Not suppression.
Changing your address often changes your local voting registration, districts, precincts, etc. Even a simple move across town does that. Just as you need to change your mailing address as the post office, a move should trigger a change in voting registration.
I’m not saying that something couldn’t be automated here if you stay in-state. I’d be all for that. But without that automated change, it should require the voter to make sure the registration is up to date.
1 Like
How would the state know these factors without a formal registration process? For that matter, how would a polling place know if the person is eligible to vote there?
I certainly see the point here.
The exercise of removing inactive voters is rooted in the likelihood that the voter has moved elsewhere and votes there now. At least in Colorado, when the voter is removed, he gets a notification and can reverse the removal if he wants.
Requiring registration is not disenfranchisement.
1 Like
Anyone at the polls giving out such a list would be violating polling-place laws. And I’d be suspicious of any polling location that is not under the limitations of such laws.
#1 Because in the same post I supported state issued Voter ID. As such presenting the ID will allow election officials to instantly validate eligibility.
#2 See #1, if the address changed then the ID address has to be updated. Someone in the military would need the ability to have a “Voter Address” which would be the basis for their ballot and a “Mailing Address” for communications. For example while I was in the military I continued to vote in my home state based on the address where I grew up because even though I was ordered by the military to different part of the country I remained a resident of my home state.
WW
Your posting style used to be far better than this.
1 Like
Just to point out. He didn’t say poll workers provided them with such a list. Those asking probably got a polite “Sorry, we cannot provide candidate information, if you would like that you probably want to see the party volunteers that are off property.”
WW
I’m truly hurt by that.
Sorry I support maximum participation in the election process and making the exercise of the right to vote as easy as possible for citizens.
The idea that we are going to fanangle laws to make it more difficult and suppress populations we don’t like because they voted against our guy with things like “lazy and apathetic” being code words for “those that might vote for DEMs”, that goes against the grain of a representative democracy.
As Republican’s we should win based on the strength of our ideas not because of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
WW
Of course not.
And you put your finger on the problem: currently, the GOP is offering grievance, manufactured culture wars, and obstruction.
Is it voter suppression if 61% of the names removed are white?
Nope. Bogus culture war is the Right’s bread and butter while they starve for actual policy.
1 Like
Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence. The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandizing, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives. The authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against the increase in juvenile delinquency; they are less vociferous against the proud presentation, in word and deed and pictures, of ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs–the mature delinquency of a whole civilization.
This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior–thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives.
https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html
What?
They are in violation of no such laws.
The parties are absolutely allowed to give out their official endorsed candidates’ list, as long as they are the prescribed distance away from the voting machines and not blocking the entrance.
That’s what I was pointing out. 
Outside the polling place.
WW
Losing 100,000 ineligible votes in Ga would be quite a blow to the libs.
