Republicans and voter surpression!

Gulliotine

Well-known member
Why did you people stop counting when we were watching, then start up again after everyone went to bed? Why did you lie about busted water pipes, and destroy the custody chain of mail-in ballots?

For a bunch of people that profess integrity, you look guilty as hell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yorktown

Well-known member
GA new voting law is good.
As usual it is only racist because leftist don’t like the law.
Same old leftist playbook garbage over an over again.
 

hubman

Well-known member
Care to explain exactly what facet of the GA law is racist? I will wait.
Before I go further do you understand how requiring a run-off in this state if you receive less than 50% of the vote is racist?
 

TigerPaw

Well-known member
Because GA went blue in large part because of black turnout, so the good ole boys decided to change a bunch of rules, by themselves, signed sealed delivered in one day no debate behind closed doors. Now they're supposed to trust the officials who pushed to overturn the election.

Whenever pubs lose it's never about what they can do different to earn more votes, it's because the black winner isn't really a citizen or black voters are illegitimate, and/or let's consolidate them even more into the same districts.
 
Last edited:

hubman

Well-known member
Do you? Please explain without using a meme.
When you have States with a high percentage of Blacks and have multiple White people running for a position and 1 Black. The fear or theory at the time was All the Blacks would vote for the Black candidate and the Whites would dilute their votes by spreading them among multiple candidates.


Runoffs arose to limit power of Black voters in Georgia
"At the Georgia State Capitol in the 1960s, State Rep. Denmark Groover led a charge for runoff elections.
A federal report looking at civil rights in America called Groover a "staunch segregationist" who pushed for runoffs in Georgia as a way to challenge a growing Black political power.
The report reads, "support for the majority-vote plan reinforced the moderate segregationist position. It did not remove anyone's right to cast a ballot, but it was commonly regarded as hampering African Americans—the stigmatized bloc voters.""


"In 1963, state representative Denmark Groover from Macon introduced a proposal to apply majority-vote, runoff election rules to all local, state, and federal offices. A staunch segregationist, Groover’s hostility to black voting was reinforced by personal experience. Having served as a state representative in the early 1950s, Groover was defeated for election to the House in 1958. The Macon politico blamed his loss on “Negro bloc voting.” He carried the white vote, but his opponent triumphed by garnering black ballots by a five-to-one margin.

Groover soon devised a way to challenge growing black political strength. Elected to the House again in 1962, he led the fight to enact a majority vote, runoff rule for all county and state contests in both primary and general elections. Until 1963, plurality voting was widely used in Georgia county elections..."


"The method was popular across the former Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have primary election runoffs. As the Washington Post reported, just two non-Southern states have runoff rules, and those “almost never matter”:"

In South Dakota, candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. representative and governor must compete in a runoff if no one reaches 35 percent of the vote. In Vermont, a runoff is ordered if two candidates finish with the same number of votes.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
When you have States with a high percentage of Blacks and have multiple White people running for a position and 1 Black. The fear or theory at the time was All the Blacks would vote for the Black candidate and the Whites would dilute their votes by spreading them among multiple candidates.


Runoffs arose to limit power of Black voters in Georgia
"At the Georgia State Capitol in the 1960s, State Rep. Denmark Groover led a charge for runoff elections.
A federal report looking at civil rights in America called Groover a "staunch segregationist" who pushed for runoffs in Georgia as a way to challenge a growing Black political power.
The report reads, "support for the majority-vote plan reinforced the moderate segregationist position. It did not remove anyone's right to cast a ballot, but it was commonly regarded as hampering African Americans—the stigmatized bloc voters.""


"In 1963, state representative Denmark Groover from Macon introduced a proposal to apply majority-vote, runoff election rules to all local, state, and federal offices. A staunch segregationist, Groover’s hostility to black voting was reinforced by personal experience. Having served as a state representative in the early 1950s, Groover was defeated for election to the House in 1958. The Macon politico blamed his loss on “Negro bloc voting.” He carried the white vote, but his opponent triumphed by garnering black ballots by a five-to-one margin.

Groover soon devised a way to challenge growing black political strength. Elected to the House again in 1962, he led the fight to enact a majority vote, runoff rule for all county and state contests in both primary and general elections. Until 1963, plurality voting was widely used in Georgia county elections..."


"The method was popular across the former Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have primary election runoffs. As the Washington Post reported, just two non-Southern states have runoff rules, and those “almost never matter”:"
So until 1963 this was what was used?

What year is this now?
 

winbypin

Well-known member
Because GA went blue in large part because of black turnout, so the good ole boys decided to change a bunch of rules, by themselves, signed sealed delivered in one day no debate behind closed doors. Now they're supposed to trust the officials who pushed to overturn the election.

Whenever pubs lose it's never about what they can do different to earn more votes, it's because the black winner isn't really a citizen or black voters are illegitimate, and/or let's consolidate them even more into the same districts.
Blah, blah, blah.

You left out snacks. No snacks = voter suppression.
 

hubman

Well-known member
So until 1963 this was what was used?

What year is this now?
No they started using it in 1963 and it is still in use until this day, after the Supreme court knocked down another voting practice (County-Unit system) that was also rigged against minority voters.

 

winbypin

Well-known member
HR1 just became must pass legislation. Thank you.

Mommy mommy the bad men cheated. Blah blah blah.
I will drive up to Massillon at the next election and give you some orange slices buttercup. Will that make things all better for you?
 

winbypin

Well-known member
No they started using it in 1963 and it is still in use until this day, after the Supreme court knocked down another voting practice (County-Unit system) that was also rigged against minority voters.

Ok. There were two separate runoff elections this year in georgia. How were the voters suppressed then?
 

hubman

Well-known member
Ok. There were two separate runoff elections this year in georgia. How were the voters suppressed then?
Those runoffs were the definition of irony, Denmark Groover must have been twisting in his grave. If you can't understand the racism behind the implementation and maintaining of their run-off system/law, even though it did not work they way they intended it to in January, there is no need to try to explain the inequities in this new law. We will just have to agree to disagree.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
Those runoffs were the definition of irony, Denmark Groover must have been twisting in his grave. If you can't understand the racism behind the implementation and maintaining of their run-off system/law, even though it did not work they way they intended it to in January, there is no need to try to explain the inequities in this new law. We will just have to agree to disagree.
So even though one run off had two white people involved it was racist?

Talk about hedging your bets.
 

jmog

Well-known member
When you have States with a high percentage of Blacks and have multiple White people running for a position and 1 Black. The fear or theory at the time was All the Blacks would vote for the Black candidate and the Whites would dilute their votes by spreading them among multiple candidates.


Runoffs arose to limit power of Black voters in Georgia
"At the Georgia State Capitol in the 1960s, State Rep. Denmark Groover led a charge for runoff elections.
A federal report looking at civil rights in America called Groover a "staunch segregationist" who pushed for runoffs in Georgia as a way to challenge a growing Black political power.
The report reads, "support for the majority-vote plan reinforced the moderate segregationist position. It did not remove anyone's right to cast a ballot, but it was commonly regarded as hampering African Americans—the stigmatized bloc voters.""


"In 1963, state representative Denmark Groover from Macon introduced a proposal to apply majority-vote, runoff election rules to all local, state, and federal offices. A staunch segregationist, Groover’s hostility to black voting was reinforced by personal experience. Having served as a state representative in the early 1950s, Groover was defeated for election to the House in 1958. The Macon politico blamed his loss on “Negro bloc voting.” He carried the white vote, but his opponent triumphed by garnering black ballots by a five-to-one margin.

Groover soon devised a way to challenge growing black political strength. Elected to the House again in 1962, he led the fight to enact a majority vote, runoff rule for all county and state contests in both primary and general elections. Until 1963, plurality voting was widely used in Georgia county elections..."


"The method was popular across the former Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have primary election runoffs. As the Washington Post reported, just two non-Southern states have runoff rules, and those “almost never matter”:"
That might be the biggest bunch of gobbledygook nonsense I have read in awhile.

Congratulations on actually believing something so stupid.
 

Altor

Well-known member
No they started using it in 1963 and it is still in use until this day, after the Supreme court knocked down another voting practice (County-Unit system) that was also rigged against minority voters.
There were literally two state-wide run-off elections in Georgia this past cycle where the black-backed Democrat won. One of those winning candidates was a black man. You have to stretch pretty hard here. "It's racist against blacks that the black guy won."

I'm not a fan of first-past-the-post voting in general. It gives rise to the two party system we currently have. But, if we are going to have run-offs like this, it needs to be instant run-offs. None of this "come back and vote again in 30 days" crap. The technology is here to make this work fairly easily, but it will never happen because the two parties in charge don't want to give up their control.

Instant run-off procedure: Every voter ranks the candidates on the ballot from 1 to x (where x is the number of candidates). Tabulate everybody's #1 choice. If no candidate has 50%, eliminate candidate with the least votes. Take the votes that were assigned to that candidate and look for #2 on those ballots and recalculate. Continue eliminating candidates and reassigning their votes in this fashion this until somebody has 50% + 1.
 

jmog

Well-known member
There were literally two state-wide run-off elections in Georgia this past cycle where the black-backed Democrat won. One of those winning candidates was a black man. You have to stretch pretty hard here. "It's racist against blacks that the black guy won."

I'm not a fan of first-past-the-post voting in general. It gives rise to the two party system we currently have. But, if we are going to have run-offs like this, it needs to be instant run-offs. None of this "come back and vote again in 30 days" crap. The technology is here to make this work fairly easily, but it will never happen because the two parties in charge don't want to give up their control.

Instant run-off procedure: Every voter ranks the candidates on the ballot from 1 to x (where x is the number of candidates). Tabulate everybody's #1 choice. If no candidate has 50%, eliminate candidate with the least votes. Take the votes that were assigned to that candidate and look for #2 on those ballots and recalculate. Continue eliminating candidates and reassigning their votes in this fashion this until somebody has 50% + 1.
Somehow hubman will say your logical answer would be racist too.
 

hubman

Well-known member
Warnock and Ossoff won in spite of the racist intent of the run-off provisions not because of. Which is why I keep using the word "irony".
 

zeeman

Well-known member
When you have States with a high percentage of Blacks and have multiple White people running for a position and 1 Black. The fear or theory at the time was All the Blacks would vote for the Black candidate and the Whites would dilute their votes by spreading them among multiple candidates.


Runoffs arose to limit power of Black voters in Georgia
"At the Georgia State Capitol in the 1960s, State Rep. Denmark Groover led a charge for runoff elections.
A federal report looking at civil rights in America called Groover a "staunch segregationist" who pushed for runoffs in Georgia as a way to challenge a growing Black political power.
The report reads, "support for the majority-vote plan reinforced the moderate segregationist position. It did not remove anyone's right to cast a ballot, but it was commonly regarded as hampering African Americans—the stigmatized bloc voters.""


"In 1963, state representative Denmark Groover from Macon introduced a proposal to apply majority-vote, runoff election rules to all local, state, and federal offices. A staunch segregationist, Groover’s hostility to black voting was reinforced by personal experience. Having served as a state representative in the early 1950s, Groover was defeated for election to the House in 1958. The Macon politico blamed his loss on “Negro bloc voting.” He carried the white vote, but his opponent triumphed by garnering black ballots by a five-to-one margin.

Groover soon devised a way to challenge growing black political strength. Elected to the House again in 1962, he led the fight to enact a majority vote, runoff rule for all county and state contests in both primary and general elections. Until 1963, plurality voting was widely used in Georgia county elections..."


"The method was popular across the former Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have primary election runoffs. As the Washington Post reported, just two non-Southern states have runoff rules, and those “almost never matter”:"
Dude, Vox 😂
 

hubman

Well-known member
Ok, I will try this one more time, but I understand , that some just won't or can't understand.

You are a White man in 1960 Georgia where historically White people will vote for a White person 95% of the time and Black folks if given a Black candidate will vote for said Black candidate 90% of the time. You have political race with 4 challengers (3 White 1 Black) in an area where close to 40% of the voters are Black. Who is going to win, when the Black candidate will get close to 90% of that 40% and you have 3 candidates splitting the remaining 60% of the vote. Very good chance Black candidate can win the election by winning close to 40% of the vote while the other 3 candidates will pull in an average of 20%. How do you keep Blacks from winning elections that way? Well you do exactly what Segregationist Denmark Groover did, when he lost an election under very similar circumstances, make a law where all elections must be won by at least 50%. Counting on the fact that the same Black candidate that would have won the first round by almost 40% because the White vote was spread over 3 candidates, will now be facing just one White candidate in an election in 1960 Georgia where the likelihood of these those White voters voting for a Black candidate are between slime and none. Which is why it is no coincidence that these type of run off laws are found almost entirely in former confederate states with relatively high percentages of Blacks.

I understand some folks can't see any racism in a law that doesn't mention a person's color in it. Or it can't be racist because it didn't work the way it was intended to because Warnock was elected, This Time. That does not change the original intent and reason for implementation.
 

hubman

Well-known member
Dude, Vox 😂

How about the Atlanta Journal Constitution and quotes from the man that actually wrote the law


"Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs detailed dozens of examples of Black candidates losing in runoffs and cited comments made by Denmark Groover, the state legislator who authored the state’s election’s law in 1964. The former leader of the Georgia House and a segregationist at the time, Groover, D-Macon, testified that he originally sought to blunt the power of Black voting blocs.

“If you want to establish if I was racially prejudiced, I was,” Groover said in a 1984 deposition. “If you want to establish that some of my political activity was racially motivated, it was.”"




 
.
Top