Re: Question for John McAdams

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:21 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:21:43 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:15:07 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > On 3 Mar 2021 05:12:05 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > >On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 1:01:59 AM UTC+1, x wrote: 
> > > >> On 3/1/2021 6:54 PM, Glenn V. wrote: 
> > > >> > On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:01:42 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > >> >> On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <[email protected]> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> It didn't used to be this way. Not all that long ago, all 
> > > >> you needed to show was a voter registration card. This was 
> > > >> an index card sized piece of heavy paper that had your name 
> > > >> and address, but nothing more. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> By way of comparison, in Mexico, you have to have a dedicated 
> > > >> voter ID in order to cast a ballot. This ID not only has your 
> > > >> photo and address, it also carries your fingerprint. 
> > > >> > - You cannot vote by mail, no need for this since those who, for any 
> > > >> > reason, can't vote in person are still able to vote. 
> > > >> So here's one difference. You can vote by mail in the US. 
> > > >> The question is, are there proper safeguards against 
> > > >> fraud? 
> > > >> > - You can vote by using a courier (of your choice) who will bring the vote 
> > > >> > to election officials at polling stations. 
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > - If you have no courier, officially appointed local election couriers (2) 
> > > >> > will visit your home, get your vote and deliver it to election officials 
> > > >> > in your district. 
> > > >> What constitutes a "courier" in Sweden? Could that be anyone? Or is there 
> > > >> some legal requirements and limitations as to who can take on that role? 
> > > >> 
> > > >> In this US, this is generally where all the ballot 
> > > >> harvesting happens. 
> > > >> > - Of course, you can go to a nearby official polling station before or on 
> > > >> > election day to vote, in person. 
> > > >> Same is true here. 
> > > >> > And needless to say, the procedures, controls and paper work regulating 
> > > >> > all those options are strictly implemented and followed up in detail in 
> > > >> > order to avoid voting fraud. 
> > > >> Those exist in the US as well. Or so they say. How it works 
> > > >> out in reality is a little bit different. 
> > > >> > Time for you and the others now to answer the questions I raised above. 
> > > >> There are no terrible "high barriers" here. That's just a bunch of 
> > > >> whargarrbl spewed by certain groups who've benefitted from the loose 
> > > >> standards of the status quo. And stand to lose if those standards are 
> > > >> tightened. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> The various proposed changes to voting laws that create such a fuss don't 
> > > >> seem to be liable to create any onerous new barriers. If anything, these 
> > > >> would seem to bring US election laws more in line with international 
> > > >> norms. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> BTW, this came across my news feed last week: 
> > > >> 
> > > >> https://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/four-people-including-justice-of 
> > > >> the-peace-arrested-on-150-counts-of-voter-fraud 
> > > > 
> > > >“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, 
> > > >the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice 
> > > >Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing. 
> > > > 
> > > You mean they don't live in the precinct where they vote? 
> > > 
> > > Do you even understand that voting precincts are *geographic?* 
> > > 
> > > If you move, you have to register in the new place. 
> > > 
> > > Otherwise people anywhere could vote in an district they wanted. They 
> > > could swamp the locals with their votes. 
> > > >“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to 
> > > >Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's 
> > > >restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote 
> > > >they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, 
> > > >it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing 
> > > >an election 51 to 50.” 
> > > > 
> > > >Well, Brock. This is a quote from the SC hearings today. Unlike what I see 
> > > >here, a republican lawyer speaking it out loud. "A competitive 
> > > >disadvantage". "A zero-sum game". There we have it. 
> > > Are you really this dense? 
> > > 
> > > It's an *unfair* competitive disadvantage. 
> > > 
> > > People have a right to litigate unfair voting rules. And *of course* 
> > > the party benefiting from the unfairness isn't going to litigate, or 
> > > fix it without a court order. 
> > > > 
> > > >So, am I surprised that no one here see any problems with bills introduced 
> > > >to restrict voting in the US? Not one bit, frankly. All republicans, all 
> > > >on home turf when supporting this. All white men, too? 
> > > > 
> > > That's racist and sexist. 
> > > 
> > > You really are neck deep in identity politics. 
> > > >So let's see. Once again, Georgia. Five million votes. Three recounts. 
> > > >Resulting in appr. -900 votes for Biden, in total. Completely in line with 
> > > >everything acceptable as an alection with no significant problems of voter 
> > > >fraud. No irregularities. As confirmed by republican election officials in 
> > > >this state. 
> > > > 
> > > >Still, bill after bill is now being introduced in Georgia with one single 
> > > >purpose; to reduce voter participation. Has nothing to do with voter fraud 
> > > >whatsoever. John want me “learn about identity politics”. 
> > > >But does he also recognize that those bills in Georgia are, by design, 
> > > >targeting minorities; black voters? 
> > > > 
> > > Don't you understand that any bill that seeks election security is 
> > > going to be *claimed* to target minority voters? 
> > > 
> > > Are "minority voters" so lazy and stupid they can't abide by fair 
> > > rules? 
> > > 
> > > If you believe that, you are racist against blacks, in addition to 
> > > being racist toward white males. 
> > > >Stacey Abrams ten year long efforts – among other things - to get 
> > > >people of minorities to vote, paid off. And now the republicans in Georgia 
> > > >have realized they are at risk of losing more elections moving forward to 
> > > >the midterms, if nothing is done. And yes Brock, I do very much understand 
> > > >how significant what happened in Georgia really is. This was a true earth 
> > > >quake in American politics, losing to the state to Biden and losing the 
> > > >two senate seats. And that's exactly why it's a very good example to 
> > > >understand what the republicans are now up to. Hundreds and hundreds of 
> > > >bills all over the US with one thing in common, to restrict voting. And 
> > > >this, my friend, is a fact. 
> > > > 
> > > You mean bills to require voter ID, such as Sweden has? 
> > > 
> > > And bills to outlaw mail-in voting, which is illegal in Sweden? 
> > > >So Brock. I brought Georgia up early in this thread. No comments, so far. 
> > > That is simply untrue. 
> > > >Which speaks volumes. I understand that most here would much more like to 
> > > >discuss elections in Sweden than defending the indefensible, of which 
> > > >these v oter restriction proposals in Georgia are a good example, a very 
> > > >good example. 
> > > > 
> > > Discussing Sweden shows your double standard. 
> > > >And of course, the lawyer in the Supreme Court today, should we perhaps 
> > > >assume he's out of business with the republicans, shortly? 
> > > Huh? 
> > > 
> > > .John 
> > > ------------------------------- 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > John, 
> > 
> > I'd expected more from you. Much more. Your patronizing debate style 
> > doesn't do you any favors, in my opinion. The way you just simply attack, 
> > on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably 
> > juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into 
> > anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now. 
> > 
> > However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative 
> > reality denier. Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far 
> > as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this 
> > thread with his head held high. 
> > 
> > The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible 
> > from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think 
> > twice about their policies in certain areas, instead of trying desperately 
> > to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US 
> > people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP 
> > choose their way. 
> > 
> > That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and 
> > the conservative movement in the US. 
> >
> By "depending on excluding as many as possible from voting," do you mean 
> fraudulent voters. Why do liberals object to reasonable safeguards being 
> put into place to make sure only eligible voters are able to cast ballots? 

I don't. #If it ain't broken, dont fix it" remember? Nothing has come out 
of this election that supports that. The GOP was fine with all of it, 
untill they lost the election?

> How does that exclude anybody from casting a vote? Voting is very easy to 
> do in our country. You show up at the polls, show identification to prove 
> you are the person who is on the voter registration, and you are allowed 
> to vote. If you are unable to show up to the polls on election day for 
> whatever reason, you can request an absentee ballot which you then send in 
> to the board of elections. It couldn't be easier. 

I've explained how it's done here. You can do the same. Not simply take 
measures that will, positively, make things harder for non gop districts. 
Spend the resources and do it the right way, not rocket science.

Eliminating those 
> safeguards makes it much easier for fraudulent votes to be cast and every 
> fraudulent vote cast disenfranchises a legitimate voter because it cancels 
> out their vote.

Make sure it doesn't, spend the required resources.