American Vet wrote:
Attempting to keep the vote secure is not 'voter suppression'.
Sorry you disagree with that.
There's nothing wrong with trying to keep the vote secure, as long as it doesn't stop legitimate voters from voting.
So, no, I _don't_ disagree with _that_.
Stopping large numbers of legitimate voters from voting (such as in the examples I described in two recent posts) _is_ definitely voter-suppression.
Worse yet, pretending to attempt to keep the vote secure, when the real purpose is to stop a large number of legitimate voters from voting, is really bad voter-suppression.
The burden of proof is:
on Kemp (in the first example) (40,000 legitimate voters stopped because he as secretary of state failed to register them for four years even after having been reminded of it, and so then they couldn't vote in the election in which he was both controlling the election process (as secretary of state) and running in it for governor; and there were only miniscule numbers, if any at all, of actual voter fraud uncovered);
and on Kobach (in the second example) (a few hundred thousand legitimate voters stopped, because he shipped out instructions to many secretaries of states telling them to ignore discrepancies in his purging system, in which most of his purge list _did_ have significant discrepancies, resulting in hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters being wrongly purged; and there were only miniscule numbers, if any at all, of actual voter fraud uncovered).
I guess that you didn't really pay much attention to the examples I posted from the book.
This next part is satire:
You could make the vote even more secure by not allowing _anybody_ to vote, except Kemp to vote for himself, Kobach or Trump to vote for Trump, and Putin to vote for Putin. There's nothing wrong with attempting to keep the vote secure as long as it doesn't keep the important voters from voting. (This is a satirical paragraph.)