Re: Question for John McAdams

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:16:02 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 11:04:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > On 23 Feb 2021 18:03:33 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > >On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:19:35 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > >> On 21 Feb 2021 23:48:43 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >> >John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would 
> > > >> >think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia. 
> > > >> > 
> > > >> >So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee 
> > > >> >ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter 
> > > >> >participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those 
> > > >> >measures are pretty clear? 
> > > >> > 
> > > >> >Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy? 
> > > >> > 
> > > >> You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly 
> > > >> have plenty in Scandinavia. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as 
> > > >> evidence that the Democrats want to cheat. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia: 
> > > >> 
> > > >> https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/ 
> > > >> 
> > > >> There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making 
> > > >> voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it 
> > > >> super-easy to cheat. 
> > > > 
> > > >What's this? I'm not talking about "super easy" or not. I'm talking about 
> > > >free and fair elections where everyone who want to vote is, in fact, able 
> > > >to vote. You either have this ambition or you don't. You know, just like 
> > > >"Scandinavia" and the rest of Western Europe have organized their 
> > > >ambitions of inclusion of **all voters** in their democracies. 
> > > Are people in Europe required to show ID when voting? 
> > > 
> > > Are people allowed to mail in ballots? 
> > > 
> > > Is "ballot harvesting" allowed? That is, can somebody go into a 
> > > nursing home, get all the residents to sign ballots for the favorite 
> > > candidates of the harvesters, and then submit those? 
> > > > 
> > > >If Europe can do this, the US certainly can. If the will is there, the 
> > > >resources are there and the ambition to have a democracy of inclusion is 
> > > >there, in the first place. You either do this and have this ambition or 
> > > >you don't. Not a relative thing, this. And certainly no rocket science at 
> > > >all. 
> > > > 
> > > What you call "democracy of inclusion," if taken to the extreme, 
> > > allows fraud. There needs to be reasonable safeguards. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact 
> that 
> > > >> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank 
> > > >> account and even collect welfare! 
> > > >> 
> > > No response? 
> > > >> Note that in the article some election officials complained about 
> > > >> being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots. 
> > > > 
> > > >So why wasn't the proper resources to deal with these highly expected high 
> > > >numbers of absentee ballots allocated to the districts? 
> > > > 
> > > The COVID thing his a few months before the election, and you can't 
> > > instantly ramp up. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they 
> > > >> should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020 
> > > >> that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to 
> > > >> any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence 
> > > >> in the system. 
> > > > 
> > > >You don't think?? What evidence are you aware of that election officials 
> > > >around the US are not? Election officials from both camps and courts with 
> > > >judges appointed by both R's and D's? I'd be interested in hearing about 
> > > >the evidence for this? You're an expert in distinguishing evidence from 
> > > >fantasies and bs, as I recall. 
> > > > 
> > > You are just arguing that the election was not stolen. 
> > > 
> > > I'm pointing out that irregularities allow people to believe that the 
> > > election was stolen. Or even just doubt the legitimacy of the system. 
> > > 
> > > Again: elections should not merely *be* fair and honest, they should 
> > > *appear* to be fair and honest. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct 
> > > >> identity politics, eh? 
> > > > 
> > > >Yes, sure. Once you, perhaps, consider the fact that every single district 
> > > >in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Georgia and Arizona where the GOP 
> > > >wanted to throw out millions of votes are districts overwhelmingly 
> > > >dominated by non-white voters. Huh? 
> > > > 
> > > Those districts had Democrat election officials who would be prone to 
> > > cheat to help the Democrats. 
> > 
> > As a court has just found in Michigan... 
> > 
> > https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/03/16/mi-court-michigan-secretary-of-states-absentee-ballot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/ 
> > 
> > > It's obvious you a knee deep in identity politics. I'm sure that 
> > > makes you fell great about yourself, but it's a way of avoiding real 
> > > issues. 
> > > 
> > > .John 
> > > ----------------------- 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> There is no doubt election laws were broken in a number of key states. In 
> Pennsylvania the state legislature determined that mail in ballots had to 
> arrive by election day in order to be counted. The courts overruled that 
> by allowing those ballots to be collected for up to three days after the 
> election. The Constitution gives state legislatures the sole power to 
> determine how the electors are chosen. The courts illegally usurped that 
> power. 
> 
> There is also no doubt the disregarding of state laws worked to the 
> advantage of the Democrats. Donald Trump won the same day voting. It was 
> the mail in balloting that tipped the scales in five key states. Relaxing 
> of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being 
> counted than should have been allowed under the law. We will never know if 
> adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to 
> change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules 
> were bent to help the Democrat

And SCOTUS should have heard the challenges to those violations.  I 
totally reject that other States that actually *followed* Federal election 
laws have no standing to challenge the results in states where there is a 
contention those laws were not followed.  I don't care what can of worms 
it opens, each of the 50 States has a potential grievance when their 
sovereign will is being overturned based purported failure of another 
state to follow *Federal* election mandates.  (E.g., "The Legislature 
shall...")