The vote counters have huge power in close elections:
“Circle instead of X? The intent is still clear.”
“No, real Americans would know that ‘X’ means X. I’m not accepting ballots by illegal aliens.”
I’ve bumped the thread to try to make a little money. Anybody want to wager that Democrat Jim Glenn, now ahead by 1 vote or 3 votes depending on the count, will actually get to sit in the Kentucky legislature when the R’s get through with him?
Thrump-appointed U.S. Attorney Robert Higdon is pursuing several isolated single-vote cases — which only an idiot could imagine as part of a real plot to subvert an election — while ignoring evidence of systemic absentee voting fraud in is district.
And of course, none of the legal eagles who were squawking about voter ID have the spine to show up here and comment. In fact the head squawker has shown himself to be more of a giant chicken now that we can point to the only major case found to manipulate the votes was carried out by the GOP. Really pathetic.
It’s not voter fraud if there is an orchestrated GOP plan to screw with absentee ballots in order to get more votes and win the election. It’s only voter fraud if someone THINKS that there MIGHT BE an illegal alien voting somewhere, somehow. Because it’s important to respect that person’s FEELINGS about voter fraud.
Here in Iowa, where the hard-right loony wing of the GOP has control of the Statehouse and the governorship, you can be assured of a steady stream of ridiculous proposals coming down the pipe (the most glaringly obvious is a bill to change the non-partisan system of nominating judges, because the GOP keeps passing unconstitutional discriminatory laws and the courts keep knocking them down, so naturally the Republicans feel they have to put their thumbs on the scales of [selecting] justice[s]) …
But to this thread: a bill changing several elements around elections is working its way through the Statehouse. Given it’s the GOP behind it, you can imagine it isn’t really designed to expand voting to more people: there’s a reduction of poll hours, there’s a requirement to validate signatures on absentee ballots, there’s a prohibition on state-owned property (like public universities) being used as polling places, you get the gist. Perhaps the most eye-opening provision, though, would be a requirement for all college students to fill out a form indicating whether or not they intended to stay in Iowa after graduation, and if the answer is “no,” they would be stricken from voter registration rolls.
Now, it’s obvious why Republicans want to suppress turnout by younger voters. It’s also laughably easy to subvert this regulation, simply by indicating “yes” on the form regardless of one’s actual plans. My question is this - if you’re going to require this of college students, shouldn’t you also ask every citizen of the state if they plan to move away in the next couple of years, and take away their votes? Hmm, I wonder why that’s not included in this bill?
(Any suckers here think those rejected ballots would have been unrejected if the R was ahead by 2 votes?) The R’s couldn’t find another vote to cheat with but they’d gotten it to a tie and a coin-toss!
Give Johnson (R) a little credit. He gave up his coin toss to avoid a lawsuit, though of course he needed t first defame his opponent with “not accepting the rule of ‘law’ (i.e. GOP malfeasance).”
Uh, WTF Iowa? Wouldn’t public property be the ideal place to perform a civic function? My polling place is in a private Protestant church, and I always think it’s a strange place to hold such a public function.
I’m cross-posting these from another thread. GOP measures to suppress democracy are becoming more and more egregious. It’s disgraceful that Americans are not up-in-arms about all this.
Police and prosecutors have great discretion about whether to arrest or prosecute. It’s safe to assume these laws would be applied very selectively. Poor people want to avoid wasting gasoline and may not have a car at all. The mind boggles to imagine such laws could be thought fair.
I thought I was cynical, but these laws stun me. Someone who’s on speaking terms with the Board’s Trumpists: Poke them and ask what they think about these laws. Too bad Bricker’s gone missing. It would be ticklish to hear his equivocating answer.
“The card says ‘moops’”. To the degree that they think about it at all, what do you expect? It’s technically legal, it’s good for them, and if they believe that voter fraud is an actual problem (which they believe), it’s a good thing that poor people can’t bus their friends in.
This story is old news but is too delicious not to repost.
Briefly, it involves former Colorado Republican Party chairman Steve Curtis who’s a staunch opponent of voter fraud and said “every case of voter fraud I can remember in my lifetime was committed by Democrats.” Recently felony charges were brought in Colorado against a voting fraudster(*) — read the article to see if the fraudster was a Democrat, as Curtis predicted. (No, like most voter fraud it wouldn’t have been prevented with ID. Are you having trouble following the discussion?)
Yes, you guess it! — the felonious voting fraudster was … Steve Curtis himself.
Sorry,
With 30 Million plus illegal aliens, I expect only Citizens to vote. Not, confused Mexicans that forgot to go home after their vacation 30 years ago.
I have heard rumors that Republicans deliberately mount obstacles to voting by blacks or by others likely to vote Democrats. Apparently there is some foundation to this!
In America’s defense, some other countries have democracies as corrupt as America’s — Kosovo is cited as an example.
Here’s a tricky moral dilemma for me. Part of me wants to give Republicans a little credit in the self awareness department for knowing and recognizing that they can’t win fair elections, and that the voice of the people is not on their side.
But another part of me doesn’t.
I know, if I gerrymander my brain into lopsided segments maybe that will help me decide.
The November election will be dominated by Republican cheating. The pandemic will give them many opportunities to suppress voting selectively. This topic should be an important thread in P & E; I hope someone else will start a thread.
Trump will almost certainly win re-election.
**Only five states (FL, WI, PA, MI, NH) are at all likely to be tipping states — only these states matter!** If Trump wins Florida, the Democrat must sweep the (swingable) Rust Belt. If Biden wins Florida (unlikely?) he only needs to also get PA or MI or both WI and NH.
Florida has both houses of Legislature and the Governorship in GOP hands. Kiss it good bye. Thus to win the White House, the D candidate will need all of Pennsylvania (has GOP legislature), Michigan (has GOP legislature), Wisconsin (has GOP legislature) and Minnesota. As we see in the link above, Wisconsin also has a GOP Supreme Court which stepped in to suppress the vote.
They actually may not have to actively do anything, but keep the party faithful listening to the orange yam. Given the difference between the partiesin terms of the degree to which they take the threat seriously there is likely to be a huge disparity in the parties in terms of in person voting.
They’ll find a way to screw voters in these states, and if they don’t, they’ll probably find a way to delegitimize the results, call the election results fraudulent, and throw it to the House of Representatives, where they would probably win that way.