Assuming what you describe above applies, what you’re saying is that if these individuals do read their mail, figure out how to work a stamp, and do show up at the polls and get turned away, that’s just their tough shit?
That’s not how rights work; a right is something that government shouldn’t be allowed to take away.
Tell that to felons who are not allowed to own a gun.
As I pointed out, no one is being disenfranchised. There do seem to be a lot of Georgians who can’t figure out how to read their mail or work a stamp. And if this is an evil scheme to target Democratic votes, the subjects of the scheme are people who didn’t vote anyway. So it is not a particularly clever, or well-targeted, scheme.
Like I’ve said before, Republicans are always being accused of thinking that Democratic voters are too lazy and stupid to do what everyone else does. And Democrats work themselves into a lather about stuff like the OP, because they think so too.
Those evil Republicans, who think that voters should be able to fill out a postcard and then actually go out and vote. Vs. the virtuous Democrats, who are deeply concerned about people for whom filling out a change-of-address form is a daunting chore. And who don’t even vote anyway.
Regards,
SHodan
No - I am saying that those who do read their mail, and manage to get a stamp to stick to an envelope containing their legally obligated notification of a change of address, won’t be turned away if and when they cast a ballot.
Regards,
Shodan
As I often say: The predictable effect is the desired effect.
I agree: you’ve said that before. Consistency is sometimes an admirable trait.
That’s 1 in 10 registered voters. Not eligible voters, registered voters.
Would it matter if it was 2 in 10? 5 in 10? What percentage of Georgia’s population would have to be removed from the voter rolls by this before you said, “Hmm, that’s a little odd…”
If you want to pursue this further, can you go into more detail about this obvious political move? What laws would be passed in states controlled by Democrats that would selectively disenfranchise rich GOP voters?
What a fascinating subject for a thread!
If you’re genuinely unable to come up with any political shenanigans off the top of your head that might accomplish this, start a new thread. I find it trivially easy to come up with some basic ideas, but also recognize that Republicans have devoted thousands of hours, tremendous political expertise, and incredible resources to refining their attempts, and even then a lot of their attempts have been ruled illegal. I’m not going to hijack this thread with my giving you off-the-top-of-my-head counterfactual ideas how Democrats could try to engage in similar legally-questionable strategies to disenfranchise people, when the entire point I’m making is that they’re not doing so. But this might be a fun Thread Game topic or something; go for it if you’d like.
Not to derail the thread, but one simple example: Since rural districts are growing more solidly Republican while urban districts are becoming more solidly Democratic, a law that made voting easier in areas with high population density would disadvantage Republicans.
Cite?
Rural districts are Republican, period. More Republican?
Also, a law that made voting easier. Even as a hypothetical example, that’s quaint to say the least.
And if more people voting “disadvantages” Republicans, that’s the will of the fuckin’ people already.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear: I should have said “a law that made voting more difficult in areas with low population density”.
The voter rolls were up to date. Those hundred thousand people were legitimate voters.
And in any case, automatic voter registration procedures are a far more efficient, accurate, and low-cost approach to keeping the voter rolls updated than these “postcard purge” campaigns.
I would never support any obviously partisan plan like you’re suggesting. In fact, I want to propose my clearly neutral registration plan.
In order to cut back on government spending, each state should only have one office for voters to register. And in order to serve the residents of the state in the most efficient manner, that one office will be located in the most populous county of the state.
So New York’s registration office will be located in Manhattan. California’s registration office will be located in Los Angeles. Illinois’ registration office will be in Chicago. Michigan’s registration office will be in Detroit. Florida’s registration office will be located in Miami. Texas’ registration office will be located in Houston. Ohio’s registration office will be located in Cleveland. Pennsylvania’s registration office will be located in Philadelphia. Georgia’s registration office will be located in Atlanta. And so on.
All anyone has to do in order to register is go to the registration office and pick up the paperwork. Then they can fill it out and turn it in the next day. The registration will all be handled in person so there’s no chance of interference with the mail or online systems.
I don’t see how anyone can claim that such a simple and transparent system is biased against any group or individual. It clearly treats everyone equally.
So we’re doing this here, not in Thread Games? That’s cool.
And, exactly.
Or, you remove the measures that make it easier for folks with disabilities to get to the polls, on the assumption that the elderly are disproportionately both disabled and Republican.
You reduce rural voting locations.
You put in measures that anyone with an outstanding IRS audit is unable to vote until their audit is complete (obviously fucked up, but so are measures that prevent felons from voting).
Prevent churches from being used as polling locations: we need to separate church and state.
Ahem, you mean Columbus! Other than that I’m with your neutral, thoroughly enfranchising plan 100%.