tailgater wrote:Frank,
You know that most people automatically think about voter ID when they hear about suppression.
It's been a buzz word for a long time.
Somehow, people think it's racist to require an ID to vote.
It's been said so many times it's almost just accepted as fact.
Yet the very premise itself is racist.
Why would a person of color be less able to procure an ID. Especially when that ID would be free of charge if that's an impediment.
So I agree with you that gerrymandering the polling locations isn't typically done with good intentions. But is that based on race? Or politics? Because redistricting is common place in our own state. Is that racist? (I never thought so, but that's not my go-to outcry like it is for the libs).
I don't think the national outcry is over a closed ballot box. Too easy to showcase, and too easy to remedy without the hoopla.
What I do know is that I won't get an honest answer from these boards.
Which is too bad.
Used to be that behind the name calling and jokes a person could learn another perspective.
Used to be.
I sort of implied that race(s) might be a casualty of suppressing the voter turnout especially if the plan is to win by having less people vote for the opposition than by winning them over.
I also can't give a reason to not have voter ID's, or exactly why they are racist...maybe I missed that email from Headquarters?
I still haven't read anymore on the subject since my last post but questions do come to my Liberal leaning mind just going from memories of the last election...and my version of liberal inferences...
such as, why did it seem that people who had to wait for 4, 5 and even 6 hours on line to vote were almost all in areas with far more non-white voters? Supposedly less open polling places, but why were those limited to minority densely populated areas? And why seemingly red states?
Yet people did wait, regardless of weather and stuff, and then new laws (not voter ID, I'm good wif that) like no food or drink or place holding for bathroom breaks while in line...wtf is that about? How does that ensure integrity of the vote?
Just guessing it's really meant to discourage actually voting!
From older research on this subject, I seem to recall that the history of election tampering convictions is heavily weighted toward Republicans including 2020, yet so few total problems that it caused me then (and is rekindled today) to wonder why the passion to create all these new laws? What's really the impetus?
Campaigns are run by slick politically savvy connected marketing people who know how to isolate and target a market to manipulate it in ways that help their causes.
But I'm also logical enough to realize lots of what I'm dancing around is circumstantial evidence, so there's that.
But (you didn't think I'd go that easy, HA!)
Most here would argue that we don't need new gun laws, just enforce the ones we have. Don't turn honest people into criminals, let them exercise their right.
And most here would be against creating laws to prevent any crime cuz that don't work, and we have enough laws as it is...
Well, we have voter fraud laws too and despite a few still howling in the dark, we really do know there was no significant voter fraud, widespread, organized, whatever, in the last election. Yet now the rush by the losing side to create all kinds of voting changes to prevent a crime that did not happen? Meh, tighten a few loopholes to make it tougher to commit the crimes that aren't happening but COULD and call it a day.
Like a picture ID, or something similar. Potential problems solved.
Way better than no water while waiting!
How about we continue to prosecute the handful of election law breakers and not make it harder for honest people to exercise their obligation?
Oops, I made a mistake. There may have been widespread criminal attempts to change the results of the last election. Just hearing about the phony documents presented to Pence. This is insane. And that Miller guy talks about it as though it's legit!
Fake Elector Outrage!