, "sheep" all the time, and "people are idiots", and the list goes on and on, we all tend to think everyone (especially if they disagree with us) are a bunch of morons. Yet we want more of them to have a voice in politics, which seems a little ironic to me.

Voting suppression is an illegal act and those promoting it should be dismissed. Every legal voter should have easy access to voting and not try and gerrymander the districts to their advantage or remove polls and make it more difficult for minorities to get out and vote. Do you want your voting rights to be made more difficult or easier?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Voting suppression is an illegal act and those promoting it should be dismissed. Every legal voter should have easy access to voting and not try and gerrymander the districts to their advantage or remove polls and make it more difficult for minorities to get out and vote. Do you want your voting rights to be made more difficult or easier?

Wasn't the point. The point was I've seen plenty of examples of people on here saying basically all these people are stupid. So my question is if we believe people are inherently stupid, why do we want more of them (especially if they haven't shown interest in voting before) to vote.
I'd rather we had testing that dictated who's votes counted but that would be fraught with fraud and all that as well.

According to the posters on this website, my vote really doesn't matter if it's not for whoever the blues and reds tell me to vote for. So guess it doesn't matter if it's difficult or not for me to vote, cause when I vote it won't be for either.

 

[barfo]

Wasn't the point. The point was I've seen plenty of examples of people on here saying basically all these people are stupid. So my question is if we believe people are inherently stupid, why do we want more of them (especially if they haven't shown interest in voting before) to vote.
I'd rather we had testing that dictated who's votes counted but that would be fraught with fraud and all that as well.

According to the posters on this website, my vote really doesn't matter if it's not for whoever the blues and reds tell me to vote for. So guess it doesn't matter if it's difficult or not for me to vote, cause when I vote it won't be for either.

Or you could take the position that a lot of the people who don't vote currently would vote for your 3rd party. So you should be wanting everyone to have a vote because some of your voters are being suppressed.

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Or you could take the position that a lot of the people who don't vote currently would vote for your 3rd party. So you should be wanting everyone to have a vote because some of your voters are being suppressed.

barfo

I'd rather take the position that Democrats and Republicans do everything they can to suppress any competition. That doesn't seem to bother people though.

 

[wizenheimer]

Wasn't the point. The point was I've seen plenty of examples of people on here saying basically all these people are stupid. So my question is if we believe people are inherently stupid, why do we want more of them (especially if they haven't shown interest in voting before) to vote.
I'd rather we had testing that dictated who's votes counted but that would be fraught with fraud and all that as well.

According to the posters on this website, my vote really doesn't matter if it's not for whoever the blues and reds tell me to vote for. So guess it doesn't matter if it's difficult or not for me to vote, cause when I vote it won't be for either.

I'm sorry TB but that's just you arguing your cynical POV. Nothing wrong with that but it shouldn't apply to anyone else.

I would argue that people who have the right to vote...which is just about anybody 18 and over...should not be denied their franchise because the republicans have been busy erecting all kinds of barriers preventing people from voting that the republicans believe would vote against them and harm their chances to hold and gain power. And that is exactly what has been happening for two decades. It has been an overt campaign of disenfranchising voters of one party, and the cover has been absolutely blatant bullshit lies about voting fraud that doesn't exist. It is simply an anti-american exercise and anybody with a moral compass should condemn it....IMO of course

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Things only I should be able to do:

1. Own guns

2. Vote

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I'm sorry TB but that's just you arguing your cynical POV. Nothing wrong with that but it shouldn't apply to anyone else.

I would argue that people who have the right to vote...which is just about anybody 18 and over...should not be denied their franchise because the republicans have been busy erecting all kinds of barriers preventing people from voting that the republicans believe would vote against them and harm their chances to hold and gain power. And that is exactly what has been happening for two decades. It has been an overt campaign of disenfranchising voters of one party, and the cover has been absolutely blatant bullshit lies about voter fraud that doesn't exist. It is simply an anti-American exercise and anybody with a moral compass should condemn it....IMO of course

I never said they shouldn't be able to vote though. I'm asking a question, everyone seems to think, "people" are stupid, yet we keep talking about wanting more people to vote. If we think people are, "sheep", "unintelligent", "incapable of making good decisions", why do we want them to vote and have a say? It seems kind of ironic to me that I can read just any about thread in the OT section and find someone claiming large swaths of people in the US are complete imbeciles, and then, on the other hand, we're saying let's make sure those same people can vote!

I get it, it's a right, and that's how democracy works, and in the sense of "right or wrong", people should be given a chance to use their vote as their voice. Yet many of the posters on here have flat out told me that voting third party means my vote doesn't matter at least in their opinion. So it seems like in a way, Democrats also seem to only think your voice should matter if it's in tune with their own based on feedback I've received, cynical or not.

 

[CupWizier]

Wasn't the point. The point was I've seen plenty of examples of people on here saying basically all these people are stupid. So my question is if we believe people are inherently stupid, why do we want more of them (especially if they haven't shown interest in voting before) to vote.
I'd rather we had testing that dictated who's votes counted but that would be fraught with fraud and all that as well.

According to the posters on this website, my vote really doesn't matter if it's not for whoever the blues and reds tell me to vote for. So guess it doesn't matter if it's difficult or not for me to vote, cause when I vote it won't be for either.

Why do you put much stock in what other posters think in here? Do you think people are inherrently stupid? I sure don't. Doesn't mean there aren't stupid ones but I believe the majority are intelligent enough and good people and should have their vote count.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Why do you put much stock in what other posters think in here? Do you think people are inherrently stupid? I sure don't. Doesn't mean there aren't stupid ones but I believe the majority are intelligent enough and good people and should have their vote count.

Well, I don't. I'm going to vote for who I want to win no matter what any of you think.
I think that all of us are inherently blind to certain things including myself.
I'm simply asking though if it's pretty common to think so many people are stupid, it's kind of an interesting predicament we find ourselves in if we're also saying we need more people to vote. I've seen you post numerous times how so many of us are basically mentally ill-equipped to understand basketball, so if we can't figure out basketball which is a game, why would you trust us to have a voice in the direction of the government?

 

[CupWizier]

Well, I don't. I'm going to vote for who I want to win no matter what any of you think.
I think that all of us are inherently blind to certain things including myself.
I'm simply asking though if it's pretty common to think so many people are stupid, it's kind of an interesting predicament we find ourselves in if we're also saying we need more people to vote. I've seen you post numerous times how so many of us are basically mentally ill-equipped to understand basketball, so if we can't figure out basketball which is a game, why would you trust us to have a voice in the direction of the government?

Main problem is, you are taking a vocal minority and giving them the position of the majority. As for your assertion that I have posted that MANY posters are basically mental ill equipped to understand basketball. I call bull shit on that as I have never said or alluded to that. Please don't try and summarize my opinions especially when they are so far off base of what I have said and think. Not cool.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Main problem is, you are taking a vocal minority and giving them the position of the majority. As for your assertion that I have posted that MANY posters are basically mental ill equipped to understand basketball. I call bull shit on that as I have never said or alluded to that. Please don't try and summarize my opinions especially when they are so far off base of what I have said and think. Not cool.

How many times have you said that well you wouldn't trust any of us to run the Blazers, or any of our abilities to coach, or our coaching decisions, or you name it with basketball? Which is perfectly fair for you to say, but you have said those things. You definitely seem to be calling into question our intelligence there. When people complain about Stotts or CJ, or Neil, you've often said (this is paraphrasing) here, said well they know what they're doing and know more than us, so our opinion isn't important. So yeah maybe it's a slight exaggeration to say that you think were mentally ill-equipped for whatever positions, but you do often seem to make the case that we aren't smart enough, or knowledgeable enough about basketball to know what we're talking about.

Edit: Which leads me back to my question, you wouldn't trust any of us to do anything with a basketball team, but you want us to have a say in politics?

 

[Minstrel]

I never said they shouldn't be able to vote though. I'm asking a question, everyone seems to think, "people" are stupid, yet we keep talking about wanting more people to vote.

I'm not sure I understand your confusion. Democracy has never required the entire population to be "smart people." That's not even possible, if we assume "smart" to mean "above average intelligence." In any sizeable population, some people will be above average, some average and some below average. A say in politics isn't predicated on intelligence. The assumption is that everyone has their own issues, problems, concerns and ideas--whether smart or dumb, rich or poor, old or young--and that we want that diversity of opinion brought to bear either on the issues (in a direct democracy) or in picking our elected leaders (in a representative democracy).

 

[CupWizier]

How many times have you said that well you wouldn't trust any of us to run the Blazers, or any of our abilities to coach, or our coaching decisions, or you name it with basketball? Which is perfectly fair for you to say, but you have said those things. You definitely seem to be calling into question our intelligence there. When people complain about Stotts or CJ, or Neil, you've often said (this is paraphrasing) here, said well they know what they're doing and know more than us, so our opinion isn't important. So yeah maybe it's a slight exaggeration to say that you think were mentally ill-equipped for whatever positions, but you do often seem to make the case that we aren't smart enough, or knowledgeable enough about basketball to know what we're talking about.

Edit: Which leads me back to my question, you wouldn't trust any of us to do anything with a basketball team, but you want us to have a say in politics?

You assumed by me saying I don't think anyone in this forum is equipped to be a good coach or GM in the NBA, that I think they aren't intelligent? That's you projecting your thoughts into what I say. I certainly realize I am not in a position of knowledge to coach or be a GM for an NBA team, just like I couldn't step into your job and you wouldn't have been able to just jump into my profession before I retired. Thinking someone isn't qualified to do a particular job has nothing to do with intelligence as they are not even closely attached. Voting is a given right. Coaching or being an NBA gm requires an immense amount of knowledge and training which isn't required to be able to vote.

Sorry tbf, but you are blowing this way out of proportion.

 

[barfo]

I'd rather take the position that Democrats and Republicans do everything they can to suppress any competition. That doesn't seem to bother people though.

Maybe because it's just your position and not something that everyone else agrees with.

I don't see the two parties spending a lot of time suppressing third parties. The two-party system has been baked into the cake since the civil war era, it's not something that anyone needs to actively maintain. I would venture a guess that the two major parties hardly ever spare even a thought for the third parties, except to blame them when a close election goes against them.

No one I know gives a shit who the Libertarian party nominee will be this year, or the Green party, or any other minor party. I don't hear you mentioning anyone that you hope wins those nominations, or that you hope doesn't, etc. I'd be happy to discuss them (from a position of ignorance, but that's never stopped me before), but I sense that you don't really care about the particular candidates, you just want to lodge protest votes?

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Maybe because it's just your position and not something that everyone else agrees with.

I don't see the two parties spending a lot of time suppressing third parties. The two-party system has been baked into the cake since the civil war era, it's not something that anyone needs to actively maintain. I would venture a guess that the two major parties hardly ever spare even a thought for the third parties, except to blame them when a close election goes against them.

No one I know gives a shit who the Libertarian party nominee will be this year, or the Green party, or any other minor party. I don't hear you mentioning anyone that you hope wins those nominations, or that you hope doesn't, etc. I'd be happy to discuss them (from a position of ignorance, but that's never stopped me before), but I sense that you don't really care about the particular candidates, you just want to lodge protest votes?

barfo

https://psmag.com/news/how-states-are-blocking-a-third-party-run
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0229.htm
Republican and Democrat judges decided this.

DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN MAJOR AND MINOR PARTIES

The Court has held that a state can seek to encourage political stability and help preserve the two-party system. States may enact “reasonable elections regulations that may, in practice, favor the traditional two parties” and “that temper the destabilizing effects of party-shattering and excessive factionalism” (Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 367 (1997)). States may not prevent third parties from forming, but they “need not remove all of the many hurdles third parties face in the American political arena” (Id. at 366 & n.10).

Other Cases

The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that a California law requiring political parties to nominate candidates by direct primary rather than convention did not violate the Libertarian Party's freedom of association. The court concluded that the state's interest in enhancing the democratic character of the election process overrode whatever interest the party had in designing its own rules for candidate nomination (Lightfoot v. Eu, 964 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1992)).

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has invalidated restrictions so substantial that it was “virtually impossible” for new or minor parties to gain access to the ballot. The Ohio law that was struck down in the case required parties to obtain 15% of the vote in the last gubernatorial election, among other severely restrictive requirements, to gain ballot access. Ohio argued that its law served various compelling interests, including political compromise and stability, electoral fairness and integrity, and an orderly election process. But the Court responded that “the Ohio system does not merely favor a 'two-party system'; it favors two particular parties—the Republicans and the Democrats—and in effect tends to give them a complete monopoly” (Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 24, 32 (1968)).

I know of third party candidates who are running that information is easy to come by, and I haven't chosen which one I'm going to vote for yet.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Just don't vote.

 

[Chris Craig]

Just don't vote.

Vote and vote often

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Vote and vote often

nah. voting is mad lame, yo.

 

[Chris Craig]

nah. voting is mad lame, yo.

VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If nobody knew who I was and we created some bogus resume and I got hired in Stotts' place, only the players would know I had no experience. Give me a few weeks of studying so I knew more than basic zone defense and pick and roll and shit like that and they probably wouldn't know.

Give Stotts a text book on my job or most of your jobs and he'd be screwed. He couldn't do it for shit.

Trump could be an NBA coach tomorrow.