GOP Is Attempting To Steal Wisconsin And Georgia Ahead Of 2020

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,079
37,268
136
There are no controls in that scenario.

There probably is a national interest in marinating a current registry of eligible voters. This should be automatic though by virtue of birth or naturalization and not lapse through disuse just for some people to potentially make a political gain they might not otherwise.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,079
37,268
136
Just saying it happens and is automatically assumed to be nefarious doesn't make it so. I would assume there is either a set time or a trigger event that starts the process, and a set of rules defining how it's done.

I still can't come up with a good reason to purge inactive/infrequent voters unless it can be proved they died or moved that doesn't involve partisan shenanigans.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,175
126
So in reality this action won't affect the election. Every citizen that wants to vote and has been incorrectly removed from the list can register on the spot. That's inconvenient, but not an infringement one one's rights.
And Georgia?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,936
5,560
136
There probably is a national interest in marinating a current registry of eligible voters. This should be automatic though by virtue of birth or naturalization and not lapse through disuse just for some people to potentially make a political gain they might not otherwise.
At some point, it has to be assumed that a voter is dead or moved away. Otherwise we'd have towns of fifty thousand people with nine hundred thousand names on the voter rolls. I have no issue with it being done, but the rules and process have to be transparent and simple.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,079
37,268
136
At some point, it has to be assumed that a voter is dead or moved away. Otherwise we'd have towns of fifty thousand people with nine hundred thousand names on the voter rolls. I have no issue with it being done, but the rules and process have to be transparent and simple.

I mean the government usually has a decent bead on this info through tax filings, death records, etc. I just can't see why low frequency voters who are living should be purged from the roll just because they haven't exercised their right in a while.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
Residence doesn't equal citizenship. Also, what about folks that don't have a residence?

Then they sign something that swears under oath they live in that area (and/or that they are a citizen). Despite conservative tin foil hat theories, actual people won't risk jail for the privilege of standing in line for hours to gain nothing.

To toss out hundreds of thousands of registrations willy nilly to combat a nonexistent issue is obviously malicious.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
If it was malicious, then yes, it is a problem. It should be a regular process with a regular and recurring date, and there should be rules defining what gets a person removed.
Just saying it happens and is automatically assumed to be nefarious doesn't make it so. I would assume there is either a set time or a trigger event that starts the process, and a set of rules defining how it's done.
But I think that's the problem here. It wasn't automatic, and it wasn't even done universally. It was specifically targeting two districts which were Democratic strongholds. I don't see how it can be seen as anything but malicious.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If it was malicious, then yes, it is a problem. It should be a regular process with a regular and recurring date, and there should be rules defining what gets a person removed.
Just saying it happens and is automatically assumed to be nefarious doesn't make it so. I would assume there is either a set time or a trigger event that starts the process, and a set of rules defining how it's done.

The trigger event is apparently Dems winning or getting too close for GOP comfort. The GOP wants to limit the franchise, not expand it. They don't want everybody to vote. Contemplating an election with 90% turnout causes them to break out in a cold sweat.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I am curious what other consontitional rights effectively lapse with an arbitrary number of the election cycles.

Literally can't think of anything else.

There logic is that you have the right to vote - even after voter registration is retracted. Just re-register.

You have a right to firearms, but some states/jurisdictions demand that you register first, have a background check first, obtain a license first, etc.... Is this much different?


Not saying I support this - just playing devil's advocate.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I still can't come up with a good reason to purge inactive/infrequent voters unless it can be proved they died or moved that doesn't involve partisan shenanigans.

Last I checked, jurisdictions can't keep up worth a shit who has died, passed away, been murdered, etc... How do you keep track of voter registrations when there would eventually be a huge majority of deceased people on the list?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I mean the government usually has a decent bead on this info through tax filings, death records, etc. I just can't see why low frequency voters who are living should be purged from the roll just because they haven't exercised their right in a while.

"the government" - Certain parts of government might have good records on those. That doesn't mean it reaches other departments and other jurisdictions that need that information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,079
37,268
136
There logic is that you have the right to vote - even after voter registration is retracted. Just re-register.

You have a right to firearms, but some states/jurisdictions demand that you register first, have a background check first, obtain a license first, etc.... Is this much different?


Not saying I support this - just playing devil's advocate.

If the state or local government has thrown up roadblocks to re-registering (limiting facilities, types of id accepted, no same day, etc) the intent seems relatively clear.

The same people who complain about firearms regulation under state laws amazingly love voting restrictions. Why that's the case isn't particularly difficult to figure out. Anyway I'd probably group voting rights closer to speech rights from a constitutional perspective, the burden should be on the government to prove somebody isn't eligible and should be removed from the roll not the other way around.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,210
28,915
136
Last I checked, jurisdictions can't keep up worth a shit who has died, passed away, been murdered, etc... How do you keep track of voter registrations when there would eventually be a huge majority of deceased people on the list?
My alumni association can track my ass across Antarctica in a hurricane. I think those wishing to disenfranchise someone should have to go to court to do it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,079
37,268
136
Last I checked, jurisdictions can't keep up worth a shit who has died, passed away, been murdered, etc... How do you keep track of voter registrations when there would eventually be a huge majority of deceased people on the list?

Depends where you are talking about and it doesn't help that lots of states don't share information which results in inaccurate rolls. Largely this is an information handling problem not a conceptual problem.

"the government" - Certain parts of government might have good records on those. That doesn't mean it reaches other departments and other jurisdictions that need that information.

This is sometimes the case and should be fixed rather than just pushing people off the roll and letting them figure it out.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
This is why Republicans fought to have part of the Voting Rights Act struck down. That provision required pre-clearance for certain states and they had to prove voting rule changes would not have a disproportionate effect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
“I don’t want to see someone deactivated, but I don’t write the law,” said Malloy, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “There’s no basis for saying 12 to 24 months is a good time frame. It’s not that difficult to do it sooner.”

Translation... "I don't write the law but I can be completely arbitrary in how it's implemented"
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
My alumni association can track my ass across Antarctica in a hurricane. I think those wishing to disenfranchise someone should have to go to court to do it.

A software vendor started sending me their industry magazine when I was in college 20 years ago. I've moved no fewer than a half dozen times and never been to one of their conferences or communicated in any way, and I've gotten that magazine every quarter without a break.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
A software vendor started sending me their industry magazine when I was in college 20 years ago. I've moved no fewer than a half dozen times and never been to one of their conferences or communicated in any way, and I've gotten that magazine every quarter without a break.
I got junk mail from a pet food store I haven't shopped at in at least half a decade, it was sent to my *workcenter*. The place was from two moves prior. I just have no idea.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
But I think that's the problem here. It wasn't automatic, and it wasn't even done universally. It was specifically targeting two districts which were Democratic strongholds. I don't see how it can be seen as anything but malicious.

And there it is. The unpleasant truth. The GOP isn't being honest. They never have been in their great voter fraud crusade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi