Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:EAllusion wrote:It is an easy system to defraud, though. You just need to fill out the thing and send it back.
Oh. So there's no way to enforce voter fraud? Huh. Seems like an easy thing to manipulate by partisans, no?
I didn't say there was no way to enforce voter fraud. There are heavy penalties against voter fraud. I said it was easy to do. The reason that in-person voter fraud is essentially non-existent is that it makes little sense to risk a serious felony to alter the election outcome by 1/n millionth. A lesser version of that exists for mail-in fraud as the person doing it risks the actual voter separately attempting to vote. By enforce, I get the sense you mean, "catch." First, it being difficult to catch voter fraud wouldn't be a basis for accepting a pseudo-scientific method that deprives people of their liberty interests. Second, some forms of it are easy to catch. Others, not so much. There isn't the push against mail absentee voting there is the non-problem of in-person voter fraud because absentee ballots are widely believed to favor Republicans.
Whatever the case may be, all these people were unsuccessfully prevented from voting in Georgia
:
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cobb-c ... /855353900I wonder why they could figure out how to vote in a state that apparently makes it seems like rocket science to cast a ballot?
Number of first day early votes in Georgia in 2014: 20,898
Number of first day early votes in Georgia in 2018: 69,049
The 2nd day, it was just over 76,000
The 3rd day it was nearly 77,000.
That's 222k people who were suppressed, but somehow amazingly navigated the mindbogglingly difficult Georgian system of voting.
- Doc
I guess you weren't done arguing, "If some people can vote, that means there's nothing wrong with a political party making it difficult for other people likely to vote for the opposition to vote." That argument is as good now as it was then. Unfortunately, it's not as applicable to a situation where already cast ballots are being illegitimately thrown out in way that systematically reduces votes for one candidate. Oh, and the person in charge of that process is the candidate's opponent. Pointing out that other people got to vote? Not such a great argument.
Georgia is so rife with ballsy voter suppression and the Kemp / Abrams race is so close according to the polls, it's quite plausible that Kemp is going to win this election when he otherwise wouldn't have specifically because of voter suppression. But hey, turnout was high, so who cares, right?
You know, voter turnout was comparable to now during Jim Crow in the South. I guess that goes to show Southern democracy was healthy, the country was wrong to do anything about it, and blacks should've quit their belly-aching, right?