Georgia cancels registration of more than 591,500 voters

[flyonpa]

I moved from Georgia a year ago, Registered to vote in my new state. My GA registration is still on the books (Checked last night), It will probably stay in the Georgia Sec of State Registration system until its ages out for non/voting, and returned verification letter by the post office in 2019.

But Georgia DDS was able to cancel my GA drivers licence with in 4 days of me getting a NH driver licence, As soon as NH notified the Fed's a new licence. GA canceled my "Old" licence.

(Got notification from Hertz that my DL in my profile was in error).

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by TreeBeard

Much ado about nothing. Looks like simple house cleaning and something that is rather routine.

I disagree. Removing someone because of a change in county, or changed name because of marriage makes sense.

Removing someone because they haven't voted is a violation. Voting isn't a privilege that has to be renewed periodically (like a driver's license). It is a right, and the onus should be on the state to prove that there is some problem with the voter's credentials (i.e. to deny a citizen that right).

This is basically a 21st century version of the poll tax. I'm not sure what kind of citizen who believes in this country and the constitution would be okay with denying their fellow citizens their right to vote. If you allow it now, then it won't be very long before the same tactics are used against you. Mark my words.

[back2atl]

Originally Posted by LTCM

And yet Republicans earn more money. Maybe it's better to be smart than educated?

Wow they've got you brainwashed good, huh? Sounds like you see the world through the lines those in power have drawn. Wake up, neither party has been working for the people in a long time. It's all about the big donors, whether corporate or rich individuals. And winning elections.

[fbernard]

Originally Posted by LTCM

And yet Republicans earn more money. Maybe it's better to be smart than educated?

Having more money doesn't always mean a person is "smarter" or "more educated". Those with a lot of money simply side with the political party that has their financial interest at heart.


Just look at Trump. Are you proposing that it's better to have more money, than be a more educated person? Quite often, money corrupts. There are also several studies that show that past a certain amount of money, money doesn't help any with happiness or contentment.

I'd rather earn less, be happy and content and more educated....than be rich, bitter and blackhearted.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by LTCM

And yet Republicans earn more money. Maybe it's better to be smart than educated?

That's again, a very complicated issue and not necessarily true, especially lately. There has actually been a paper published recently that's very interesting, you might want to give it a read. Here's some info:

Gelman and his colleagues show that in presidential elections since 1976, "richer states have increasingly favored the Democrats." On the other hand, "higher-income people have been consistently more likely to vote Republican, especially since 1970."

Even in blue states, they find, the wealthier people favor Republicans. But here is the surprising finding that explains the contradiction:

In poor states, like Mississippi, wealthy people are overwhelmingly voting Republican. In rich states, like Connecticut, the link between wealth and voting Republican is much weaker, barely correlating at all. (Minnesota falls pretty close to halfway between these extremes.) Differences in racial composition among the states explain about half the phenomenon, the researchers found. The other half remains unexplained.

I exchanged emails with Gelman, asking him why wealthy people have different voting patterns, depending on whether they live in a poor state or a rich one.

"We're still thinking about it," Gelman wrote. "One issue is that, in poor states, it's the rich people who are more religious, but in rich states, the rich people are less religious. Thus in Mississippi, religion and income go together, but not in Connecticut." Being more religious also correlates with voting Republican.

https://www.minnpost.com/health/2007...or-republicans

[Forhall]

Also another tidbit from the NY Times that might be of interest:

In 2014, the median income of households in Democratic districts was higher than in Republican districts, $53,358 to $51,834. Democrats represent seven of the 10 most affluent districts, measured by household income (four in California, two in Virginia and one in New York). Democrats also represent a majority of the 100 most affluent districts, 54-46.

More: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/0...-the-rich.html

[flyonpa]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

I disagree. Removing someone because of a change in county, or changed name because of marriage makes sense.

Removing someone because they haven't voted is a violation. Voting isn't a privilege that has to be renewed periodically (like a driver's license). It is a right, and the onus should be on the state to prove that there is some problem with the voter's credentials (i.e. to deny a citizen that right).

This is basically a 21st century version of the poll tax. I'm not sure what kind of citizen who believes in this country and the constitution would be okay with denying their fellow citizens their right to vote. If you allow it now, then it won't be very long before the same tactics are used against you. Mark my words.

A Poll Tax?? Once every four years you check a box on a form, Sign your name, and mail back a form (in PrePaid Envelope), to Say even thought I have not voted in four years, and I want to stay registered.

Not a very high "Test" for such a active voter....

Also it makes sure the "Voter" lives where they say they do so they vote for the correct candidate slate.