Maybe OLEO stands for the Organization of Lies and Evasion Organization.
They also support useless repetition.
OK.
I don’t agree you have, but as long as you’re happy.
Which we must renounce, denounce, and condemn!
Bricker? OREO? Is this thing on? Hello?
OLEO! D’oh!
Why don’t you agree? They got rid of the days that had the best early turnout. Was that by accident?
Those same days were the last days before. The high turnout is explained simply by those being the last days. The next election will have similar figures for the new “last days.”
Okay, I can see that if there are early voting days at all, the last of those early days could be busier since people procrastinate. Fine.
Now, why were ANY days removed? Budget cuts?
The new “last days” leave a totally unnecessary gap, which will undoubtedly lead to at least some people trying to vote on what they think is the last day, but won’t be allowed. That’s totally avoidable – if days have to be removed, why would they remove the “logical” last days? They could remove days at the earliest part of the early voting period, and anyone who tried to vote on those days would just learn that they could vote later.
By removing days at the end of the voting period, there will be people who want to vote but can’t, because they were a little behind on the news. This is an entirely avoidable problem. I believe that the GOP architects of this idea don’t see this as a problem – they see this as a boon. Their explanation is wholly unsatisfactory for explaining why this gap exists.
The simplest and most logical explanation is that the GOP removed those days and are leaving the gap because they want to leave the gap in the voting period, and the simplest and most logical reason for that is that they think it will help them win elections.
By the way, I also Googled “Ohio oleo vote” and I can’t find an obvious reference to any advisory body named OLEO. I did find a page from a 1949 issue of the Toledo Blade with a headline saying “Colored Oleo Vote Assured in Ohio”, which turned out be about margerine and not minority enfranchisement, though it was immediately next to an article headlined: “Negroes Appeal Racial Zoning.”
Granpa? What are “Negroes”?
This simply doesn’t follow at all unless you have the conclusion pre-built in and are trying to draw arrows to it. As evidenced by the previous paragraph.
Have you been following this whole conversation? There is plenty more to this than that one post.
Yes, I have. The entire fucking mess. You’re logic and leaps don’t follow unless you are pre-assuming the GOP are lying, thieving, election stealing bastards and are trying to draw the conversation to taht conclusion.
It’s how the chemtrail people work too… no offense. I assumed you better than that.
Okay, I obviously disagree. I look at this trend of GOP pushes, especially in swing states and swing districts, to alter voting requirements (including both ID requirements and early voting), universally in ways that will negatively affect Democratic turnout to the benefit of the GOP. Because there is no evidence of significant voter fraud, anywhere at all, I don’t believe this is a coincidence. I believe this is politically motivated.
This really isn’t going out on a limb. I believe the Democrats are politically motivated in fighting against this as well – assuming a political action is politically motivated is not particularly risky, in general. The Democrats want to protect their own turnout, and make their own turnout as high as possible. So while both sides are politically motivated, I believe, I also think that trying to make it harder for people to vote is morally worse than trying to make it easier, without significant evidence of voter fraud.
And I add to this statements explicitly supporting this idea by various Republican officials.
And I’m still not 100% certain. Maybe the Republicans are all just brilliant guys who are idiots when it comes to explaining why they’re doing this – but the explanations they provide, except for the ones that explicitly say things like “this will help Romney win Pennsylvania!”, do not fit the facts.
Fair enough. However, that being said, I do not imagine a scenario where the Pubs give an explanation that Dems/ Libs/ non-Pubs / choose your non-specific political affiliation or bent will say “OK, I believe you.” without saying, “We just want to restrict this election to WASP-y rich old men who have donated over 10K to their local conservative organization. Fuck the brown-skinned and the poor.”
That’s not what I think the explanation is. I think it’s more like this:
‘Why should voting be easy? We want to make voter fraud impossible, even though it barely happens as it is now. And we don’t feel the need to spend any money at all to make voting easier for folks who are too lazy to get off their butts on election day, or too poor and lazy to get IDs, or voters who don’t know which days to vote, or voters who didn’t bother registering ahead of time. Especially because those folks are more likely to vote Democratic. And this is going to help us win elections. And we can get away with it, so let’s do it.’
Well, can you? :dubious:
OK… so I guess that’s my point. No explanation is going to satisfy you unless they come out on Fox twirling their moustaches while tying Tess to the tracks and lighting crosses on lawns. I’m not necessarily convinced this is reality. I’m also not convinced the government sprays nerve agents out the backs of secret black ops jets, however, there are many that do.
So what innocent explanation do *you *offer?