Right on cue, Republicans are already preparing to make voting more difficult

[Walter Sobchak]

It sure was easy to cast your mail-in ballot this year wasn't it?

Get ready to be disenfranchised.

The more people vote, the worse that is for Republicans. That was especially true this year. So they want to drastically reduce the ability to vote by mail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/u...gtype=Homepage



It's ALL about cheating to win for these assholes, nothing more.

[MumblesBadly]

It sure was easy to cast your mail-in ballot this year wasn't it?

Get ready to be disenfranchised.

The more people vote, the worse that is for Republicans. That was especially true this year. So they want to drastically reduce the ability to vote by mail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/u...gtype=Homepage



It's ALL about cheating to win for these assholes, nothing more.

Not true! They also engage in intentionally misinforming their base about basic facts in order to trick most of them into voting against their self interest.

[Drawingdead]

That’s been well known for years, shit even with the popular vote two presidential candidates lost elections. The system is flawed and this Texas lawsuit is BS. 17 States are doing everything possible to undermine the voting system. I can’t believe what’s happening in politics.

[sonatine]

It sure was easy to cast your mail-in ballot this year wasn't it?

Get ready to be disenfranchised.

The more people vote, the worse that is for Republicans. That was especially true this year. So they want to drastically reduce the ability to vote by mail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/u...gtype=Homepage



It's ALL about cheating to win for these assholes, nothing more.

cruz literally said in public 'if we allow mail in voting there will never be another republican president'.

the entire cornerstone of the 'stop the steal' movement thats being presented in court is that mail in votes are unconstitutional (the whole 'cheating / manipulation' gambit is exclusive to team retardia's social media presence, essentially).

and so far, absolutely no one has found any legal argument to back up that assertion, as evidenced by lack of sympathetic judgements.

where im going with this, is i really wouldnt worry about it.

[nightmarefish]

Imagine thinking it's hard to vote.

[Rick Sanchez]

Imagine thinking it's hard to vote.

Do you not think it should be as easy as reasonably possible?

You could add new regulations that make voting in rural areas a little bit more tedious, resulting in a million fewer votes. And you could still say "lol voting is not hard", and you'd be correct. But the fact remains you have fewer people doing it.

[blake]

it's a joke that we can do our banking online but can't vote online

[nightmarefish]

Imagine thinking it's hard to vote.

Do you not think it should be as easy as reasonably possible?

It's already as easy as reasonably possible. There's absolutely nothing hard about it. People that don't vote generally don't give a shit or are too lazy. I've said this before, I've never spoke to someone who wanted to vote but couldn't because they thought it was too difficult. Have you?

[adamantium]

Do you not think it should be as easy as reasonably possible?

It's already as easy as reasonably possible. There's absolutely nothing hard about it. People that don't vote generally don't give a shit or are too lazy. I've said this before, I've never spoke to someone who wanted to vote but couldn't because they thought it was too difficult. Have you?

This is just not true

[Rick Sanchez]

Do you not think it should be as easy as reasonably possible?

It's already as easy as reasonably possible. There's absolutely nothing hard about it. People that don't vote generally don't give a shit or are too lazy. I've said this before, I've never spoke to someone who wanted to vote but couldn't because they thought it was too difficult. Have you?

There are more than 2 choices of hard vs. easy. Think of it as a scale. Out of 100, if difficulty of voting is a 10, that will result in more voters than if it's a 15.

You ignored my example about rural voters, but in that case they aren't staying home "because it's so hard!". It's just a fact that if you slide the difficulty scale a little bit right, you have a little less people voting. And if you make it a little more convenient, the % of voters will increase a little.

You can imagine in your mind that those people are saying "I used to not vote because it's so hard, but now I'm finally capable of doing it" if you want to, but that's not really how human behavior works.

[nightmarefish]

It's already as easy as reasonably possible. There's absolutely nothing hard about it. People that don't vote generally don't give a shit or are too lazy. I've said this before, I've never spoke to someone who wanted to vote but couldn't because they thought it was too difficult. Have you?

There are more than 2 choices of hard vs. easy. Think of it as a scale. Out of 100, if difficulty of voting is a 10, that will result in more voters than if it's a 15.

You ignored my example about rural voters, but in that case they aren't staying home "because it's so hard!". It's just a fact that if you slide the difficulty scale a little bit right, you have a little less people voting. And if you make it a little more convenient, the % of voters will increase a little.

You can imagine in your mind that those people are saying "I used to not vote because it's so hard, but now I'm finally capable of doing it" if you want to, but that's not really how human behavior works.

I've never met someone who wanted to vote but thought it was too hard. If people want to vote it's very easy, very.

In California in 2016 about 14m people voted in the presidential election, in 2020 about 17m did. It wasn't because we changed our voting processes, we changed absolutely nothing. More people voted because more people were energized to (on both side btw).

You're essentially vested in making it easier for lazy people to vote and people who generally don't know the issues/ or care about the issues to vote. Let's keep it real, if the majority of those people voted Republican you wouldn't give two shits about them. But they predominantly vote dem so you're far more concerned with their right to vote than they are.

[Walter Sobchak]

It sure was easy to cast your mail-in ballot this year wasn't it?

Get ready to be disenfranchised.

The more people vote, the worse that is for Republicans. That was especially true this year. So they want to drastically reduce the ability to vote by mail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/u...gtype=Homepage



It's ALL about cheating to win for these assholes, nothing more.

cruz literally said in public 'if we allow mail in voting there will never be another republican president'.

the entire cornerstone of the 'stop the steal' movement thats being presented in court is that mail in votes are unconstitutional (the whole 'cheating / manipulation' gambit is exclusive to team retardia's social media presence, essentially).

and so far, absolutely no one has found any legal argument to back up that assertion, as evidenced by lack of sympathetic judgements.

where im going with this, is i really wouldnt worry about it.

I'm worried about it because they keep pushing the envelope. Next time they'll try something even crazier.

Plus, restricting voting, combined with the concentration of population in about a dozen states and the emptying out of rural states, increases the chances of more popular vote win/electoral college loss splits. A few more of those, maybe even only one more of those, and the country will not survive.

[mickeycrimm]

You liberals are not talking about making it easy to vote. You are talking about how to make voting fraud easy.

[Rick Sanchez]

I've never met someone who wanted to vote but thought it was too hard.

I already addressed this. You're tearing down an imaginary argument that nobody is making. If a restaurant moves to a slightly less convenient location, and business goes down 6%, you'll also never hear anyone say that they stopped eating there because it's TOO HARD lol. But business is down nevertheless.

In California in 2016 about 14m people voted in the presidential election, in 2020 about 17m did. It wasn't because we changed our voting processes, we changed absolutely nothing. More people voted because more people were energized to (on both side btw).

You're essentially vested in making it easier for lazy people to vote and people who generally don't know the issues/ or care about the issues to vote. Let's keep it real, if the majority of those people voted Republican you wouldn't give two shits about them. But they predominantly vote dem so you're far more concerned with their right to vote than they are.

Okay, so you want voting to be a little bit tedious, to weed out the lazy people. There needs to be an arbitrary bar that we set to make sure that only people who really care enough get to vote.

Let's go the other way then. Suppose that President Biden signs an executive order ahead of 2024 elections to make voting more equitable per capita. If a city of 10 million people only has 10 polling places, then a state of 1 million people like Montana only gets to have 1 polling place. This is just a hypothetical but let's go with it.

Nothing much changes for urban voters, but a lot of rural voters now need to drive an hour or two extra. They also have to contend with much longer lines. Suddenly states like Missouri are in play for Democrats. Millions of voters that don't live in a big city are disenfranchised, but liberals just laugh at them for being lazy. What's the matter, is it TOO HARD for you take a little more time out of your day? It's not like you need to crawl over glass to get to the polls, just a small inconvenience. Those backwater yokels are probably uneducated on the issues anyway, fuck em right?

[Rick Sanchez]

You liberals are not talking about making it easy to vote. You are talking about how to make voting fraud easy.

So if a way is devised to make voting very easy and also very secure, you're cool with it right? I know Druff is on board with this.

[nightmarefish]

You liberals are not talking about making it easy to vote. You are talking about how to make voting fraud easy.

So if a way is devised to make voting very easy and also very secure, you're cool with it right? I know Druff is on board with this.

IT'S ALREADY VERY EASY.

Do you at least admit you wouldn't give a shit about this if it wasn't +EV for the Dems?

[Walter Sobchak]

You liberals are not talking about making it easy to vote. You are talking about how to make voting fraud easy.

[nightmarefish]

I already addressed this. You're tearing down an imaginary argument that nobody is making. If a restaurant moves to a slightly less convenient location, and business goes down 6%, you'll also never hear anyone say that they stopped eating there because it's TOO HARD lol. But business is down nevertheless.

In California in 2016 about 14m people voted in the presidential election, in 2020 about 17m did. It wasn't because we changed our voting processes, we changed absolutely nothing. More people voted because more people were energized to (on both side btw).

You're essentially vested in making it easier for lazy people to vote and people who generally don't know the issues/ or care about the issues to vote. Let's keep it real, if the majority of those people voted Republican you wouldn't give two shits about them. But they predominantly vote dem so you're far more concerned with their right to vote than they are.

Okay, so you want voting to be a little bit tedious, to weed out the lazy people. There needs to be an arbitrary bar that we set to make sure that only people who really care enough get to vote.

Let's go the other way then. Suppose that President Biden signs an executive order ahead of 2024 elections to make voting more equitable per capita. If a city of 10 million people only has 10 polling places, then a state of 1 million people like Montana only gets to have 1 polling place. This is just a hypothetical but let's go with it.

Nothing much changes for urban voters, but a lot of rural voters now need to drive an hour or two extra. They also have to contend with much longer lines. Suddenly states like Missouri are in play for Democrats. Millions of voters that don't live in a big city are disenfranchised, but liberals just laugh at them for being lazy. What's the matter, is it TOO HARD for you take a little more time out of your day? It's not like you need to crawl over glass to get to the polls, just a small inconvenience. Those backwater yokels are probably uneducated on the issues anyway, fuck em right?

What's with the absurd hypotheticals? It's very easy for anyone who wants to vote, very.

Give me an example of who you're trying to help out. And if you can think of a group, are there enough of these people to make a statistical difference?

[Rick Sanchez]

IT'S ALREADY VERY EASY.

Do you at least admit you wouldn't give a shit about this if it wasn't +EV for the Dems?

Are you talking about currently, with widely available mail-in voting? Because in that case I'll agree that it's easy enough.

Honestly I just wish more people would be involved in politics, particularly young people. I was happy to see Madison Cawthorn, a Republican, become the youngest congressman in like 40 years. I want to see more stuff like that. I'm also happy to see a surge in turnout from young voters this year.

The hypothetical I posed to you is a situation that I think would be horrible, even if it greatly benefits Democrats.

[nightmarefish]

IT'S ALREADY VERY EASY.

Do you at least admit you wouldn't give a shit about this if it wasn't +EV for the Dems?

Are you talking about currently, with mail-in voting? Because in that case I'll agree that it's easy enough.

Honestly I just wish more people would be involved in politics, particularly young people. I was happy to see Madison Cawthorn, a Republican, become the youngest congressman in like 40 years. I want to see more stuff like that. I'm also happy to see a surge in turnout from young voters this year.

The hypothetical I posed to you is a situation that I think would be horrible, even if it greatly benefits Democrats.

I ignored all the extreme hypotheticals because they aren't close reality. Of course I would be against any circumstance that actually made it difficult to vote.