Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ossaff doesn't reach 50%

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
    Voter ID laws will keep things from getting too close.
    and blocking new voters.
    no voter obstruction here, move along.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dudmuck View Post

      and blocking new voters.
      no voter obstruction here, move along.
      No obstructionism. Just a case where standing state law has been found to conflict with federal law.
      The state law was intended to keep both sides from magically finding new voters to swing runoffs.
      Law has been on the books for at least a decade and has applied to all runoffs. Of course, most of those were Republicans vs Republicans.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
        No obstructionism. Just a case where standing state law has been found to conflict with federal law.
        The state law was intended to keep both sides from magically finding new voters to swing runoffs.
        Law has been on the books for at least a decade and has applied to all runoffs. Of course, most of those were Republicans vs Republicans.
        Lol. Who cares if the voters are new or not? Why shouldn't a resident be able to vote? Well, there's one good reason: those in power are the majority of the previous voters. Anything to keep power from shifting out of their hands.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by posthuman View Post

          Lol. Who cares if the voters are new or not? Why shouldn't a resident be able to vote? Well, there's one good reason: those in power are the majority of the previous voters. Anything to keep power from shifting out of their hands.
          They can vote. According to state law, they just need to be eligible for the first election or they can't vote in the runoff.
          They don't have to vote, just be eligible. It was intended to keep "magic voters" from appearing for runoffs.
          Probably just goes over your head since your chip has been programmed already.




          Comment


          • #50
            The sc is preparing to rule on some gerrymandering shenanigans that could reverse Republican gains at a stroke. It's not just the presidency that is currently going to minority rule, without gerrymandering the dems would have another 22 seats.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post
              The sc is preparing to rule on some gerrymandering shenanigans that could reverse Republican gains at a stroke. It's not just the presidency that is currently going to minority rule, without gerrymandering the dems would have another 22 seats.
              I'm a firm believer in the complete end to gerrymandering.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post

                In the end, I'm a firm believer in to complete gerrymandering.
                Gerrymandered.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

                  Gerrymandered.
                  Lol...exactly.

                  I with they'd move to either independent panels or computer models. The more neutral the source the better.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                    Lol...exactly.

                    I with they'd move to either independent panels or computer models. The more neutral the source the better.
                    I agree with computer models. But, how would the computer models be based? Purely geographic, with minimal perimeter as a goal? Or would you try to put farms in one section and city dwellers in another? Would you follow established bounds like county lines and city limits? Would you force a redraw after each census?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by antknot View Post

                      I agree with computer models. But, how would the computer models be based? Purely geographic, with minimal perimeter as a goal? Or would you try to put farms in one section and city dwellers in another? Would you follow established bounds like county lines and city limits? Would you force a redraw after each census?
                      They are modeled by population with no other input. No race, sex, political affiliation...nothing.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                        They can vote. According to state law, they just need to be eligible for the first election or they can't vote in the runoff.
                        They don't have to vote, just be eligible. It was intended to keep "magic voters" from appearing for runoffs.
                        Probably just goes over your head since your chip has been programmed already.



                        What is magic about someone registering in the interim?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by cigarettesandtea View Post

                          What is magic about someone registering in the interim?
                          As they weren't registered/eligible for the election that caused the runoff, they would not be eligible to vote in the runoff.
                          It keeps both sides from trying to stack in new voters for runoffs.
                          GA has one of the easy registration system and you are automatically registered through various system like the DMV.
                          You would have to be someone who is brand new to the district or magically avoided registering until the runoff.

                          Of course, only one side has voters appearing from nowhere. They also hate voter ID and anything that might lead to fair elections.

                          I won't say which.



                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Moral victories are funny. The DNC blew their wad on this, and like a bad gambler will spend more to try and recoup their initial loss.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Nole View Post
                              Moral victories are funny. The DNC blew their wad on this, and like a bad gambler will spend more to try and recoup their initial loss.
                              I wouldn't say Handel will absolutely win just yet. It's likely, but it's an upper class Republican area. Not Trump territory.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I don't see how Assoff has a chance. They had to lie and imply he was conservative and blew a huge advertising budget in a special election with diluted opposition votes to get him this far. They were hoping it was the perfect storm and would catch the Republicans sleeping. They failed. And as you pointed out, the left can't manufacture new voters.

                                The runoff will not be close.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X