GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election

[George Costanza]

In 2008, Obama may have won the state of Florida on the Sunday before election day when "Souls to the Polls" brought large number of Black and Latino voters to the polls to cast ballots after church. Florida had opened the polls two weeks early and in spite of that, there were long lines at all of the polling places, prompting the governor to issue an emergency order extending the hours for early voting. When it was all over, Obama had eked out a 51% win in the State of Florida.

If the Republican-controlled legislature of the good state of Florida has its way, there will be no more of THAT. According to a front-page article in today's L.A. Times:

Early voting was reduced from two weeks to one week. Voting on the Sunday before election day was eliminated. College students face new hurdles if they want to vote away from home. And those who register new voters face the threat of fines for procedural errors, prompting the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to suspend voter registration drives and accuse the Legislature of "reverting to Jim Crow-like tactics."

Election laws tightening in Republican-run states - latimes.com

What is this really all about? Election rules are being changed in Republican-controlled states in a way that will make it more difficult for demographic groups perceived to be Democatic, to get to the polls to vote.

Slimy? You bet. But, then, this is politics . . . .

 

[George Costanza]

What - no comment from anyone on this? No one attacking the source of the article? No one disputing the basis for the article?

Come ON . . . .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me get this right..... the rules changes are designed to only effect Democrats? That is your claim right?

Explain to us why these changes would only impact Democrats and Obama supporters.

 

[rdean]

If Republicans had policies they could be proud of, they would run on them. But they know they are bad for America. That's is why they are behind all this voter suppression. They're a dirty party.

Even when shown there's like 80 voter convictions out of a couple of hundred million votes, they will still use that as an excuse. They don't have anything else. They won't say, "Hey, we're dirty. We will screw the entire country to protect our rich friends. A dirty party plays dirty tricks". That would be too honest.

 

[Sundial]

They're also working on some deal to award electoral votes proportionally (instead of winner-takes -all) in states they think will go to Obama. Penn was one of them, and there were one or two others. Basically, a way to strip electoral votes from the blue column, and add them to the red column, even if the lose popular vote in the state.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.

 

[Charles_Main]

Sauce for the Goose Mr Scotty, The Odds will be Even.

The Changes have no effect on Fairness. Complete non story.

 

[kwc57]

In Oklahoma, the polls are open from 7 AM to 7 PM on election day. Employers are required to give you time to go vote on election day. You can request an absentee ballot ahead of time if you won't be able to make it to you polling place. I'm fine with that. Voting is a privelege and civic duty, not a convenience to be extended for political jerimandering by either side.

 

[Sundial]

Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.

People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.

 

[George Costanza]

Voting is a privelege and civic duty, not a convenience to be extended for political jerimandering by either side.

I wonder what the political makeup of the Florida Legislature was in 2008. It is Republican now. Was it Democrat then? If it was, I would accept your argument.

if it wasn't, one then wonders why a Republican controlled Leglislature would authorize something that would help the other side.

 

[Trajan]

In 2008, Obama may have won the state of Florida on the Sunday before election day when "Souls to the Polls" brought large number of Black and Latino voters to the polls to cast ballots after church. Florida had opened the polls two weeks early and in spite of that, there were long lines at all of the polling places, prompting the governor to issue an emergency order extending the hours for early voting. When it was all over, Obama had eked out a 51% win in the State of Florida.

If the Republican-controlled legislature of the good state of Florida has its way, there will be no more of THAT. According to a front-page article in today's L.A. Times:

Early voting was reduced from two weeks to one week. Voting on the Sunday before election day was eliminated. College students face new hurdles if they want to vote away from home. And those who register new voters face the threat of fines for procedural errors, prompting the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to suspend voter registration drives and accuse the Legislature of "reverting to Jim Crow-like tactics."

Election laws tightening in Republican-run states - latimes.com

What is this really all about? Election rules are being changed in Republican-controlled states in a way that will make it more difficult for demographic groups perceived to be Democatic, to get the polls to vote.

Slimy? You bet. But, then, this is politics . . . .

tightening up election fraud is always a heartache for some, ..I don't get it, its apolitical.

 

[George Costanza]

Let me get this right..... the rules changes are designed to only effect Democrats? That is your claim right?

Explain to us why these changes would only impact Democrats and Obama supporters.

Not my claim. All I am doing is citing an article and linking y'all up to it. It is not all that clear from the article - but, as I read it, extending the voting times somehow enabled more Blacks and Latinos to come in and vote and, since Blacks and Latinos are predominately Democratic, it increased the vote for the Democratic contender in 2008, Obama.

Restricting the early voting time would, therefore, reduce the number of Blacks and Latinos who would be voting and, therefore, the number of Democratic votes.

Frankly, it is not clear to me from reading the article, exactly how extending the voting times meant that more Blacks and Latinos could come in and vote. Nonetheless, that is the conclusion they draw. It is a statistical fact that Blacks and Latinos vote more Democratic than Republican.

I guess the idea is that there was (is) something about the schedules of Blacks and Latinos that makes them unable to come in and vote in a small window of time, while other voters do not seem to have that problem.

Hell, I don't know, Gunny - read the article yourself.

Edit Note: The new election laws proposed by Republican Legislatures make it more difficult for students to vote. More students vote Demorcratic than Republican.

 

[DiamondDave]

Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.

People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.

People who have lost home, or who couch surf, or whatever have no ID?? People with legal trouble or warrants are checked?? Or they have a right to hide?? They are checked for working under the table??

This is probably the dumbest shit I have ever heard

 

[Samson]

Let me get this right..... the rules changes are designed to only effect Democrats? That is your claim right?

Explain to us why these changes would only impact Democrats and Obama supporters.

Not my claim. All I am doing is citing an article and linking y'all up to it. It is not all that clear from the article - but, as I read it, extending the voting times somehow enabled more Blacks and Latinos to come in and vote and, since Blacks and Latinos are predominately Democratic, it increased the vote for the Democratic contender in 2008, Obama...

One of the requirements is that you show ID

But Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the GOP drive was triggered by "the infamous example of ACORN," the collection of community organizations which, he said, submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. He called the new laws "common-sense proposals" to "preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote."

 

[The Rabbi]

The GOP won control in FL. Elections have consequences. Deal with it.

 

[BOBO]

I say ban demmies from voting altogether then do the same thing to the repubies. Then the Constitutionally based 3rd parties will vote for both the DNC/GOP crowd & save everybody a LOT of nit picking, whining & bitching, crying & sobbing, temper tantrums, rigging & cheating & a host of other maladies that have the DNC/GOP constituency acting like a bunch of spoiled rotten brats.
If you DNC/GOP bozo's took the time to study & understand our U.S. Constitution & possessed the wisdom/maturity to abide by such, we could ALL be enjoying life instead of listening to you brats trying to play the social position game, pandering for a free ride & power playing games between the 2 supposed different major parties. You guys wonder why taxes are so gawdamed high & why your kids come home from overseas in a coffin... it's because of this straying from our Constitution so you can squabble between yourselves for your perverted entertainment.
Quit your whining & bitching, bone up on our Constitution, be INDIVIDUALLY responsible & work towards bettering our lot as a whole ACCORDING to our Constitution. It's called 'Getting A Life'.

What - no comment from anyone on this? No one attacking the source of the article? No one disputing the basis for the article?

Come ON . . . .

 

[Avorysuds]

The only reason the ID thing is an issue is because Dems think they might lose voters... Now I ask, who do you think you might lose?

It should be required to have photo ID to vote, there is no reason for that not to be.

 

[kaz]

Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it

Democrats think people too lazy to get a valid ID in order to vote are more likely to vote for them.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only reason the ID thing is an issue is because Dems think they might lose voters... Now I ask, who do you think you might lose?

It should be required to have photo ID to vote, there is no reason for that not to be.

You need one to get on an airplane, to get a firearm, and a host of other things. Why should voting be reserved for fraud?

 

[JamesMorrison]

Here in Jersey we have one day to vote and we have the U.S.'s most concentrated population. So one week to vote seems more than reasonable; add in the absentee ballot and the State of NJ somehow muddles through Election Day.

Actually, I would be in favor of not only a single day to vote but Photo ID requirements to keep election fraud to a minimum, but then, constitutionally, it really is up to the powers that be in each state (like that of redistricting) so those who would like to label this as 'moving the goal posts' and feel the need for redress need to start a constitutional amending process. Those Dems or Repubs seeking to change the state electoral allotment process like ‘winner take all’ need to understand this can backfire since it is a double edged sword and can cut both ways.

JM