Florida Republicans come clean and admit to suppressing Dem votes

No. There are weeks in which one could cast a ballot so it's not all or nothing at any point in time unless you are stuck in traffic on election day and it's nearing 7 PM locally and you haven't voted yet.

 

Early voting is the best option. I teach school and, so, voted on a Saturday morning some three weeks before national election day. Easy peasy.

 

You are arguing that the voter suppression which Republicans have admitted to wasn't the most effective method of voter suppression. That's really the tact you want to take?

But even arguing whether or not their tactics were the most effective way of suppressing the vote, you're right about early voting being a big help, which is why Republicans tried to limit early voting.

 

I didn't nitpick anything. I pointed out entrapment and five decades old evidence.

What I did was point out that Republican officials had an organized and planned effort to use the system to suppress the vote.

It isn't odd that I looked at the evidence about Democratic voter tampering critically, but what is odd is that you aren't looking at the admitted voter suppression by Republicans and making excuses for it because in your view, it wouldn't be the most efficient way, because some of the voters that were being suppressed could still get to vote. That's pretty weak.

 

I did no characterization of what was the most effective method of voter suppression. Indeed, though, a law passed provides plenty of warning about when and where the opportunity to vote exists.

Why did Mayor Daley hold all those votes back in 1960 until the last minute and what did he do with them? If he, in fact, did anything illegal (and I believe he did) that is a suppression that can NOT be overcome.

Maybe we should just have no standards and let people vote whenever they feel like it? Indeed maybe we could show up once and vote straight-ticket for the next 3, 4 or 5 elections.... if the goal is to make it as easy as possible to vote.

 

Not really. This was a LAW that was passed. Clearly the motive was to promote an outcome, but that is true of every law on the books. I think voting laws for federal elections should be uniform and not have aspects of them that coddle certain voting groups.

I reckon we have 3-4 weeks of opportunity for early voting. That is plenty.

If this were about busses gathered around the 19th hole at Pebble Beach, I doubt you would be offended.

 

I think I've addressed this elsewhere, but the use of suppression is just lingo. I"m estimating here but the window of opportunity TO vote was, perhaps, reduced in Florida from 70 hours to 60 hours... would that be about right?

 

So you're dismissing the attempt that Republican officials themselves acknowledged by calling it lingo and arguing against how effective those attempts would be.

And by the way, your argument against how effective those suppression attempts are, would be based on nothing but you're own personal guess of what other people can do.

Well it's interesting to see that some one on this board could maintain such a position, but at least you've made it clear.

 

Yes, but most other laws on the books don't have the desired outcome of keeping blacks from being able to vote. That was the purpose of this law. And the bottom line is that it is okay with you.

You've made your position clear.

 

Stop sucking off of our taxes.

 

No, that would be called fraud. I'm not sure you understand the definition of voter suppression.

 

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm just asserting that the word "suppression" is being mis-used. One voting option has been taken away; is that really suppression? Is not adding still another voting option a kind of passive suppression then?

BTW, who's to say that every one of those Sunday voters didn't find a way to vote otherwise... whether or not they did is but a guess as well. Where there is a will there is a way for something as simple as casting a vote.

 

It keeps ANYBODY from voting on Sunday, right? There are many, many, many other opportunities to cast a vote.

 

Are you really comparing the two?

 

giddy, the expressed intent of the law was to keep blacks from voting. You keep ignoring that.

 

When it disproportionately keeps one group from voting, yes it's suppression. The people who made the law did it with the idea that is what the law would do. Poll taxes, literacy tests etc. were also for everyone, but they were unfair and suppressed the vote of a population.

Again you're simply arguing whether or not their method of voter suppression was the most effective way to suppress the vote.

You are ignoring that the people who proposed and passed the law did it to suppress the vote of black citizens.

 

FB: They buried your lead. There is no mention of race until the 11th paragraph.

I had lunch with some friends today. One of them has been an engineering professor at a historically black university for 25 years. He said that a bunch of his students told him that they voted alright...

They voted for Obama and no one else on the ballot.

Is that really your democratic republic in action at its finest?

 

Always consistently enlightening to see the topics that get giddy all fired up.