Gubernatorial Race 2018 (letter, dance, green)

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by markjames68

The US is not a direct democracy anyway. It's a democratic republic.

He didn't say a direct democracy. He said a democracy.

We have a republic which is a form of democracy, specifically a representative democracy.

And the point stands. The people have spoken and the race is over. It's time to move on.

[CaliDreaming01]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Which citizens didn't have a right to vote in this current election?

The election date was set a long time ago, and the candidates were well-known through multiple means (TV, internet, newspaper, radio, etc).

If they were registered they had the right to vote.

They had the opportunity to be registered if they were a citizen.

They could have registered months in advance.

They had the opportunity to get ID to prove they were a citizen.

If for some reason they were removed from the voter rolls in 2017 then they could have validated this and re-registered. There were multiple ways to validate their voter registration. I'm sure that they could have called their candidate's campaign office for help.

There were many early voting sites. These were well-publicized. Since October 15th.

There was the opportunity to vote via absentee ballot. Since October 15th.

There was the opportunity to file a provisional ballot if for some reason there was a mixup with their registration.


If your argument is that there are insufficient polling stations, that it was harder to vote for some people than others, then that is a discussion point. But I don't see anyone who was otherwise eligible that didn't have the opportunity to vote.

Personally I think aside from military deployed overseas voting should be done in a single day, with no absentee or advance voting otherwise allowed. Many people voted early or after work, to make sure their voice was heard. They actively pursued voting.

Also, that article quoted restrictions on same-day registration. FYI, the last day to register to vote in NY - which is as blue as they come - was October 17th. In California it was the 22nd. In Georgia it was the 9th, so not materially different.

The question is whether these laws place an unreasonable restriction on the right to vote. We've already seen that in many cases they do for voters who are poor, elderly and black. It seems you are okay with these restrictions that affect these people.

However, the further you go down that path, the more you are going to start affecting other people. It's pretty clear to me that the conservative justices on the Court are okay with restrictions that would make it all but impossible for anyone who is not white, wealthy and male to vote. That is how it was when our nation was in its infancy and they'd be fine taking us back to that. Do you agree with that? If not, where would you draw the line?

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

The question is whether these laws place an unreasonable restriction on the right to vote. We've already seen that in many cases they do for voters who are poor, elderly and black. It seems you are okay with these restrictions that affect these people.

However, the further you go down that path, the more you are going to start affecting other people. It's pretty clear to me that the conservative justices on the Court are okay with restrictions that would make it all but impossible for anyone who is not white, wealthy and male to vote. That is how it was when our nation was in its infancy and they'd be fine taking us back to that. Do you agree with that? If not, where would you draw the line?

That's a valid point of discussion. We can debate whether the laws are the best laws or whether they should change.

That's NOT a valid argument in a court case for the position that had the laws been different the Democratic candidate would have gotten at least 18,000 more votes in this election for governor. That's total speculation.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

Wrong. I voted for Abrams and I think she is making an ass of herself. She needs to end this now. She has no proof that 18,000 voters were disenfranchised. If she can't accept the will of the people then I will not vote for her at any point in the future.

Yeah, we can look at it that way - that Ms. Abrams is a sore loser. But, try looking at this way - she is doing what she can to correct our voter registration and voting systems, which, in principal, is the right to thing to do in order to ensure the integrity of our voting process for future voters and future elected officials.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

The question is whether these laws place an unreasonable restriction on the right to vote. We've already seen that in many cases they do for voters who are poor, elderly and black. It seems you are okay with these restrictions that affect these people.

However, the further you go down that path, the more you are going to start affecting other people. It's pretty clear to me that the conservative justices on the Court are okay with restrictions that would make it all but impossible for anyone who is not white, wealthy and male to vote. That is how it was when our nation was in its infancy and they'd be fine taking us back to that. Do you agree with that? If not, where would you draw the line?

Please show for this election that the laws placed unreasonable restrictions on the right to vote. As I previously mentioned, aside from issues at the precinct level I don't see how there were unreasonable restrictions.

There has been discussion that the election law on the books for exact match voter registration is wrong. And that somehow Kemp was behind it all and is suppressing voters.

First, the law was passed in 2017. I'm not sure what role Kemp had in writing and passing the law. Is the law fair? That's not Kemp's call. As SoS he needs to enforce it fairly. Or do you advocate an approach that many laws can simply be ignored if desirable?

Second, the information needs to match their Drivers License on file. If you were registering online this wouldn't be an issue, but I just looked up the paper voter registration form. They could make it clear that they want not only your full legal name but what is on your license. That's a fair call in that case.

So if I was George Smith-Jones, and I registered as "George Smith Jones" it wouldn't match. There is a process that can be followed to correct this. I can't be expected to be allowed to vote UNTIL I receive a voter precinct card in the mail (or check it online). That much WAS made clear.

Third, while I do hold Kemp accountable for overall election issues, there are over 2600 voting precincts and he isn't going to know about the state of any of them. That's what his staff do, and their staff. There are local officials responsible for these who should be checking IN ADVANCE for power cords, working machines, enough machines, etc. For the ones in poor and minority precincts, how many are staffed by people who are demographically similar? (meaning no bias towards disenfranchisement) For ones responsible for districts, how on the ball were they? What's the process for determining likely voter turnout and to ensure enough machines are made available? THESE are valid questions.

Abrams is contemplating a suit that basically says that Kemp personally drove voter suppression. I doubt that very much. Her team's angle that he should have resigned before the election to avoid conflict of interest is, well, interesting, given that it's not required nor if the law and rules were followed would it make any difference.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Yeah, we can look at it that way - that Ms. Abrams is a sore loser. But, try looking at this way - she is doing what she can to correct our voter registration and voting systems, which, in principal, is the right to thing to do in order to ensure the integrity of our voting process for future voters and future elected officials.

The right way to do this is by making changes to GA election law. Through its representatives. As someone who served in the GA House as its minority leader for 6 years she should know this.

[toll_booth]

I will never accept this election result. Ever.

Nothing short of a complete re-vote with federal oversight and a paper trail could change my mind.

[atltechdude]

Thank god she finally came to her senses.

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

I will never accept this election result. Ever.

Nothing short of a complete re-vote with federal oversight and a paper trail could change my mind.

It's over.

But GA has a real chance to go blue next time if people keep coming out to vote.

[Born 2 Roll]

"Stacey Abrams bows out of gubernatorial race with fiery speech" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

"Abrams says she can't win Ga. race, plans federal lawsuit" (Associated Press/MSN)

"Stacey Abrams acknowledges Brian Kemp will be next Georgia governor" (11Alive/YouTube VIDEO)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f56kdNZ4YH8

Stacey Abrams said she wouldn't concede to Brian Kemp but acknowledged there was no further path she could go in the governor's race.