[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nal-districts/

This is not a republican phenomena, as much as you and MSNBC would like it to be. If we want it to stop, we must stop treating it as a partisan issue and start treating it for what it is, a citizen vs ruling class issue.

Who are you talking to?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Agreed! And to that end would your support the redistricting process being conducted by non-partisan commissions nationwide ... instead of by whatever political party happens to be in power every 10 years when the census is taken?

OAW

Something along those lines - I fear commissions might be too prone to influence over time. I think we could probably handle it systematically without leaving any significant decision making up to potentially coercible humans. But I'm with you in spirit. That, or give it to the judicial branch.

[OAW]

You think?

To his detractors, Edward Blum is one of the most dangerous men in America, a human wrecking ball on a mission to destroy the landmark achievements of the civil rights era and send the country back to a dark age of discrimination and harassment of minorities – in the workplace, in higher education and at the ballot box.

Last month, the supreme court justices heard oral arguments in back-to-back cases brought by Blum. The first was a challenge to the University of Texas’s use of affirmative action in its own admissions policies. And the second – perhaps the most radical case Blum has brought – threatens to change the entire basis of electoral representation nationwide by proposing that non-citizens, children and former felons be dropped from consideration in the drawing of state and local legislative districts.

Blum argues it’s about upholding the principle of “one person, one vote”, but the effect of such a change would almost certainly be to dilute representation in urban, Democratic-leaning districts and boost it in suburban and rural, Republican-leaning ones. Within municipalities, it is likely to make city councils whiter and more conservative. It would also counter the principle – enshrined in the constitution for federal elections, and established by the supreme court in 1964 for state-level ones – that legislators should represent roughly equal blocs of population, regardless of eligibility.

Some of Blum’s cases have had such an impact that even he has been taken aback. Nowhere is that truer than with Shelby County v Holder, a case he sponsored that in 2013 led the supreme court to overturn a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blum told the Guardian he has worried over the fallout from that ruling, which spurred conservative legislators in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere to revive laws that the Justice Department had previously blocked or was expected to block on the grounds that they were vehicles for minority vote suppression.

Those laws have introduced draconian voter ID requirements, cut back on early voting, and eliminated same-day registration.

“I think about it a lot, I worry about it a lot. I agonise over this,” Blum told the Guardian. “It may be that one or two of the states that used to be covered by Section 5 has gone too far.”

Civil rights organizations and good government groups say Blum should have anticipated these effects, because legislators made little secret of their intentions and, in North Carolina, snapped into action within hours of the supreme court publishing its ruling.

“What he’s attacking are principles that have brought people into the democratic process so everyone can participate and everyone can be heard,” Stephen Spaulding, legal director of the nonpartisan government watchdog Common Cause, told the Guardian. “He’s brought a sledgehammer to the process, demolishing huge swaths of laws … This is about putting power in the hands of the very few to dictate the rules to the rest of us.”

Man behind gutting of Voting Rights Act: states may have 'gone too far' since decision | US news | The Guardian

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah the case is kind of riveting in its uniqueness. The biggest conclusion I can draw is if you think the current system is disenfranchising people, I don't see how the one person, one vote system doesn't as well.

As far as merit, I feel the the 3/5ths compromise demonstrates how concerned the founding fathers were about one person one vote as these guys see it.

[The Final Dakar]

I missed this news over the holidays. Here's a new version of voter suppression: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...79a_story.html

The Virginia Republican Party recently decided voters who want to help choose the Republican presidential nominee must first sign a statement that says: “My signature below indicates I am a Republican.”

Considering its an open primary I don't see how this isn't going to get chucked. It also reads as I kind of poll-test.

[The Final Dakar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ite-republican

Surprise!

[Chongo]

I took my mother down to the MVD and got her a free state ID card. Took all of 10 minutes. She hasn't driven for almost twenty years and her drivers license had long expired. Just so we're clear, we're talking about an 81 year old woman of Mexican descent and registered Democrat.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It's too much to expect even a shred of responsibility or personal accountability. It won't be enough for some people until we treat everyone like small children, all in need of the gov't to hold their hands.

[Paco500]

It's fascinating that our more conservative members, who are usually so protective of it, seem to want to ignore the actual text of the constitution on this issue. Let's review what it actually says.

Originally Posted by 14th Amendment

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The 19th invite women to the party, and the 26th drops the age limit to 18. Nowhere does it say that a potential voter has to prove their credentials, it just says that if an eligible voter is denied the vote "the basis of representation therein shall be reduced" for the offending state.

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's too much to expect even a shred of responsibility or personal accountability. It won't be enough for some people until we treat everyone like small children, all in need of the gov't to hold their hands.

Not the point. Any obstacle you put up needs to have a justification. The offered justification in this case, the risk of voter fraud, doesn't hold water, therefore no further obstacles are warranted.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's fascinating that our more conservative members, who are usually so protective of it, seem to want to ignore the actual text of the constitution on this issue. Let's review what it actually says.



The 19th invite women to the party, and the 26th drops the age limit to 18. Nowhere does it say that a potential voter has to prove their credentials, it just says that if an eligible voter is denied the vote "the basis of representation therein shall be reduced" for the offending state.

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

Indeed. I find it interesting how so many of our good friends on the right consider the 2nd Amendment to be sacrosanct. Even a very reasonable background check requirement is considered to be some sort of "infringement" of the right to bear arms. Or at a minimum the beginning of a slippery slope towards "tyranny". Yet a reasonable albeit completely unnecessary and ineffective photo ID requirement in order to cast a ballot isn't considered to be an "infringement" of the right to vote by these same individuals.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by P 

Not the point. Any obstacle you put up needs to have a justification. The offered justification in this case, the risk of voter fraud, doesn't hold water, therefore no further obstacles are warranted.

How do these disenfranchised people even apply for a job or gov't assistance? That requires an ID.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. I find it interesting how so many of our good friends on the right consider the 2nd Amendment to be sacrosanct. Even a very reasonable background check requirement is considered to be some sort of "infringement" of the right to bear arms. Or at a minimum the beginning of a slippery slope towards "tyranny". Yet a reasonable albeit completely unnecessary and ineffective photo ID requirement in order to cast a ballot isn't considered to be an "infringement" of the right to vote by these same individuals.

When has anyone here ever called for doing away with the background check system? Or are you just throwing up another strawman and lying again?

[Waragainstsleep]

Pretty sure some of you have complained about the recent changes Obama pushed through. Sure some of you complain it won't work or about the way he went about it, but we all know its thinly veiled opposition to ANY changes to gun legislation at all.

[subego]

Nm.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nm.

Aw...

New Hampshire Students Say They Were Illegally Turned Away From The Polls | ThinkProgress

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Aw...

New Hampshire Students Say They Were Illegally Turned Away From The Polls | ThinkProgress

Sander's margin of victory could have been larger.

I understand the issue was proving residency. NH law allows for the use of a studen ID. The senior cited in the article didn't have a student ID, or is that insufficient proof of residency?

[BadKosh]

So how did the senior get medicines, etc?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Pretty sure some of you have complained about the recent changes Obama pushed through. Sure some of you complain it won't work or about the way he went about it, but we all know its thinly veiled opposition to ANY changes to gun legislation at all.

"Pushed through" what? All he did was sign a paper, it's not like he actually tried to do anything difficult. Nor is it like any state AG will support it, when people do violate it. They weren't prosecuting those offenses before, and they won't now. It wasn't anything more than a way to get the anti-gun shitheads off his back.

[Waragainstsleep]

So you're complaining that it won't work. Only you're saying that if it doesn't it will be because the gun loons won't enforce the perfectly reasonable laws that they've been complaining haven't been previously enforced which was always the problem all along.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So you're complaining that it won't work. Only you're saying that if it doesn't it will be because the gun loons won't enforce the perfectly reasonable laws that they've been complaining haven't been previously enforced which was always the problem all along.

I think it's funny that people are crowing about him doing something, but in reality he did nothing, except further **** up the balance of power in DC (something that will come back to bite us all in the ass during our lifetimes). For a moment, let's imagine someone like Trump with royal decrees unlimited executive power... now, do you still feel good about the "whatever it takes" approach? Personally, it scares the shit out of me, but hey, at least he "did something", right?

[Chongo]

As long as "the trains run on time"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As long as "the trains run on time"

The DC gravy train, that is.

-t

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I think it's funny that people are crowing about him doing something, but in reality he did nothing, except further **** up the balance of power in DC (something that will come back to bite us all in the ass during our lifetimes). For a moment, let's imagine someone like Trump with royal decrees unlimited executive power... now, do you still feel good about the "whatever it takes" approach? Personally, it scares the shit out of me, but hey, at least he "did something", right?

All I said was that some people here complained about it which if you hadn't before, you have now. I hardly think that qualifies as me crowing.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

All I said was that some people here complained about it which if you hadn't before, you have now. I hardly think that qualifies as me crowing.

People complained when Bush did stupid shit, don't be surprised that they do the same with Obama.

[The Final Dakar]

U.S. Supreme Court declines stay in NC redistricting | abc11.com

Many critics say the new maps are as gerrymandered as the old maps, just in a different way.

"The court sent them back to fix a racial gerrymander," said Rep. Grier Martin, a Wake County Democrat. "The Republicans' remedy to a racial gerrymander is a partisan gerrymander, which Rep. Lewis freely admitted was drawn for partisan advantage."

Dunn Republican David Lewis did, in fact, "freely admit" that on the House floor before today's vote. "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats," Lewis said, "so I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country."

[BadKosh]

Hmmmmmm.............. George Soros' buddy?

Soros Board Member Chairs Firm Running Online Voting for Tuesday’s Utah Caucuses - Breitbart

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

People complained when Bush did stupid shit, don't be surprised that they do the same with Obama.

I don't see whats stupid about trying to close the gun show loophole.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

There is no "gun show loophole", but even if these was, the ends do not justify the means.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't see whats stupid about trying to close the gun show loophole.

That is the kind of propaganda you get listening to lefty 'news' programs.

Just like "Assault Weapons ban" which happened in 1994. Still I see Democrats holding up signs wanting something to be done about them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't see whats stupid about trying to close the gun show loophole.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

There is no "gun show loophole", but even if these was, the ends do not justify the means.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

That is the kind of propaganda you get listening to lefty 'news' programs.

Just like "Assault Weapons ban" which happened in 1994. Still I see Democrats holding up signs wanting something to be done about them.

Ok, they've passed a law that before you enter a gun show you swipe your drivers license/ID card like a debit card and it runs an instant background check. As a result of only allowing those into the show that passed the background check, nothing changes. Then what?


Assault weapon ban? All I have to do is order some after market parts and my Ruger 10/22 or Mini 14 is transformed into an assault rifle.

[The Final Dakar]

There Were Five-Hour Lines to Vote in Arizona Because the Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act | The Nation

I believe this the second time this primary season republicans have had terrible lines. I can't imagine it'll get better for the actual election.

Also, reducing poll places to save money = LOL

[OAW]

As a follow-up to the post above ....

It’s bad enough that an outrage was perpetrated last week against the voters of Maricopa County, Ariz. It would be far worse if we ignore the warning that the disenfranchisement of thousands of its citizens offers our nation. In November, one of the most contentious campaigns in our history could end in a catastrophe for our democracy.

A major culprit would be the U.S. Supreme Court, and specifically the conservative majority that gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

The facts of what happened in Arizona’s presidential primary are gradually penetrating the nation’s consciousness. In a move rationalized as an attempt to save money, officials of Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, cut the number of polling places by 70 percent, from 200 in the last presidential election to 60 this time around.

Maricopa includes Phoenix, the state’s largest city, which happens to have a non-white majority and is a Democratic island in an otherwise Republican county.

What did the cutbacks mean? As the Arizona Republic reported, the county’s move left one polling place for every 21,000 voters — compared with one polling place for every 2,500 voters in the rest of the state.

The results, entirely predictable, were endless lines akin to those that await the release of new iPhones. It’s an analogy worth thinking about, as there is no right to own an iPhone but there is a right to vote. Many people had to wait hours to cast a ballot, and some polling stations had to stay open long after the scheduled 7 p.m. closing time to accommodate those who had been waiting — and waiting. The Republic told the story of Aracely Calderon, a 56-year-old immigrant from Guatemala who waited five hours to cast her ballot. There were many voters like her.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, whose government does not control election management, is furious about what was visited upon his city’s residents. The day after the primary, he wrote U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch asking her to open a Justice Department investigation into the fiasco. It was not just that there weren’t enough polling places, Stanton charged. Their allocation also was “far more favorable in predominantly Anglo communities.” There were fewer voting locations in “parts of the county with higher minority populations.”

In a telephone interview, Stanton made the essential point. Long lines are bad for everyone. But they particularly hurt the least advantaged, who usually have less flexibility in their schedules than more affluent people do. It is often quite literally true that poor voters can’t afford to wait.

“If you’re a single mother with two kids, you’re not going to wait for hours, you’re going to leave that line,” Stanton said. As a result, Stanton said, “tens of thousands of people were deprived of the right to vote.”

A Democrat, Stanton asked himself the obvious question: “Am I suggesting this was the intent of the people who run elections in Maricopa County?” His answer: “In voting rights terms, it doesn’t matter.” What matters, he said, is whether changes in practice “had a disparate impact on minority communities,” which they clearly did.

And there’s the rub. Before the Supreme Court undermined Voting Rights Act enforcement, radical changes in voting practices such as Maricopa’s drastic cut in the number of polling places would have been required to be cleared with the Justice Department because Arizona was one of the states the law covered. This time, county officials could blunder — let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there was no discriminatory intent — without any supervision.

Now let’s look ahead to Election Day this fall. Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, notes in his important new book, “The Fight to Vote,” that Republicans have “moved with strategic ferocity” to pass a variety of laws around the country to make it harder for people to cast ballots. The Brennan Center reports that 16 states “will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election.”

Imagine voting debacles like Arizona’s happening all across the country. Consider what the news reports would be like on the night of Nov. 8, 2016. Are we not divided enough already? Can we risk holding an election whose outcome would be rendered illegitimate in the eyes of a very large number of Americans who might be robbed of their franchise?

This is not idle fantasy. Arizona has shown us what could happen. We have seven months to prevent what really could be an electoral cataclysm.

Arizona’s voting outrage is a warning to the nation | WashingtonPost.com

Many of us have been making this case throughout this thread. When the conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act and the GOP controlled Congress refused to restore it by addressing the SCOTUS' "concerns" we predicted this very thing would happen. We've said all of these GOP enacted changes to voting rules are purposefully designed to create these sorts of situations in areas that tend to vote for Dems. Voter Suppression is not a joke good people. It's not a game. And it is certainly no longer theoretical. This is proof positive that it is very real threat to very foundation of our democracy.

OAW

[BadKosh]

How is someones vote suppressed when they leave the line VOLUNTARILY? Impatience seems to be an issue.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ok, they've passed a law that before you enter a gun show you swipe your drivers license/ID card like a debit card and it runs an instant background check. As a result of only allowing those into the show that passed the background check, nothing changes. Then what?

But YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BUTTLOAD OF PAPERWORK too! At least in VA when I go to a gun show. It took 40 minutes to process. THEN I could complete the transaction.

[The Final Dakar]

I'd like to see the governor respond to the issue, but I'll be surprised if the situation gets rectified before this election.

That voters per place # is staggering, though

[The Final Dakar]

Follow up: The gov wants open primaries. The Secretary of State wants to kill the primary and move to a caucus to save money. Hmm

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How is someones vote suppressed when they leave the line VOLUNTARILY? Impatience seems to be an issue.

Did you have to wait 5 hours to vote? Is your employer laid back enough to not care if you are 5 hours late? Should anyone have to wait 5 hours to vote?

I walked in to my polling place, voted, and walked out. 5 minutes tops.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How is someones vote suppressed when they leave the line VOLUNTARILY? Impatience seems to be an issue.

Assuming you actually read the article ...

If you can ask such a question with a straight face then you are clearly beyond all hope for rational discourse on the topic.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Assuming you actually read the article ...

If you can ask such a question with a straight face then you are clearly beyond all hope for rational discourse on the topic.

OAW

This is your traditional response when you can't articulate a logical argument.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'd like to see the governor respond to the issue, but I'll be surprised if the situation gets rectified before this election.

That voters per place # is staggering, though

This was the setup for the PPE, only. In prior PPE's the turnout was much lower. The decision to go from 200 to 60 polling places was based on that. Purcell has already said this will not be the situation for any of the upcoming special/primary and general elections that are upcoming. My wife and I went to vote and were met with nowhere to park and a line that was several hours long. I would have gladly waited in line. My wife on the other hand would not be able to handle it. Our local paper reported that a large portion of voters had already voted by mail in ballot. Many of them showed up and wanted a do over because who they voted for dropped out. That's how Kasich finished fourth in a three way race. What made the lines worse was that people who knew they couldn't vote (PND's) showed up and tried to vote.

The bottom line is Purcell and others should have known by the turnout in other states this was not going to be like other PPE's and planned accordingly.

The thing that really pissed off everyone is the networks declaring a winner despite the fact there were still people in line voting.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Did you have to wait 5 hours to vote? Is your employer laid back enough to not care if you are 5 hours late? Should anyone have to wait 5 hours to vote?

I walked in to my polling place, voted, and walked out. 5 minutes tops.

Me too. I show up at the polls about 10 minutes before they open. get in, vote and get out in less than 15 minutes during Presidential cycles and about 5 minutes otherwise.

What happens when you go after work? Those who CHOSE to blow it of til later/couldn't get up early etc get to hang out til the end. When VA polls 'close', the last guy gets a sign saying he's the last. Those IN LINE still get to vote. If it's THAT important to vote then you would hang out and vote. 5 hours or not.

[andi*pandi]

Wouldn't you be mad if some political hack had decided to cut all the polling stations in your area, so you had to drive far away to get to one, and then you get there and there were 11000 people there? Wouldn't it seem a little suspicious?

Even if all the people in my district showed up at the same time to vote, I doubt the line would be more than an hour. There are a ton of polling stations in our town. Not just one.

What if you're a hard working american with two jobs, starts work at 6am, who went to vote on his lunch break, only to find the line out the door? And if you are late, your boss will fire you? and your second job starts right after the first one ends. I can imagine that. I don't imagine everyone in line is a slacker.

I have no doubts your voting place in VA, and mine in MA, is much better run than AZ... but why is that? Is cost-cutting really a good excuse to have so few polling stations? How much does it cost to pay the nice little old ladies and gents to sit at the voting table and hand out ballots? I almost get the sense they are volunteer patriots anyhow.

These are just practical concerns that should bother everyone regardless of party.

AZ may as well put the polling place inside a big moat patrolled by gators. If people really wanted to vote, they wouldn't let a gator stand in their way.

[The Final Dakar]

Hilariously, this mirrors the anti-abortion strategy, but I can't say it was coordinated because this is the only instance I know of of reducing polling places.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

This is your traditional response when you can't articulate a logical argument.

The "logical argument" is laid out quite succinctly in the article. Yet you chose to simply ignore something as indisputably damning as this ...

In a move rationalized as an attempt to save money, officials of Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, cut the number of polling places by 70 percent, from 200 in the last presidential election to 60 this time around.

Maricopa includes Phoenix, the state’s largest city, which happens to have a non-white majority and is a Democratic island in an otherwise Republican county.

What did the cutbacks mean? As the Arizona Republic reported, the county’s move left one polling place for every 21,000 voters — compared with one polling place for every 2,500 voters in the rest of the state.

Arizona is without question a red state. Yet somehow GOP officials decided to change the voting process so that Maricopa County ... which is the state's most heavily populated county as a result of Phoenix which just so happens to be a Democratic stronghold ... suddenly slashes the number of voting machines by 70 percent. Resulting in a situation where voters in the largely Democratic Phoenix area had 1 polling station for every 21K voters ... whereas voters throughout the rest of the state that are overwhelmingly Republican had 1 polling station for every 2.5K voters. Which even Stevie Wonder could see would inevitably result in ridiculously long lines for those voters in the Phoenix area. Yet you dismiss that as mere "impatience" on the part of said voters. And again, I refuse to even engage you on that level. So I'll tell you what. How about you provide a "logical argument" for why such a blatant disparity in the # of polling stations per voter makes sense to you.

OAW

[Chongo]

Umm, I live in Phoenix area. I have all my almost 54 years It's not a Democrat stronghold. Phoenix was very Republican until recently. Now with people moving in from CA it's about even. Tempe on the other hand is home to ASU and is the "Democrat stronghold" of county. Tucson and Pima county are definitely Democrat.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Umm, I live in Phoenix area. I have all my almost 54 years It's not a Democrat stronghold. Phoenix was very Republican until recently. Now with people moving in from CA it's about even. Tempe on the other hand is home to ASU and is the "Democrat stronghold" of county. Tucson and Pima county are definitely Democrat.

Not too quibble but what I'm saying is that Maricopa County is a GOP stronghold overall. Whereas Phoenix is a Democratic "stronghold" ... and perhaps that term is too much ... within that county. I used the term "Phoenix area" above and that was my bad because what I meant was the "Phoenix city limits". But my point is that if one is trying to "tip the scales" then suppressing the Democratic turnout in the state's most populous county is a shrewd albeit unscrupulous tactic.

OAW

[Chongo]

I live in Phoenix. Out of my 54 years I have lived here for a total of 44 years. I did live in Gilbert for ten years when I first married. We bought a house on the street where I grew up ten years ago.

I grew up on this street. I have lived on this street for those 44 years.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+...cd8820d41058a4

Went to K-2 at the Church on 24th and Campbell, and 3-8 at the school on 20th and Campbell. I graduated from the high school that's in the neighborhood. When I was born, it was in the county and the city limits were a mile south. It's now more than twenty miles north. BTW, 24th street was where the first huge anti SB1070 march took place. Sen Kyle's office is located in an office just north of there.

I will concede one thing. Camelback was once called the "rich kids" high school. That all changed after my senior year in '81 when PUHSD closed East High and moved all the students to Camelback . It was almost all anglo. My sisters and I and a handful of other students made up the Mexican students. Today I think it's almost 75% Mexican.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The Secretary of State wants to kill the primary and move to a caucus to save money. Hmm

That's one good way to get Sanders nominated, I guess.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The "logical argument" is laid out quite succinctly in the article. Yet you chose to simply ignore something as indisputably damning as this ...



Arizona is without question a red state. Yet somehow GOP officials decided to change the voting process so that Maricopa County ... which is the state's most heavily populated county as a result of Phoenix which just so happens to be a Democratic stronghold ... suddenly slashes the number of voting machines by 70 percent. Resulting in a situation where voters in the largely Democratic Phoenix area had 1 polling station for every 21K voters ... whereas voters throughout the rest of the state that are overwhelmingly Republican had 1 polling station for every 2.5K voters. Which even Stevie Wonder could see would inevitably result in ridiculously long lines for those voters in the Phoenix area. Yet you dismiss that as mere "impatience" on the part of said voters. And again, I refuse to even engage you on that level. So I'll tell you what. How about you provide a "logical argument" for why such a blatant disparity in the # of polling stations per voter makes sense to you.

OAW

E.J.Dionne? Really? He's a flaming liberal hack. Its an opinion piece. Look at the MAP of voting locations and get back to me. further, Your article didn't say squat about suppression. YOU don't seem to be intellectually precise enough to notice what was stated, and what was inferred.