Georgia's Very Own Megathread! (v2)

[Aurelio21]

I am not familiar with Georgian electoral law. I do not want to mock the georgian election authorities or imply anything bad. Yet, as an outside observer, it seems to be summed up as "The only thing that counts is the one who counts, not who tries to vote.

With 340,000 voters (according to Greg Palast) "accidentily" purged, not enough voting equipment in certain not-favorable precincts for the chief election officer who oversees his own election, declaring himself victor before certification and the obvious misuse of the secretary of state for election propaganda this would have been a Wahlfehler"(irregular election). This would automatically lead to a repitition of the election on precinct or even state level here in germany.

I have been a voluntary poll worker at several elections, and anything that leads to a measurable voter shift is regarded as irregular. I was even not allowed to greet the voters I personally know(Name secrecy). The precincts contain a maimum of 900 to 1000 voters. And electronic voting mashines are generally outlawed after it became known that there is even a sleight possibility  of hacking them. Of, there are attempts of voter fraud, some successful , here as well. Yet the vast majority becomes public, and lead nearly always it is reported this way in the media(no "fake news").  And this lead to an repitition of the election at least on precinct level.

PS Even if it is very hard not to be outraged, the Abrams campaign should not leave any Impression of being a sore loser. The SOS election is still out there, and the provisional ballots in GA-07 should put Mrs Bordeaux over the top, Mrs Abrams should focus on getting J Barrow elected for ensuering a fair election. The trend is on the DPG's side and can be only stopped by "accidently de-registrating" voters in Atlanta and adjacent counties.
Edit: Last Paragraph added

[Aurelio21]

That's likely to happen that the Georgia GOP will try something like giving the authority to e g the governor.
This might play well with "the base", but this will only reinforce an image the NC GOP has.

[Aurelio21]

.

With 340,000 voters (according to Greg Palast) "accidentily" purged, not enough voting equipment in certain not-favorable precincts for the chief election officer who oversees his own election, declaring himself victor before certification and the obvious misuse of the secretary of state for election propaganda this would have been a Wahlfehler"(irregular election). This would automatically lead to a repitition of the election on precinct or even state level here in germany.

That isn't an exaggeration on the purge; it is untrue.  It was done by the book.

The voting equipment is probably set up by the county.

It is traditional that the person in the position does declare their own results.  For example, GHW presided over his own election results in 1988, as did Gore in 2000. 

In my state, the Secretary of State is appoint by, and serves at the pleasure of, the governor.  He oversaw the election of his boss earlier this week.  This is fairly standard.

[0/quote]

Yet there is the issue of Mr Kemp ignoring the blatant cyber security issues and misfunding of county equipment. Mr Kemp has used his powers to implement the "mismatch law" before it was law.
This is at least odiuos.
I do agree with you on that there are simply not enough votes left to trigger a runoff. Stacey Abrams should concede the race, and campaign for the SoS runoff instead of going full conspiracy theory.

[Aurelio21]

Yet there is the issue of Mr Kemp ignoring the blatant cyber security issues and misfunding of county equipment. Mr Kemp has used his powers to implement the "mismatch law" before it was law.
This is at least odiuos.
I do agree with you on that there are simply not enough votes left to trigger a runoff. Stacey Abrams should concede the race, and campaign for the SoS runoff instead of going full conspiracy theory.

The cyber security issue was being litigated.  That was part of the problem with the county equipment.  The judge in the case would not release machines nor would she permit a paper ballot substitute.  https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/federal-judge-rejects-paper-ballot-effort-for-2018-georgia-election/MPNGITqPbZ9wYfZ0NEP1IJ/

The legislature did not fund any changes, which ties Kemp's hands. 

There was no way for the legislature to know that this suit would be filed and that the judge would rule this way. 

As to the "mismatch law", the judge agreed that the law was appropriate, provided the voter would have a chance to verify that he/she signed it.  https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/judge-temporarily-blocks-signature-match-law-in-georgia-to-ensure-due-process-for-absentee-voters/85-607700881

I will note that both judges, Totenberg and May,  were Obama appointees, the former contributing to his campaign prior to becoming a judge.   

Thx for the insight who appointed the judges, and why there was no appropiate funding.

About the "exact match", here a source I found:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/10/how-dismantling-voting-rights-act-helped-georgia-discriminate-again/572899/
OK, discount the left leaning bias of the article, the important date was 2016 in which the first programme was canceled by a judge. In 2017, the georgia legislature made a new law, to which you referred.

About the voting rights act: Neither do I think that all the provisions are OK, e g the federal review. In this case, I fully approve of the SCOTUS ruling that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. And there is at least one more explanation than voter suppresion for problems of minorities with the exact match law.

[Aurelio21]

Thx for the insight who appointed the judges, and why there was no appropiate funding.

About the "exact match", here a source I found:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/10/how-dismantling-voting-rights-act-helped-georgia-discriminate-again/572899/
OK, discount the left leaning bias of the article, the important date was 2016 in which the first programme was canceled by a judge. In 2017, the georgia legislature made a new law, to which you referred.

About the voting rights act: Neither do I think that all the provisions are OK, e g the federal review. In this case, I fully approve of the SCOTUS ruling that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. And there is at least one more explanation than voter suppresion for problems of minorities with the exact match law.

How come? Is this a view on its constitutionality or is it more of a preference to not hinder the states?

Because I don't see how anyone can look at what the states have done with election law over the past 8 years, if not the past 60 years, and conclude that they can be trusted to run fair elections. The majority party of these states have and are constantly trying to game the system and for a long time, the federal government was the only thing that could stop the most abusive states of all - the south. Before the Voting Rights Act, calling America an actual liberal democracy would have been laughable.

If anything, the states need more federal intervention in federal elections, and not just in the south.

That certain laws from have to be reviewed by the federal level is somewhat disturbing to my perspective. Germany consists as well of semi-automonous states in which the federal government has no say about electoral laws.

Of course, there must be somekind of check that unfair practises must be stopped. Yet the way it is realized is something that is doubtful out of my European perspective.
I do not approve of out federal Government which simply gave the same power of reviewing the Budget law by the EU. This is anti-democratic, and I assess this review power in the Voting Rights Act in the same way. 

[Aurelio21]

That certain laws from have to be reviewed by the federal level is somewhat disturbing to my perspective. Germany consists as well of semi-automonous states in which the federal government has no say about electoral laws.

Of course, there must be somekind of check that unfair practises must be stopped. Yet the way it is realized is something that is doubtful out of my European perspective.
I do not approve of out federal Government which simply gave the same power of reviewing the Budget law by the EU. This is anti-democratic, and I assess this review power in the Voting Rights Act in the same way. 

Generally I agree that the federal government shouldn't be given this unlimited, total review power over state laws, but when it comes to elections, it is incredibly important. That is how the people are supposed to affect change, and our entire system doesn't work if that is subverted. Consider that pre-1965, it was impossible for African Americans to exercise their right to vote in many southern states because a huge wall had been build between them and the ballot box. Or consider that today, politicians in state majority parties are drawing maps so egregiously partisan that even landslide elections fail to dislodge the majority party. It does get to a point where a state has so thoroughly rigged its elections that it would take decade(s) or longer to even have a chance at undoing it.

One could say that instead of a preclearance review, states could just be sued, and that is what happens now. However, lawsuits take time, money and aren't always effective. This is a problem because states can just keep churning out laws faster than groups can sue. It only makes sense that states who can't seem to stop trying to game the system should no longer have the ability to unilaterally change their election laws. Lastly, I'd argue that since we already did this for a long time, it did work out fine for the most part. The benefits certainly outweighed the negatives.

Anyway, I suppose we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. But I do wonder if you are aware just how far some state parties go in trying to consolidate power in America. We're not just talking about closing a few polling places here and there.

Atlas has deleted my elaborate post, thus a short version:
I have a somewhat clear opinion about certain power abusing parties and former Governors. And I know the story of Mr Kemp sending a SWAT team to organizers of voter registration for a school board.

I am a voluntary poll worker myself here in Germany, and these "problems" could be easily avoided if wanted (1000 voters per precinct, paper ballots, hand count, seperate ballots for seperate electoral levels e g).

Yet I do not think that reviewing laws is the best solution, rather an clear outlook for perpetrators e g nullifying elections and loosing the electability for perpatrators.

[Aurelio21]

This is the new republican strategy: As soon as you lead in the counting process, you simply declare victory. Even if 99 % would be not counted  yet, any further counted vote is "voter fraud" ;-)
 
Maybe they are crypto communists after all, who are accusing the Democrats of this. Nobody less than J Stalin himself succintly remarked that it is not important who votes but who counts.

[Aurelio21]

I thought I said it at the beginning (or at least implied it), but my point was that there was no net positive impact. If we had an election where we got 45% of the vote with 2.5m voters and an election where we got 45% of the vote with 4m voters, we don't get (meaningful) credit for turning out 675k additional voters when the GOP also turned out a proportionate amount more (and yes, I know that's not necessarily what happened here, but I'm trying to dispense with this "higher turnout was a good thing" belief so many people have). Yes, turning out more voters can be viewed as progress - but not necessarily if your opposition replicates the effect more or less as well.

Turnout was considerably higher compared to four years ago in every competitive state. The same trends we saw in GA (big improvements in metro areas, losses in rural areas) we saw everywhere, with the end result being an improvement or loss for Democrats nationally based on which one of those 2 broader areas is a bigger share of voters in each jurisdiction. Unless you want to make the argument that Democrats had Abrams-tier candidates running everywhere who inspired the masses to turn out in unprecedented numbers, I don't think this can be tied to candidate or campaign quality.

The campaign may have had an impact, but I don't think they had a net impact - and even if so, certainly not one worth idolizing. Either they were also responsible for driving tons of GOP voters to the polls as well, or the campaign failed to foresee how high turnout across the board was going to be, thereby not overcoming the wave of red voters sitting in wait.

So again, we won't know for sure until precinct-level data is available (exit polls can be wrong!), but the simplest explanation as of now in conjunction with what we saw all over the country as well is that enthusiasm on both sides was sky high and that replicated the 2016 presidential electorate, with Kemp winning 1-2 out of 100 Clinton voters and Abrams winning 3-4 out of 100 Trump/third party voters. That explanation would shrink the margin by 2-4 points compared to Clinton's margin and when combined with the specific geographic swings compared to 2016 is the simplest explanation.

If that is what happened, then that is due to a persuasion effect and not a turnout effect. Everybody involved with the campaign with whom I interacted - including Abrams telling me this herself - always emphasized that their plans was built around turnout; turning out first-time voters, those who don't vote in midterms, low-propensity voters, etc - and not on persuading fence-sitters or swing voters. I didn't particularly care for it from a local perspective (because my area is still one where persuasion has a bit more impact than in the average GA community), but we focused locally almost exclusively on driving up Latino and black turnout with canvassing and phone banking this cycle.

If, in the end, it was white suburbanites being persuaded to back Abrams due to a hostile, anti-GOP climate more than anything, then that is not something in my view that gets credited to teams who were knocking on doors of a completely different demographics - especially when we saw the same broader trends everywhere else in the country, too. The TV ads would have had more of an impact among these persuadables than any field ops that weren't targeting them (and TV ads are nothing new nor revolutionary here).

And no offense taken!

As far as I have read in the thread as well the way Mr Kemp displayed himself with his "rural strategy": This certainly has turned off suburban voters.

For me as a moderate conservative (translated into an american view), Mr Kemp is simply a reactionary (gun posing, politics only for the rural part, no policy instead only displaying his  archreactionary world view etc.)
As Mrs Abrams started from a minority position, your proposed change of strategy should have delivered the victory for her: A twofold strategy: registration of non-likely voters until x days before the election, than react to Mr Kemp running to the far-right corner.

The reason is simple: Going from 80 % efficency to 95 % you simply need to put the doubled resources into it. Going from 95 efficency to 99 % you need again doubling your efforts.
A campaign only has finite resources (time, money) thus at latest after contacting 95 % of possible non-likely voters there is no return of investment. And Mr Kemp alienated suburban voters with his antics. Maybe tieing him to the fiscally irresponsible politics of Mr Trump should have convinced a big swath of more suburban/exurban voters to change sides.

[Aurelio21]

Sorry but from as far as I am from Georgia and Texas, these excuses for the GOP (meh national trend) do not count.

Gov-elect Kemp clearly abused his power with keeping as many potential Democratic voters from the polls. And in Texas, a Latino trying to registrate as voter is regarded as "voter fraud" by the GOP.

@all GOPers: Keep discounting these factors and the significantly reduced margin in the run off elections compared to those 10 years ago. Then 2020 will be a big surprise.