I’m not Bricker and I’m certainly not Shodan (and you are certainly Not Carlson), but I’d say they will both point out that the quote/recording of Kemp is hardly dispositive regarding vote suppression. He is clearly exhorting his party to “offset” the large Democratic turnout he expects with their own GOTV effort.
Now, from the totality of his actions as Secretary of State, and even prior to that over the last dozen years, I think it’s more than clear that Kemp is doing everything he can to reduce black voter registration and participation in Georgia.
Brian Kemp is a vote suppressin’ mofo, but the quote doesn’t show that unless taken out of context and spun like a top. And I’d prefer that my side of an argument doesn’t do that.
The context is that Kemp has on several occassions used his possition to implement or enforce voter restrictions that have in their effect clearly disadvantaged Democrats and black voters particularly.
The question of whether this was by intent is, I believe, answered by his statement that he is concerned that there still looks to be a large number of voters exercising their (as yet still legal) right to cast early ballots.
I see no reason to give this man any benefit of the doubt.
Gosh, I wonder if you could make that charge without citing the totally non-damning recording that doesn’t in any way corroborate the already blindingly obvious.
You know, you’re right.
This isn’t a smoking gun, and this snippet of audio recording certainly isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced of Kemp’s quite blatant efforts of voter suppression, as you alluded to.
Maybe, as you suggested, he just meant to say that he’s worried that the Dems are rallying their supporters effectively and so the Republican’s need to redouble their efforts to rally their own. That would be a not unreasonable interpretation in the absence of any context to suggest otherwise.
But given the context that you and I are both quite aware of, I don’t think it requires any spin at all to suggest that the particular words he used, in front of a friendly audience, are telling of his attitude toward voter participation.
I myself am inclined to think his words reflect exactly what is on his mind — his concern that large numbers of citizens will exercise their right to vote — and that this is further evidence of his antithesis to the principles of democracy.
I acknowledge that this is a biased interpretation.
I’ll agree Kemp is certainly not happy that Abrams -and other groups on her behalf- has run a fairly successful GOTV drive. And you’re right that it’s not at all a stretch to read antipathy toward non-white, non-conservative voter participation. I’m guessing he’d prefer that those sorts not vote, or if they do that their votes not be counted. And he’s in a position to do something about it, which I also agree makes his rhetoric regarding Democratic turnout disturbing.
Which was surprising, because in general, you seem quite keen on preventing “the wrong sort” of people from voting. Felons, here - and in voting ID threads, you’ve frequently expressed the idea that if someone is too stupid or lazy to secure a government ID, then you’re absolutely okay with preventing them from voting. But if someone suggests (as in the linked thread) that Republican idiots will vote in bad law - with zero mention of disenfranchising them, mind - they get a lecture about how important it is for everyone to be able to vote.
I don’t see any inconsistency between accepting some minimum requirements for voting (ID, not be a felon, make sure your ballot is submitted by the time the polls close, etc) and supporting the idea of representative democracy wherein the voters (as opposed to Czarcasm alone) make decisions about who should govern.
“Accepting” is the passive voice, “imposing” is more appropriate. What level of restriction is required? Is the purpose is to impose some ritual of obedience, so that the lazy and/or feckless do not drift aimlessly to the polling places to cast. Because that would be bad?
But the Counselor advanced these arguments because he refused to argue about anything else. We were talking about using voter ID laws to one party’s political gain, about legislating an electoral advantage. He “rebutted” arguments not being made by telling us, once again, how needful such laws were.
I propose that we keep residents of gated communities sequestered on election day. Protect them from cannibals and werewolves, who are attracted to the fat and juicy. You object, pointing out that this will disadvantage many Republican voters of the fat and juicy demographic, legislating an unfair advantage to the Dems. I blink, and then tell you, once again, about the dreadful threat of cannibals and werewolves.
This does not rebut your objection, it does not answer it. It ignores it and changes the subject. Also, it annoys the living shit out of otherwise genial and tolerant people.
Except that literally nobody in that thread was saying that only they should make decisions about who should govern. This is the post that set Bricker off:
Czarcasm and myself were later lumped in as anti-democracy when we pointed out that his position was stupid and not remotely related to anything that had actually been posted.
Now, personally, I don’t agree with voter ID laws or disenfranchising felons, but I don’t think either of those positions necessarily make you anti-democracy. Bricker, on the other hand, decreed that simply being worried that people will make bad decisions in the polling booth makes you anti-democracy. If that’s so, then surely actively preventing people from voting because you think they’ll make bad decisions must also be anti-democracy.
I’m in favor of everyone voting, to be sure, as long as they conform to the requirements for voting. If the people of a state express the policy preference that felons cannot vote, then I don’t favor felons voting. I am concerned, in other words about giving full effect to the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Everything I have said is consistent with that approach.
In the case where the representatives were elected due to gerrymandering and/or voter suppression, rather than the true exercise of democratic will through fair voting, then you still regard those results as reflecting the “will of the people” because the prior representatives who approved the suppression and gerrymandering were themselves “elected” and can be construed as reflecting the will of the electorate. Right?
Lest the point be unclear, here’s an extreme example. Poll taxes and unequally applied literacy tests were instituted in the South to impede black voting. These measures were made by “elected representatives” and therefore reflected the “will of the people,” right? Even though those “elected representatives” were elected in elections where blacks were unable to vote.
So, if the people of a state express the policy preference that blacks/latinos/jews/gays/women/transexuals cannot vote, the you don’t favor blacks/latinos/jews/gays/women/transexuals voting? You are concerned about giving the full effect to the will of the people allowed to vote as expressed their elected representatives.
Yes, everything you have said has been consistent with that approach. You are in favor of everyone voting, as long as they are allowed to vote by the rules that are created by the representatives elected by those who are allowed to vote.
There’s lots of way to do that. Pick the one that offers no partisan advantage. I still approve of sequestering gated communities, but am willing to negotiate.
Except you also favor adding additional roadblocks to allowing people to vote that do not currently exist, and are arguing against changing the law to allow a broader pool of voters. So you are, in fact, in favor of preventing “the wrong sort” from voting - “the wrong sort” defined entirely by your own metrics. Which is precisely what you accused people of doing in the other thread.
Why not everyone (at least 18 years old and a US citizen)?
What is so difficult about that? In Australia voting is compulsory. I do not think it should be compulsory in the US but it shows that everyone voting is doable.