Re: Question for John McAdams

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 11:15:56 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
> 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 takey 
> measures that will, positively, make things harder for non gop districts. 

Explain how any of these measures makes it harder to vote in 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.

Your suggestion is a little sketchy on the details.  Just throwing money 
at a problem doesn't fix it.