4 ms·

1. Any elements of the law which make voter fraud less likely are good. 2. Any elements of the law which unnecessarily make it more difficult to vote -- where

1. Any elements of the law which make voter fraud less likely are good. 2. Any elements of the law which unnecessarily make it more difficult to vote -- where elements in support of No. 1 are NOT deemed unnecessary -- are bad. Having a limited number of drop boxes and a narrow time window are the aspects of this law which reflect bad faith. Requiring verification of identity is reasonable.

temp8964 6y ago
But Georgia officials are claiming the opposite. Remember, the sectary of state is the same person stand against Trump. For the "narrow time window" claim, Biden got "Four Pinocchios" assessment from WashingtonPost. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/30/biden-falsely-claims-new-georgia-law-ends-voting-hours-early/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/30/biden-fal... I am not sure what are the real truth about Georgia vote law. Here are a few points dispute the media claims: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-the-horrors/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-the-horrors/ Even without knowing the facts, I think to compare it to Jim Crow must but be B.S. Under the current environment of media hype, I don't think any thoughtful person should take media claims at a face value.
jfengel 6y ago
Elements of the law that make voter fraud less likely are redundant. Voter fraud is practically nonexistent. Enormous effort is put into rooting it out, and never turn up anything. The law consists exclusively of bad parts and the claims of any good parts are simply bad faith. They are pretending to fight a problem that definitively has not happened, and knowingly disenfranchising specific sets of people who have the most difficult time voting -- along partisan lines. There is no tradeoff here. It's all bad and no good.
- pmdulaney 6y ago
  Has fraud been practically nonexistant? Perhaps. But I think "Trust but verify" applies here. (No, there is no real trust where you feel the need to verify, but that is the point.)

temp8964 6y ago

But Georgia officials are claiming the opposite. Remember, the sectary of state is the same person stand against Trump. For the "narrow time window" claim, Biden got "Four Pinocchios" assessment from WashingtonPost. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/30/biden-falsely-claims-new-georgia-law-ends-voting-hours-early/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/30/biden-fal... I am not sure what are the real truth about Georgia vote law. Here are a few points dispute the media claims: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-the-horrors/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-the-horrors/ Even without knowing the facts, I think to compare it to Jim Crow must but be B.S. Under the current environment of media hype, I don't think any thoughtful person should take media claims at a face value.

jfengel 6y ago

Elements of the law that make voter fraud less likely are redundant. Voter fraud is practically nonexistent. Enormous effort is put into rooting it out, and never turn up anything. The law consists exclusively of bad parts and the claims of any good parts are simply bad faith. They are pretending to fight a problem that definitively has not happened, and knowingly disenfranchising specific sets of people who have the most difficult time voting -- along partisan lines. There is no tradeoff here. It's all bad and no good.

pmdulaney 6y ago
Has fraud been practically nonexistant? Perhaps. But I think "Trust but verify" applies here. (No, there is no real trust where you feel the need to verify, but that is the point.)