[jimmywanger]

> Because the goal of the Republican Party is explicitly to use these laws to suppress the votes of certain demographics, not to actually secure the vote.

Your linked source is talking about an entirely different issue. Does not prove your point about Republicans using voter id laws to suppress the votes of certain demographics, or that it's a point of the Republican party as a national organization to do that. All we know is that some Republicans are biased, just as all people have biases. Also, your source is not substantiated.

I'd be happier if proof of citizenship was required to vote, not just photo id. Don't know of a practical way to do that except to check passports, but the passport office would be overwhelmed.

[crooked-v]

> Your linked source is talking about an entirely different issue.

It's a court ruling that shut down North Carolina voter ID and early voting laws, in part because the defense of those laws included that that literal quote about it making harder for black people to vote.

> All we know is that some Republicans are biased, just as all people have biases.

When 'some' is enough to control a state legislature, and similar things happen across the country (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...), it's a logical conclusion.

> Also, your source is not substantiated.

It literally links directly to the court judgement.

[jimmywanger]

> When 'some' is enough to control a state legislature, and similar things happen across the country (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...), it's a logical conclusion.

I don't see how it follows that a state legislature's cupidity directly translates to a national party's intentions. That's a bridge too far. If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally. People are scumbags and are biased to try to make their side win in most situations.

>It literally links directly to the court judgement.

Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws.

[NotSammyHagar]

How about this:

1. 4 times Alec was caught talking with republican lawmakers about how to suppress the vote (Montana, Alabama, Phoenix, Omaha : https://www.mediamatters.org/american-legislative-exchange-c...

2. North Carolina suppression tactics https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-wont-stop-s...

3. More on N.C. voter id law to suppress voting: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-north-carolin...

It's not just some scattered occasional thing of a few bad actors. There are state by state actions and national conferences making this happen.

[crooked-v]

> If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally.

What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...

>Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws.

The judgment is on a law that affects both.

[jimmywanger]

> What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno....

That shows no evidence that they are willing to make their views public or that they are shared by republicans on a national level. There is absolutely no evidence for that. > The judgment is on a law that affects both.

That is not in evidence. The article you cited did not link the court decision mentioned. The court decision is only speaking to the decision to close polling spots on Sunday because it will suppress black, and majority Democratic voters.

[specialist]

If you doubt dozens of leaks, hundreds of exposés, archival records, court documents, and diaries from the operatives who coordinated the nationwide disenfranchisement campaigns:

What measure of proof do you require?

[pedasmith]

How about proof of citizenship for the right to a free press? Should we require a passport to get into church? Do only citizens get to walk into a post office? Do I need to show someone an ID before I send a letter to my representative?

Let me put it into computer terms: when your program isn't fast enough and you've got a nice profile trace, do you start your analysis with the functions using up a lot of time? Or do you start among the functions that aren't using lots of time?

Why approach vote fraud any other way? The majority of vote fraud (the 'r' is deliberately dropped, BTW) is by the incumbent party systematically preventing votes and voters from being counted.

Jimmy Carter tells the story, for example, of a town in Georgia where the voters were recorded as having voted in alphabetical order. That's real vote fraud, and something that no amount of pretend voter ids will help.

[jimmywanger]

>How about proof of citizenship for the right to a free press? Should we require a passport to get into church? Do only citizens get to walk into a post office? Do I need to show someone an ID before I send a letter to my representative?

None of those things make any sense. A church is more than welcome to only accept people with a passport. I can't imagin that will be going on for long. The post office is a service, and they will sell to whoever can pay. Sending a letter to your representative - you'd probably get a bigger impact if you somehow managed to convince him you voted regularly for different parties. As for "access to a free press", I don't know what you mean. They want your eyeballs as long as they can make some dosh there.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense. The computer analogy breaks down as you don't have a nice evidence log for voting and possible illegal voters, so you start trying different things.

> The majority of vote fraud (the 'r' is deliberately dropped, BTW) is by the incumbent party systematically preventing votes and voters from being counted

That's begging the question. You're asserting the point you're trying to prove, which is what "begging the question" means.

> Jimmy Carter tells the story, for example, of a town in Georgia where the voters were recorded as having voted in alphabetical order. That's real vote fraud, and something that no amount of pretend voter ids will help.

Yes. First, the plural of anecdote is not data. Second, just because something helps in that situation, doesn't mean it will help in the problem you want to solve right now. You _can_ do both. Nuance and stacked solutions are important.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

>... All we know is that some Republicans are biased, just as all people have biases. Also, your source is not substantiated.

Ah, so we are still acting like Republicans aren't the legacy bearers of Jim Crow.

[jimmywanger]

> Ah, so we are still acting like Republicans aren't the legacy bearers of Jim Crow.

Democrats enacted Jim Crow laws (0). I see no evidence that Republicans have enacted any laws that systematically discriminate against black people, in fact Trump has tried to reform the criminal justice system (1). He pardoned Jack Johnson posthumously, and has been handing out pardons like candy to wrongfully accused blacks.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/3100-inmate...

[NotSammyHagar]

It was the dems from places like my state in the south, but they all moved to the republican party because of the success of republican party taking on those conservatives. During reconstruction, since lincoln was a republican all the southerners became dems. It wasn't until Nixon and the 1970s that the republicans attracted those conservatives.

Today the jim crow defenders, the people that say slavery wasn't so bad, some people were even better off. Those are republicans.

They switched.

[jimmywanger]

> Today the jim crow defenders, the people that say slavery wasn't so bad, some people were even better off. Those are republicans.

> They switched.

A lot of them switched for reasons unrelated to race. "Many white southerners switched to the Republican Party, some for reasons unrelated to race. The majority of white southerners shared conservative positions on taxes, moral values and national security. The Democratic Party had increasingly liberal positions rejected by these voters.[20] In addition, the younger generations, who were politically conservative but wealthier and less attached to the Democratic Party, replaced the older generations who remained loyal to the party.[20] The shift to the Republican Party took place slowly and gradually over almost a century.[20]"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Southern_Unite...