19 ms·

The preset party supports stronger Democratic norms like same-day registration, the other supports Voter ID laws and reducing the number of polling locations. O

by tiles 8y ago

The preset party supports stronger Democratic norms like same-day registration, the other supports Voter ID laws and reducing the number of polling locations. Of course an app encouraging voter maximalism can work in favor of the party that aligns with their goal.

ericdykstra 8y ago
The parties support the policies that will help them win. Thinking this is an ideological position rather than a tactical one is wrong. If it turned out that Voter ID laws would benefit Democrats, they would support them in an instant.
- damnyou 8y ago
  To quote dril: the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
  - ericdykstra 8y ago
    I'm not making a value judgement. edit: I'll also challenge you to find a policy around voting that is supported by a party that simultaneously hurts that party, just because they're principled.
    - damnyou 8y ago
      The point is it is impossible to talk about politics purely at a meta level without evaluating the stances themselves. It is bad that you are not making a value judgement there. Start making some. To respond to your edit, it is not a coincidence that the party supporting expanded voting rights is the party that's more inclusive in other respects as well.
      - ericdykstra 8y ago
        This is a ridiculous premise. I made commentary without making a value judgement, and you're telling me it's impossible and that I need to. Then you respond to my question with a value judgement rather than actually answer my question. I don't care about your political opinions, and I don't care to state mine here now.
        damnyou 8y ago
        You're right, it's not impossible. Just a mark of moral cowardice. It's useful in life to know good from bad. Start caring more about people's political opinions. It's good to judge people on their political opinions. This is in stark contrast to, say, sports, where it is totally fine to talk about the rules of the game at a purely meta level. The difference between politics and sports is that politics affects people's lives.
        ericdykstra 8y ago
        There are times to discuss facts and times to discuss moral preferences. There's something wrong when you can't discuss facts necessarily bringing in a moral side. And you seem reluctant to even acknowledge the facts to begin with. I, of course, have my own opinions around voting and Democracy. I just chose not to share them in this venue, as it's beside the point.
        damnyou 8y ago
        > There are times to discuss facts and times to discuss moral preferences. Not in politics. Facts about politics are useless devoid of moral context. "The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln" is both true and utterly meaningless. This is different from, say, sports, where you can talk about facts without invoking a moral context. Politics is different. Very very different. Elections have enormous consequences. Lives are at stake. > I just chose not to share them in this venue, as it's beside the point. It's not besides the point.
    - tobr 8y ago
      To take on this challenge - Isn’t that exactly the situation with the recent Supreme Court nominations? One party break the norms and refuse to vote because they want to wait until they can nominate someone. The other party could have done the same, but didn’t, because principles.
      - ericdykstra 8y ago
        This is incorrect. The Republicans did it to Merrick Garland, and could, because they controlled enough Senate seats. The Democrats would have done the same to Brett Kavanaugh, but couldn't, because they didn't control enough Senate seats. They instead tried numerous other tactics that I would not call "principled" to stop the nomination, and failed.
        TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
        There were Democrats that voted for Gorsuch. The Democrats are absurdly naïvely playing a game of principles their opponents don't respect and don't know what “hardball” means.
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > The Democrats are absurdly naïvely playing a game of principles their opponents don't respect and don't know what “hardball” means. Accusations of sexual assault provided at the last minute even when you have known about them for months about a decades old incident you have no proof occurred is “playing a game of principles”?
        jki275 8y ago
        And republicans voted for Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. The democrat party is no more principled than anyone else.
        SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
        Gorsuch didn't tip the balance of the court, nor was his confirmation within spitting distance of the midterms. The stakes for both parties were much higher in the Kavanaugh battle.
    - jboynyc 8y ago
      Your "challenge" isn't difficult at all. Just look at every EU country where Christian democrats and other conservative parties neither trump up stories of voter fraud nor pursue policies to keep young people, women, urban dwellers or gays from voting, even though that "hurts" them (because their voters tend to be older, straight men in rural areas). This may be changing with the rise of far-right parties, but hasn't been much of an issue thus far [1]. The Brian Kemps of this world really are exceptionally malicious, and your attempts to normalize their behavior are completely misguided. 1: https://us.boell.org/2017/11/01/achtung-voter-suppression-coming-europe https://us.boell.org/2017/11/01/achtung-voter-suppression-co...
    - matt4077 8y ago
      Easy: Every constitutional Amendment regarding voting, such as the 19th, 24th, or 26th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit... They all passed with overwhelming majorities. Yet each one must have cost (at least) one party in % of votes.
- wwweston 8y ago
  > If it turned out that Voter ID laws would benefit Democrats, they would support them in an instant. This has the caché of being knowingly world-weary, but it's likely quite wrong. Ideological positions which present an obstacle to voter willingness to support a candidate aren't exactly uncommon, and tend to break down by party. That seems to indicate that ideological positions that might present an obstacle to voter ability to support a candidate -- or, inversely, increase opposition ability -- might well be possible. Also, your asserion ignores the existing psych research on temperamental foundations of political leanings. People are more likely to vote their temperament-based values than than their interests. And fears of a contaminating "Other" adulterating election results are going to cluster more with political conservative issues while a more open process is going to cluster with politically liberal issues. In order to get Democratic constituencies to support exclusive voting laws, you'd have to flip the temperamental polarity of each party.
erwan 8y ago
I don't have a horse in that race, I'm not even a US citizen - and I must say that whole debate on voter id laws is puzzling to me. After reading a bit on disparate impact and what constitute the "crux" of the issue, I get why the ID requirement can be problematic if it makes people jump through a ton of hoops. However, the common suggestion that IDing people be stripped altogether just sounds bizarre to me. I would think a path to resolution would rather include making it easier to obtain an ID.
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  A common suggestion is to just issue the ID free of charge. Considering the state of government invasion of liberty in America, this seems like a no-brainer step in the right direction at minimal cost.
  - elyobo 8y ago
    Doing things for free is something that the Republicans are also ideologically opposed to though...
  - mikeash 8y ago
    ID is free at your local DMV office... which is a five minute drive away if you’re in an area that votes properly, and a three-hour bus ride with eight transfers if you’re not.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Of course, without voter ID, the same people are just pulling that trick with polling places directly.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Indeed. That’s at least a little more obvious and a little easier to resist.
- cm2012 8y ago
shard972 8y ago
The only way you can think VoterID laws prevent democracy is if you think illegal aliens have a right to vote.
- wtallis 8y ago
  Illegal aliens are only relevant to a discussion of voter ID laws if those aliens have successfully registered to vote. Preventing illegal aliens from registering to vote is just as effective as requiring ID on election day, but doesn't have as many negative side effects. Plus, exploiting a lack of voter ID requirements by impersonating a registered voter on election day has pretty much the worst risk vs reward balance of any form of election fraud. It's hard to identify large numbers of registered voters who are unlikely to actually vote, it's hard to gather enough individuals to impersonate them, and it's pretty easy for any large-scale effort like this to be exposed.
- cm2012 8y ago
  Only 87% of the citizen population of the US has government issued ID.
tarento 8y ago
You make it look like those people are really invested in democracy so they wanted to build an app to make people vote, were looking for organisations to help them and only found help in organisations from the left. But, most likely, they were leftists to begin with and created these seemingly neutral apps to push the dem vote. As an example just look at the Twitter feed of "Naseem Makiya", the founder of Outvote, one of the apps discussed in the NYT article: https://twitter.com/nmakiya https://twitter.com/nmakiya And then "Mikey Dickerson", the founder of VoteWithMe: https://twitter.com/mikeydickerson https://twitter.com/mikeydickerson -- In fact look at all the bios of the people behind VoteWithMe! https://newdataproject.us/team.html https://newdataproject.us/team.html
- matt4077 8y ago
  Is there a specific reason you're putting these people's names in scary-looking quotation mark? Because those seem to be their actual names.
  - tarento 8y ago
    Scary-looking? I'm just highlighting the names because this forum does not have boldface.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Use italics for that by surrounding them with *.
    - astura 8y ago
      Quote aren't used for highlighting text in the English language, that's considered incorrect usage. The quotes you used are interpreted as what's called "scare quotes" to the majority of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes > they were leftists to begin with and created these seemingly neutral apps to push the dem vote. They are open about the purpose of the apps, to encourage young progressives to vote.
makomk 8y ago
Remember all those news stories a few months back about an attempt to close 7 out of the 9 polling places in a majority-black Georgia county which voted for Clinton in the last presidential election? The one which the entire press spun as a Republican attempt to suppress the black vote? That was a Democrat elections board. Supposedly, while the county as a whole was majority-black and voted Clinton, those voters were all concentrated around the two urban polling locations which weren't closing, whilst the seven more rural ones which were closing returned a majority for Trump last election. Not that you'd know that from the media reporting... More recently, the official Democrat party organisation in North Dakota tried to suppress the Republican vote there by running bogus, pants-on-fire Facebook ads falsely claiming that voting could cost people their hunting licenses, the state's Democrat senator stood behind this claim, and this wasn't any kind of national media scandal at all. I'm not sure if Facebook even banned them for it or anything despite this being a clear ToS violation. I presume that any other Democrat voter suppression which wasn't an in-your-face, public ad campaign with the name of the party literally written all over it and didn't get mistaken for Republican voter suppression has simply gone entirely unnoticed. Why wouldn't it?
- specialist 8y ago
  You're referring to Randolph County? No. Elections consultant recommended to the director of elections that poll sites which were not ADA compliant (required by HAVA) be closed, because there was no funds to upgrade them. Both candidates for governor, many organizations, and the residents opposed this plan. The two member bipartisan elections board voted against. This was all easily fact-checked with a quick google. Please try harder. The takeaway lesson from this particular drama, for you, should be that our elections are chronically underfunded and mismanaged. Most smaller county's clerk (auditors) are completely dependent on their secretary of state to keep the lights on. A cynic might suggest the director forced the issue to shake some more money out of the state, for which I would strongly approve. Cast that as a partisan issue if you wish. I didn't bother to fact check your North Dakota stuff. I assume it's also less than wrong.
  - makomk 8y ago
    > Elections consultant recommended to the director of elections that poll sites which were not ADA compliant (required by HAVA) be closed, because there was no funds to upgrade them. That was the official reason, yes. Pretty much the entire mainstream press, plus the ACLU and other similar advocacy organisations, spun this as an obvious lie covering for what was in reality a Republican plot to suppress the black vote.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The candidates for governor spoke out opposing this and the board voted against it after a massive, viral tide of outrage based on the belief that this was a racist Republican voter suppression scheme, including "two packed town-hall meetings in which residents berated local elections officials".[2] The closest I've found to any mention of the fact that the supposed voter suppression scheme - a claim which was and still is uncritically regurgitated in every major news outlet - would in fact have had the opposite effect from that claimed is a single quote from Republican secretary of state Brian Kemp in one CNN article: "I was the first elected official in Georgia to publicly oppose the plan to close Republican leaning precincts in Randolph County, which is under Democratic rule".[7] The rest of the article is spent repeating the original voter suppression claims. Even now, publications like the New York Times summarize it as a "recent proposal to close seven of nine polling places in majority-black Randolph County".[8] (Which is of course technically true - just hideously misleading.) As for the North Dakota business, let me help you with that: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/02/north-dakota-NPL/voting-will-not-cost-hunting-license-north-dakota/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/21/voter-suppression-georgia-randolph-county-polling-place https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/21/voter-suppre... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ill-fated-plan-to-close-polling-places-in-georgia-county-recalled-lingering-prejudice/2018/08/24/6cad0ee6-a78c-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ill-fated-plan-to-cl... [3] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/georgia-county-trying-to-close-most-of-its-polling-places.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/georgia-county-trying... [4] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions/randolph-county-georgia-voting-rights-errol-louis/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions/randolph-county-... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/randolph-county-georgia-voting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/randolph-county-georgi... [6] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-voter-suppression-scheme-716393/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-... [7] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/24/us/randolph-county-polling-closures-vote/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/24/us/randolph-county-pollin... [8] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/georgia-governor-voting-irregularities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/georgia-gover...

by tiles 8y ago

ericdykstra 8y ago

The parties support the policies that will help them win. Thinking this is an ideological position rather than a tactical one is wrong. If it turned out that Voter ID laws would benefit Democrats, they would support them in an instant.

damnyou 8y ago
To quote dril: the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  I'm not making a value judgement. edit: I'll also challenge you to find a policy around voting that is supported by a party that simultaneously hurts that party, just because they're principled.
  - damnyou 8y ago
    The point is it is impossible to talk about politics purely at a meta level without evaluating the stances themselves. It is bad that you are not making a value judgement there. Start making some. To respond to your edit, it is not a coincidence that the party supporting expanded voting rights is the party that's more inclusive in other respects as well.
    - ericdykstra 8y ago
      This is a ridiculous premise. I made commentary without making a value judgement, and you're telling me it's impossible and that I need to. Then you respond to my question with a value judgement rather than actually answer my question. I don't care about your political opinions, and I don't care to state mine here now.
      - damnyou 8y ago
        You're right, it's not impossible. Just a mark of moral cowardice. It's useful in life to know good from bad. Start caring more about people's political opinions. It's good to judge people on their political opinions. This is in stark contrast to, say, sports, where it is totally fine to talk about the rules of the game at a purely meta level. The difference between politics and sports is that politics affects people's lives.
        ericdykstra 8y ago
        There are times to discuss facts and times to discuss moral preferences. There's something wrong when you can't discuss facts necessarily bringing in a moral side. And you seem reluctant to even acknowledge the facts to begin with. I, of course, have my own opinions around voting and Democracy. I just chose not to share them in this venue, as it's beside the point.
        damnyou 8y ago
        > There are times to discuss facts and times to discuss moral preferences. Not in politics. Facts about politics are useless devoid of moral context. "The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln" is both true and utterly meaningless. This is different from, say, sports, where you can talk about facts without invoking a moral context. Politics is different. Very very different. Elections have enormous consequences. Lives are at stake. > I just chose not to share them in this venue, as it's beside the point. It's not besides the point.
  - tobr 8y ago
    To take on this challenge - Isn’t that exactly the situation with the recent Supreme Court nominations? One party break the norms and refuse to vote because they want to wait until they can nominate someone. The other party could have done the same, but didn’t, because principles.
    - ericdykstra 8y ago
      This is incorrect. The Republicans did it to Merrick Garland, and could, because they controlled enough Senate seats. The Democrats would have done the same to Brett Kavanaugh, but couldn't, because they didn't control enough Senate seats. They instead tried numerous other tactics that I would not call "principled" to stop the nomination, and failed.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
        There were Democrats that voted for Gorsuch. The Democrats are absurdly naïvely playing a game of principles their opponents don't respect and don't know what “hardball” means.
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > The Democrats are absurdly naïvely playing a game of principles their opponents don't respect and don't know what “hardball” means. Accusations of sexual assault provided at the last minute even when you have known about them for months about a decades old incident you have no proof occurred is “playing a game of principles”?
        jki275 8y ago
        And republicans voted for Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. The democrat party is no more principled than anyone else.
        SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
        Gorsuch didn't tip the balance of the court, nor was his confirmation within spitting distance of the midterms. The stakes for both parties were much higher in the Kavanaugh battle.
  - jboynyc 8y ago
    Your "challenge" isn't difficult at all. Just look at every EU country where Christian democrats and other conservative parties neither trump up stories of voter fraud nor pursue policies to keep young people, women, urban dwellers or gays from voting, even though that "hurts" them (because their voters tend to be older, straight men in rural areas). This may be changing with the rise of far-right parties, but hasn't been much of an issue thus far [1]. The Brian Kemps of this world really are exceptionally malicious, and your attempts to normalize their behavior are completely misguided. 1: https://us.boell.org/2017/11/01/achtung-voter-suppression-coming-europe https://us.boell.org/2017/11/01/achtung-voter-suppression-co...
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Easy: Every constitutional Amendment regarding voting, such as the 19th, 24th, or 26th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit... They all passed with overwhelming majorities. Yet each one must have cost (at least) one party in % of votes.
wwweston 8y ago
> If it turned out that Voter ID laws would benefit Democrats, they would support them in an instant. This has the caché of being knowingly world-weary, but it's likely quite wrong. Ideological positions which present an obstacle to voter willingness to support a candidate aren't exactly uncommon, and tend to break down by party. That seems to indicate that ideological positions that might present an obstacle to voter ability to support a candidate -- or, inversely, increase opposition ability -- might well be possible. Also, your asserion ignores the existing psych research on temperamental foundations of political leanings. People are more likely to vote their temperament-based values than than their interests. And fears of a contaminating "Other" adulterating election results are going to cluster more with political conservative issues while a more open process is going to cluster with politically liberal issues. In order to get Democratic constituencies to support exclusive voting laws, you'd have to flip the temperamental polarity of each party.

erwan 8y ago

I don't have a horse in that race, I'm not even a US citizen - and I must say that whole debate on voter id laws is puzzling to me. After reading a bit on disparate impact and what constitute the "crux" of the issue, I get why the ID requirement can be problematic if it makes people jump through a ton of hoops. However, the common suggestion that IDing people be stripped altogether just sounds bizarre to me. I would think a path to resolution would rather include making it easier to obtain an ID.

ericdykstra 8y ago
A common suggestion is to just issue the ID free of charge. Considering the state of government invasion of liberty in America, this seems like a no-brainer step in the right direction at minimal cost.
- elyobo 8y ago
  Doing things for free is something that the Republicans are also ideologically opposed to though...
- mikeash 8y ago
  ID is free at your local DMV office... which is a five minute drive away if you’re in an area that votes properly, and a three-hour bus ride with eight transfers if you’re not.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Of course, without voter ID, the same people are just pulling that trick with polling places directly.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Indeed. That’s at least a little more obvious and a little easier to resist.
cm2012 8y ago

shard972 8y ago

The only way you can think VoterID laws prevent democracy is if you think illegal aliens have a right to vote.

wtallis 8y ago
Illegal aliens are only relevant to a discussion of voter ID laws if those aliens have successfully registered to vote. Preventing illegal aliens from registering to vote is just as effective as requiring ID on election day, but doesn't have as many negative side effects. Plus, exploiting a lack of voter ID requirements by impersonating a registered voter on election day has pretty much the worst risk vs reward balance of any form of election fraud. It's hard to identify large numbers of registered voters who are unlikely to actually vote, it's hard to gather enough individuals to impersonate them, and it's pretty easy for any large-scale effort like this to be exposed.
cm2012 8y ago
Only 87% of the citizen population of the US has government issued ID.

tarento 8y ago

You make it look like those people are really invested in democracy so they wanted to build an app to make people vote, were looking for organisations to help them and only found help in organisations from the left. But, most likely, they were leftists to begin with and created these seemingly neutral apps to push the dem vote. As an example just look at the Twitter feed of "Naseem Makiya", the founder of Outvote, one of the apps discussed in the NYT article: https://twitter.com/nmakiya https://twitter.com/nmakiya And then "Mikey Dickerson", the founder of VoteWithMe: https://twitter.com/mikeydickerson https://twitter.com/mikeydickerson -- In fact look at all the bios of the people behind VoteWithMe! https://newdataproject.us/team.html https://newdataproject.us/team.html

matt4077 8y ago
Is there a specific reason you're putting these people's names in scary-looking quotation mark? Because those seem to be their actual names.
- tarento 8y ago
  Scary-looking? I'm just highlighting the names because this forum does not have boldface.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Use italics for that by surrounding them with *.
  - astura 8y ago
    Quote aren't used for highlighting text in the English language, that's considered incorrect usage. The quotes you used are interpreted as what's called "scare quotes" to the majority of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes > they were leftists to begin with and created these seemingly neutral apps to push the dem vote. They are open about the purpose of the apps, to encourage young progressives to vote.

makomk 8y ago

Remember all those news stories a few months back about an attempt to close 7 out of the 9 polling places in a majority-black Georgia county which voted for Clinton in the last presidential election? The one which the entire press spun as a Republican attempt to suppress the black vote? That was a Democrat elections board. Supposedly, while the county as a whole was majority-black and voted Clinton, those voters were all concentrated around the two urban polling locations which weren't closing, whilst the seven more rural ones which were closing returned a majority for Trump last election. Not that you'd know that from the media reporting... More recently, the official Democrat party organisation in North Dakota tried to suppress the Republican vote there by running bogus, pants-on-fire Facebook ads falsely claiming that voting could cost people their hunting licenses, the state's Democrat senator stood behind this claim, and this wasn't any kind of national media scandal at all. I'm not sure if Facebook even banned them for it or anything despite this being a clear ToS violation. I presume that any other Democrat voter suppression which wasn't an in-your-face, public ad campaign with the name of the party literally written all over it and didn't get mistaken for Republican voter suppression has simply gone entirely unnoticed. Why wouldn't it?

specialist 8y ago
You're referring to Randolph County? No. Elections consultant recommended to the director of elections that poll sites which were not ADA compliant (required by HAVA) be closed, because there was no funds to upgrade them. Both candidates for governor, many organizations, and the residents opposed this plan. The two member bipartisan elections board voted against. This was all easily fact-checked with a quick google. Please try harder. The takeaway lesson from this particular drama, for you, should be that our elections are chronically underfunded and mismanaged. Most smaller county's clerk (auditors) are completely dependent on their secretary of state to keep the lights on. A cynic might suggest the director forced the issue to shake some more money out of the state, for which I would strongly approve. Cast that as a partisan issue if you wish. I didn't bother to fact check your North Dakota stuff. I assume it's also less than wrong.
- makomk 8y ago
  > Elections consultant recommended to the director of elections that poll sites which were not ADA compliant (required by HAVA) be closed, because there was no funds to upgrade them. That was the official reason, yes. Pretty much the entire mainstream press, plus the ACLU and other similar advocacy organisations, spun this as an obvious lie covering for what was in reality a Republican plot to suppress the black vote.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The candidates for governor spoke out opposing this and the board voted against it after a massive, viral tide of outrage based on the belief that this was a racist Republican voter suppression scheme, including "two packed town-hall meetings in which residents berated local elections officials".[2] The closest I've found to any mention of the fact that the supposed voter suppression scheme - a claim which was and still is uncritically regurgitated in every major news outlet - would in fact have had the opposite effect from that claimed is a single quote from Republican secretary of state Brian Kemp in one CNN article: "I was the first elected official in Georgia to publicly oppose the plan to close Republican leaning precincts in Randolph County, which is under Democratic rule".[7] The rest of the article is spent repeating the original voter suppression claims. Even now, publications like the New York Times summarize it as a "recent proposal to close seven of nine polling places in majority-black Randolph County".[8] (Which is of course technically true - just hideously misleading.) As for the North Dakota business, let me help you with that: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/02/north-dakota-NPL/voting-will-not-cost-hunting-license-north-dakota/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/21/voter-suppression-georgia-randolph-county-polling-place https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/21/voter-suppre... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ill-fated-plan-to-close-polling-places-in-georgia-county-recalled-lingering-prejudice/2018/08/24/6cad0ee6-a78c-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ill-fated-plan-to-cl... [3] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/georgia-county-trying-to-close-most-of-its-polling-places.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/georgia-county-trying... [4] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions/randolph-county-georgia-voting-rights-errol-louis/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions/randolph-county-... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/randolph-county-georgia-voting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/randolph-county-georgi... [6] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-voter-suppression-scheme-716393/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-... [7] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/24/us/randolph-county-polling-closures-vote/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/24/us/randolph-county-pollin... [8] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/georgia-governor-voting-irregularities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/georgia-gover...