Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
I did not 'complain'. I said I did not know what you were talking about. You didn't provide a county or a link.Is that about it, Metaphor? Are we in a game to deduce your peculiar lawyer-like criteria? Is it bigger than a breadbox?
In #134 I linked to three specific articles that focused on just a single one of the GOP's plethora of suppression methods. He'd previously complained that he didn't know how to Google to find the name of the County that now has a single polling station.
I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.The GOP is clever enough — if "clever" is an appropriate word to describe blatantly criminal malice — to suppress black votes without legislation that explicitly contains the word "black." Recently I read of a county with very large area that will be given only a single polling place in future elections. Any bets on what the demographics of that county are, Mr. Metaphor? In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?
Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Any argument in the modern age which one hopes not to embarrass oneself in is a hidden test of search engine skills.I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.
The links are not the problem. The framing of voting reform as always and only about unnecessary hurdles to block the votes of everyone but white people is the problem. When you assume your conclusions in your premises, you are begging the question.What??![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
So it's "prejudiced" and "angry" to post links to NPR and NIH.GOV. To get your attention, I'll need to link to an InfoWars YouTube?
No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.The sub-topic ("stasis of the argument" if you prefer) was your disbelief that the GOP was deliberately suppressing the votes of those likely to vote D. I presented evidence and wondered if you'd do more than briefly skim the articles with a smirk.
Post 135Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Because voter fraud is something that happens at elections, and alien abductions have never happened.Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions.
No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.
Because voter fraud is something that happens at elections, and alien abductions have never happened.Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions.
Post 135 listsPle
Post 135Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Your legwork is making a claim like 'I recently read', then not providing the name of the county or a link. If you have the expectation that I should spend any time or effort greater than zero finding out what county you meant, your expectation is ludicrous.No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.
What absolute drivel!!! I have read many dozens of articles on various voter suppression techniques used by the GOP. You have now effectively admitted that you have read ZERO such articles, if we exclude articles by GOP liars, and articles you were unable to comprehend.
What is with "[Swammi's] legwork"?? As if I'm on a mission to educate Metaphor and am remiss in my duties.![]()
You don't need to 'help me' with Google. You need to help yourself in understanding that it is not the duty of the people you are trying to persuade to make your arguments for you.But after you admitted that you didn't know how to use search engines, I DID provide you with links. Instead of actually ... gasp! ... reading those articles and learning something, you contend — or so it seems — that I should have helped you with your Googling EARLIER.
Why, pray tell, should I have? You DO have the links now ... and still have not clicked.
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
It will be interesting to see how many people show up and hand out water just to get arrested for handing out water.
Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
What is wrong with this?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
I did not say my list was exhaustive.Post 135 lists
Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.
Do you have any evidence that any of those reasons are driving voter reform in the USA? For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
Thank you. I'll take a look.Post 135Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
If you want me to discuss a specific voting reform bill, I am happy to do so.
Electioneering of the type you are speaking about is already illegal.It will be interesting to see how many people show up and hand out water just to get arrested for handing out water.
So you favor electioneering to people in line to vote?
In other words, you have no evidence.I did not say my list was exhaustive.Post 135 lists
Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.
Do you have any evidence that any of those reasons are driving voter reform in the USA? For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.The stated reason for Georgia's law is to prevent people electioneering to voters who are waiting in line (and therefore are a captive audience). I can understand that providing goods to people while they are waiting in line to vote is undesirable as it could influence their vote in a way we don't want their vote influenced.
Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
What is wrong with this?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?
I denied that McConnell uttered a falsehood. I also said that to make the claim that voter reform bills are always just Republicans deliberately suppressing the vote of people who would likely vote Democrat is a claim that needs to be evidenced, and it's quite a strong claim.(1) I'll pretend your offer is sincere. Discuss the bill known as H.R. 1.
(2) It was YOU who denied that the GOP deliberately suppresses voters likely to vote D. I provided evidence to the contrary. You continue to refuse to read the provided articles, instead quibbling, I guess, that you needed the links sooner. (Why? You don't read them anyway.) What a joke you've turned into.
I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.In other words, you have no evidence.
There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
Why do you assume poll workers will give water in that event? Why do you assume voters will know the wait time? And why do you wish to possibly dehydrate voters?Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
What is wrong with this?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?
Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.In other words, you have no evidence.
Cool irrelevant story.There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
Why do you assume poll workers will give water in that event? Why do you assume voters will know the wait time? And why do you wish to possibly dehydrate voters?Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
What is wrong with this?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?
Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
I have no evidence for a claim I did not make, true.No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.In other words, you have no evidence.
My story was not irrelevant but directly relevant as to why the provision you appear to object to might be written the way it does.Cool irrelevant story.There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters. The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.They're not, and the evidence that they're not is that they vote at the same rate as the general electorate.The speaker wishes the listener to think that African Americans are not having their vote suppressed.
Now, even if McConnell was wrong about "suppression", he might be mistaken, and not have told a lie. Though I understand that some posters on here have extraordinary difficulty in understanding that not all counterfactual statements are lies.
The point is that your bringing up the topic was pretty much pointless.I have no evidence for a claim I did not make, true.No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.In other words, you have no evidence.
Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016. It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situationMy story was not irrelevant but directly relevant as to why the provision you appear to object to might be written the way it does.Cool irrelevant story.There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
I can see you had no good faith intent when you posted your question, and I am now sorry that I gave you a good faith response.
Only to sociopaths. There is reason to believe poll workers will have enough water to distribute, that they will distribute water, or that they are able to identify all the people who made need it.Why do you assume poll workers will give water in that event? Why do you assume voters will know the wait time? And why do you wish to possibly dehydrate voters?Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
What is wrong with this?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?
Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
The law specifically says poll workers can give water. But you knew that. This is a non-issue used for a moral panic.
Helping people in need is not harassment.Please, when people are in line to vote leave them alone. Do not harass people.
That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters.
No, any connection between the two is your speculation.The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.
Maybe it was an issue in 2016. Maybe it's only recently become an issue. Maybe it's long overdue. Maybe it's just additional legislative certainty about something that was already forbidden.Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016.
Yes, they are already supposed to do so. And preventing the provision of food and water by outside people to people waiting in line to vote will prevent the possibility of any electioneering via that method, and reduce the burden on poll workers. It will also eliminate any possible discretionary exercise of partisan bias by poll workers in that regard.It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation
I discussed Georgia's law and the reason it was made. That you assumed your conclusions in your premises and that I did not automatically fall in line is your problem and not mine.But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.
"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.Maybe it was an issue in 2016. Maybe it's only recently become an issue. Maybe it's long overdue. Maybe it's just additional legislative certainty about something that was already forbidden.Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016.
No, it does not.Yes, they are already supposed to do so. And preventing the provision of food and water by outside people to people waiting in line to vote will prevent the possibility of any electioneering via that method, and reduce the burden on poll workers. It will also eliminate any possible discretionary exercise of partisan bias by poll workers in that regard.It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation
Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,I discussed Georgia's law and the reason it was made. That you assumed your conclusions in your premises and that I did not automatically fall in line is your problem and not mine.But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.
It is not my speculation. By looking at timelines of when voting by minorities approximated the voting rates of whites and comparing them to the sudden need to eliminate polling places, impose other restrictions certainly do point to a convenient timing.That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters.
No, any connection between the two is your speculation.The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.
It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises."Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.
Yes, it does. It is objectively easier to define what giving food and water to someone in line is than it is to define whether a particular exchange in line was 'electioneering'.No, it does not.
That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises."Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.
Yes, it does. It is objectively easier to define what giving food and water to someone in line is than it is to define whether a particular exchange in line was 'electioneering'.No, it does not.
Nonsense. We are discussing actual laws in context. Claims of fact require evidence. Why you find that unreasonable or confusing is fascinating.That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,
The stated reason for the Republican changes is "voter fraud". If the real reason is something else the changes should be categorically rejected without consideration.There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.
You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
What is wrong with this?
No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
Poll workers can only give water if they have water to give.
Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
Racial disparities are more pronounced in most elections, with 2008, 2012 and 2020 being exceptions.Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
![]()
Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election
70.9 percent of white voters cast ballots compared with only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters — a disparity that will worsen with new restrictive voting laws.www.brennancenter.org
When you pose it as "African Americans" and "all Americans" it's pretty close.
When you pose it as "Minorities and White Americans" it looks a lot different.
All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
Lower turnout by a particular group does not mean that they are being 'suppressed'. You are begging the question.All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.
What, including voter reform laws proposed by Democrats?There is an undue burden created on the poor by voting reform laws.
If the real reason is something else but is still a good reason, there is no reason to categorically reject anything.The stated reason for the Republican changes is "voter fraud". If the real reason is something else the changes should be categorically rejected without consideration.
No, framing your question in a way that assumes the conclusion is assuming conclusions.Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.
I did not claim any particular law was made for any particular reason.Claims of fact require evidence. Why you find that unreasonable or confusing is fascinating.
Continuing evasion via straw man duly noted.No, framing your question in a way that assumes the conclusion is assuming conclusions.Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.