Early Voting Is Secure. So Why Are GOP Against It?

@mott-the-hoople said
of course the state is relevant, each state has their own rules. Now, state which state said this was to prevent fraud?

Iowa ( I already wrote that).

@kevin-eleven said
Do they pay the poll workers in Iowa? Maybe it was just to save money.

I don't see how 20 days is especially restrictive. Probably 11 days would be plenty in most locations (starting two Saturdays before election day). In big cities it might be better to have a longer period.

Also, maybe they are doing it mostly for economy but are pitching it as fraud prevention to make sure they have a good turnout for the next election.

Maybe. It could be symbolic but it just seems arbitrary. I think if it were a cost saving measure they would say that and it'd be a whole lot less partisan.

@wildgrass said
Iowa ( I already wrote that).

they didnt say it was to prevent fraud. Are you mistaken? The law aims to make voting the same across the state.

@suzianne said
What we're seeing is a huge backlash against the fact that mail-in voting caught the Republicans flat-footed. Now that they know people like it, they're pulling out the stops to make it harder to use it.

Mail-in voting isn't perfect and it should be improved.

But mail-in voting raised a red flag for the GOP.
Not because of the potential for fraud.
But more because it nullified the voter suppression tactics the GOP have had in place.
Gerrymandering, re-districting, etc ....

@metal-brain said
Flat footed people can run. Their feet are just sore afterwards. You are using expressions you do not understand.
This thread is not about mail in voting, but mail in voting makes voting fraud a lot easier, especially vote buying. Trump was right about that.

You are criticizing expressions you don't understand. "Flat footed" is in contrast to "being on your toes"

@mghrn55 said
Mail-in voting isn't perfect and it should be improved.

But mail-in voting raised a red flag for the GOP.
Not because of the potential for fraud.
But more because it nullified the voter suppression tactics the GOP have had in place.
Gerrymandering, re-districting, etc ....

“ But more because it nullified the voter suppression tactics the GOP have had in place. ”

explain this

@mghrn55 said
Mail-in voting isn't perfect and it should be improved.

But mail-in voting raised a red flag for the GOP.
Not because of the potential for fraud.
But more because it nullified the voter suppression tactics the GOP have had in place.
Gerrymandering, re-districting, etc ....

It's the DEMS that do the gerrymandering and redistricting to benefit them.

@mott-the-hoople said
“ But more because it nullified the voter suppression tactics the GOP have had in place. ”

explain this

mgrmn55...you get a case of lockjaw?

@mott-the-hoople said
they didnt say it was to prevent fraud. Are you mistaken? The law aims to make voting the same across the state.

No not mistaken. All Democrats voted against it. "The law aims to make voting the same" even though the prior rules (29 days and 9pm closure) was a statewide thing? That "sameness" doesn't makes sense as a rationale.

Indeed, the time restrictions are part of a broader bill that includes other measures too like restrictions on drop boxes. Republican Sen. Jason Schultz, of Schleswig, said he supports the proposal because, in his words, “It addresses the controversy that the country is going through right now.” The controversy, of course, is about election fraud. Not sameness.

Moreover, Republicans are forcing similar stuff in other states like Texas, whose bill, if it ever gets passed, explicitly dealing with voter fraud 'allegations' included at one point the restrictions on the time people can cast an in-person vote.

There are a few good points brought up here about why 29 days might be too many days. But why is it only the GOP wants to make me leave work early on Tuesday? If absentee ballots were the issue, shouldn't we be aiming to expand the time window for people to vote in person? Wouldn't that eliminate the concern? Why are we saying "don't vote by mail, but also don't vote on Sundays or after 9 pm"?

People tooling around town with nothing to do at 2 pm on a Tuesday are not the ones who should be picking our political leaders.

@wildgrass said
Unlike mail ballots, which in theory could be faked in ways that in-person ballots couldn’t (though in reality, mail ballots aren’t), early voting at a polling place is essentially identical, in terms of security, to voting on Election Day. Letting people vote early and in person would allow people to vote who work on Tuesdays. Certainly it doesn’t make it easier to cheat. ...[text shortened]... rationale for shortening the in person time window to what is essentially just working hours? Why?

Republicans want certain people to be able to vote and others not.

Like in Texas (where they have a long history of this sort of behaviour). Their proposals wanted to curb Sunday voting. This would directly influence black church going communities which promote mass voting after services.

Their proposal also includesa gun license as a voter ID and excludes university ID’s as a voter ID.

So, you can see they want gun-toting red necks voting and young intellectuals and blacks not.

Presumably one of these groups votes republican.

What I don’t get is why the black churches or uni students don’t sue the State and force the issue to the supreme court. Let them judge it by article 15 (or whatever) and shoot it down.

@mott-the-hoople said
of course the state is relevant, each state has their own rules. Now, state which state said this was to prevent fraud?

Governor Kemp of Georgia, for one. He is also quick to point out that Georgia's new law is not as restrictive as Delaware, Biden's home. Go figure.
I guess I am ignorant after all......I still don't know why the nature of voting that has gone on for 100 years has to be changed this week. What in the hell?
Seems like all of our worlds turned upside down when those very strange looking women called the squad showed up.

@shavixmir said
Republicans want certain people to be able to vote and others not.
.

What I don’t get is why the black churches or uni students don’t sue the State and force the issue to the supreme court. Let them judge it by article 15 (or whatever) and shoot it down.

Because they would not prevail. And voting laws vary from state to state.... it is not the biz of SCOTUS, unless there is a constitutional issue. What do you think that that could be?

@averagejoe1 said
Because they would not prevail. And voting laws vary from state to state.... it is not the biz of SCOTUS, unless there is a constitutional issue. What do you think that that could be?

A breach of article 15 of your constitution.

I hear you right-wing retards defend your constitution like it was snails in garlic butter when it comes to article 2.
Y’all seem a little lax about the other articles.

@shavixmir said
A breach of article 15 of your constitution.

I hear you right-wing retards defend your constitution like it was snails in garlic butter when it comes to article 2.
Y’all seem a little lax about the other articles.

So it has been being breached for all these hundred years? Who knew?!!!??

@averagejoe1 said
So it has been being breached for all these hundred years? Who knew?!!!??

That is not what I wrote.

But why live and die by article 2, yet care so little of article 15?

Seems a little hypocrite.