The one question conservatives can never actually answer is why they are the only party that consistently uses draconian measures to suppress the vote.

The article does note that democrats in certain districts have done the same, though not on the scale that republicans do.
I do hope Palast takes this crusade to federal court.

Not even remotely close.

How much illegality is OK with you?

None of it is good for the country but It's so one sided that adding Democrats to the list only does you harm.
Some Dems are good at that and it cost us the election.

I do not fully understand your position. It seems you advocate for giving democrats a pass for the same actions for which you condemn republicans. Hopefully i am wrong because that clearly makes no sense to me.
There have been decades when democrats shared the exact same position republicans now enjoy, a complete majority in both Houses and a president in the White House. Yet wars raged, corporations ruled legislation and we the people were screwed.

Irrefutable.

Indubitably ....;-)

The difference of these things between the two parties is so monumental that every time you say the democrats are just as complicit, you diminish that fact. And in the recent past there has not been decades of Dems with the same position, complete majorities in the both houses and the presidencies, that republicans have had recently. Again, not even close.Obama had it for his first ninety days..after that we got: Mitch McConnell:..“We Republicans remain resolute in our commitment to deny the Democrats anything that looks like an accomplishment."
''It's our only goal.''
Wars raged and corporate rule legislation have all come from republicans. Only congress can pass laws or spend money and they've had control for most of the last 17 years. In your previous posts you also said that violence has been the same under both parties...again not true. I could go into a lot more but you need to look at history a little more closely.
Republicans have been the party of corruption and dirty tricks ever since Eisenhower left office and fox news has helped them every step of the way in the last 25 years.

I think you need to remind yourself of the political history of this nation. If we do not learn from the past we are, as a rather bright person once noted, doomed to repeat it:

Senate and House Control by Party Past 100 Years
Party Years in Control
Democrats: 57 yrs
Republicans: 27 yrs
Neither Party: 16 yrs

Political power in the United States over time - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic ...

Sorry, numbers like that don't mean anything.

And you need to read about how one party has changed in the last 35 years and who had control.. Republicans used to be sane until the eighties. Today's republicans would call their past presidents socialists/communists today..
Then look at the country between FDR and Reagan and the bipartisan liberal agenda that made us number one in the world for 40 years in everything and how that changed since Reagan who started taking us back to the gilded age. FDR was elected to 16 years as president because of the liberal agenda he created in the country that people loved and that turned the country around after the depression. Considered by historians as our best president in the last 100 years.

The Reagan administration was the most criminal in our history. 138 charged, indicted, found guilty or sentenced...all pardoned by Bush Sr before going to prison.
Then there was Nixon...another criminal..Then there was Bush..we all know his lies about war and what happened to the economy.

Today's democrats just want what the country had in those 40 years that made us great...and wealth disparity that used to be more equal.
Republican platform of the fifties.:
Eisenhower: "We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance—improved housing—and better health protection for all our people.'

“Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. A strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.” We've created a minimum wage that people can live on."

Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for hospitals, low cost care and the special problems of older persons and increased federal aid for medical care of the needy.
We have created the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare..the first Federal Dept to raise continuing consideration of the physical, mental and spiritual well being of the people as important as their economic needs.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, occasional politicians and rich businessmen from other areas and they are stupid.''
"Beware the military complex"
Bush SR on Planned Parenthood: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose whether or not to be a mother.". He sent a letter to the president of planned parenthood congratulating them on their new family planning pro-choice stamp. Bush wrote: "It's efforts like this, that help further work of such worldwide importance, are something for which this country can justly be proud."
Then, a stamp was issued with Planned Parenthood on it.

60 yrs ago, a 20 yr old in the US had the best chance in the world to become a secure middle class citizen. We had the best middle class in the world and safety nets for the people. Today, in the U S, in the developed world, even though we are by far the richest country in the world. .. he has the least chance.The middle classes of Europe are worth twice what ours is per capita.

Even Reagan and Bush couldn't be elected by today's republicans..
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS:
Reagan: "Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don't we recognize our our mutual problems?" "Make it possible for them to come here legally and then while their working here, they pay taxes here and contribute and when they want to go back, they can go back, and come back when they want."
Reagan:"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have lived here and put down roots even though they may have entered illegally some time back."
"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have lived here and put down roots even though they may have entered illegally some time back."

G W Bush calls for comprehensive immigration reform and his amnesty'. "We have proven that we are a nation that is capable of assimilating people and I'm confident that we can continue to be a nation that assimilates them.
"I'd like to see something done about illegal aliens that would be so sensitive to our labor needs and human needs that problems wouldn't come up. And while they're here, they would get what the rest of the country, their neighbors, get. The problems have to be solved. We're creating a whole society of really honorable, decent, family loving people who are looked at as criminals and at the same time we're exacerbating our relationship with Mexico."

And the lying snake oil salesman today....
Donald Trump, 2004:: "If you go back, it seems that the economy always does better under Democrats than it does under Republicans."
"Look at what happened during the Clinton years," "I mean we had no war, the economy was doing great, everybody was happy, a lot of people hated him because they're jealous as hell...Bill Clinton was a great president." I think is a great wife to a president and I think Bill Clinton was a great president."
Dateline, 1999, NBC: Trump: "I'm a liberal when it comes to healthcare. "I like universal healthcare. We have to take care of people, there's no other choice."
Trump: "I believe in choice. I hate abortions but I believe people should have a choice."

CNN 1999, Trump.."Hillary Clinton would make a great president" I really like her." ''I think she's going to go down at a minimum as a good Senator. I think she's a great wife to a president and I think Bill Clinton was a great president." She's a great woman." "She's often misunderstood."
"A Hillary/Obama ticket would be a dream team."

You are far too prone to dismiss evidence you simply do not wish to consider. Hard to debate or discuss with such closed minded lack of reasoning.
Democrats are equally subservient to the same corporate master s as are republicans, the proof of which lies in the numbers you so easily ignore.
Ironic that I am pushing for folks to vote for democratic candidates for the Legislature this cycle only because they will help block Trump's horrific agenda. But those loyal to that party need to step up and reform it.

Hah..talk about prone to dismiss...you take the cake.
Some day actually read what I wrote.
And take a look at Hillary's platform which you obviously ignored as well as many other Democrats running.
Don't need to hear any more from you.

You should have paid more attention when your parents tried to teach you stuff. You post like an angry little boy and I have no desire to enter your sophomoric and narrow little universe.
Get back to me when you actually grow up.

Who was your history teacher?

Why do you ask? Probably because your own knowledge of history is less than it should be. When you do nto know something look it up before committing to a silly post.

I just posted the proof of my position.....

Senate and House Control by Party Past 100 Years
Party Years in Control
Democrats: 57 yrs
Republicans: 27 yrs
Neither Party: 16 yrs

Political power in the United States over time - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic ...

All hail Cletus the extrapolator.

Are you really a precocious twelve year old or do you just play one here? You condemn yourself with such stupidity.

What's your slant on 2+2?

If you are asking for help , a good thing actually as you obviously need help, count on your fingers like a big boy.

Great extrapolator reverts to convention alert.

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean, and, I suspect,neither do you.

Suspect this: ..|.,

Oooh how sophisticated.....you must be an incredible intellect. What a maroon!

Sophisticated intellect [w/ocd] alert.

hopefully it'll go all the way to the supreme court and... uh oh.

Yes but limited almost entirely to gerrymandering in a few states with Maryland and California immediately coming to mind. But even gerrymandering by the Democratic Party does not come close to the GOP gerrymandering steroids model (see Project REDMAP).

You, and the rather closed minded, lindncal, are both correct as to the differing amount of gerrymandering between the two major parties. But how much illegality is fine with you folks?

Democrats Hate Gerrymandering—Except When They Get to Do It
https://www.thedailybeast.c......

Apr 2, 2018 - Democrats Hate Gerrymandering—Except When They Get to Do It ... the 6th Congressional district that was for many years represented by ... we at the point where something must be done to address a problem that has been ...

Here is an informative link to a fine explanation of democratic party incompetence, if you are interested:

https://www.politico.com/ma...

I have stated on numerous occasions on this forum that gerrymandering should be made illegal. Period. No candidate, Democratic or Republican, should profit from being in a gerrymandered "safe" district.
I believe that a candidate should run on his or her merits, and if seeking reelection, on the job they have been doing while in office. If the people want to reelect you fine. If not, they will not vote for you. Very simple and no gerrymandering to protect you.

On another note, there is much more to voter suppression than just gerrymandering. And every single voter suppression tactic out there is being pushed by conservatives, not liberals.

Actually, and yet again, voter suppression is not the only issue, that is, I agree , a republican strategy and has been for many years.
The reason I rose to discuss this issue with your fellow democrat was because of his position that democrats are blameless with regard to gerrymandering. They do it when in power.
It is not helpful to allow partisanship to blind us from the flaws and foibles of our allies.

First off I'm not sure where the "fellow Democrat" narrative comes from as I am a registered Independent and unlike the majority of registered Independents, have not voted the straight party ticket in the last 20 years.
Secondly, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, but I believe I made it very clear in my last comment that BOTH parties should not be allowed to gerrymander.
Just because I pointed out the undeniable fact that the Democratic Party has not gerrymandered to the degree and efficiency that the Republican Party has, does not mean I condone the fact the Democratic Party does so. Hopefully that clarifies my position on this for you.

It does indeed, Russ, sorry for lumping you with a democratic loyalist.

It's actually Ron, but Russ is fine. Or Bob, or Jim or whatever. LOL. And seriously no problem, I should have clarified my position from the beginning.

Damn I am on a run of senior moments.

My friend if I had a $100,000 for every time I have used the wrong name in a comment reply, I would be worth millions. No problem. This kind of stuff falls under the all encompassing technical term "S**t Happens". Lol!

California gerrymandered? Maryland yes - California, not so much. At least, not any more.

Between California's top-two primaries and maps drawn by independent commission (10 years now) methinks you missed the mark.

I was referring to the current political map in California. I am talking about the massive gerrymandering which compelled California to change the system.
As compared to today and Maryland.

I should have made that clear in my original comment and apologize for not doing so.

Palast makes the point that democrats did indeed disenfranchise voters, just not to the same scale as republicans do.
You are correct in that gerrymandering takes place during either party being in power.

Race gerrymandering seeks minority representatives, not fake majorities.

Undeniable.

Yes but not on the massive scale that Republicans used in 2010 with Project REDMAP.

Because Kemp is leading in the polls by 2 points, Republicans will say he was going to win anyways and therefore, even if there was voter suppression, it wouldn't have changed the final outcome. But the fact that a black woman is trailing by only 2 points in a southern red state speaks volumes. Kemp is like something straight out of The Dukes of Hazard. You'd think he'd be leading by double digits. But it shows that Georgia isn't Alabama or Mississippi. Atlanta's continued growth will only make Georgia into a swing state someday and that's freaking out Republicans.

I agree that those polling numbers are a legitimate cause for cheer but close aint gonna cut it.

If you remember the polls from 2014 in GA it showed the same thing but both Republicans went on to win by 8 or 9 points, the polls from 2016 showed the same and Trump won by a larger margin. For whatever reason GA polls always seem to undercount Republican support in GA. If had to guess it is because they don't poll the other parts of the state as much as they do the Atlanta metro area.

State polling in general is pretty bad. In 2016, the national polls correctly predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote. But the reason they were off when it came to Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. is because very few state polls are even done. But early voting in GA is already higher than it was in 2016.

Who knows if that is a good sign for the Democrats or not. If it's the older folks in Ga who are doing the early voting it isn't a positive sign for the Democrats. There is a huge generational divide in GA politics from how the under 50 crowd votes versus over 50.

It's hard to say. But given that this isn't a Presidential year, for early voting to already be high is potentially a good sign for Democrats. However, it may not be enough. The polls still show Kemp with a two point lead and all it takes is enough voter suppression to completely cancel out any surge of Democrats.

"his victory is likely to appear illegitimate". No, it won't appear illegitimate. It will BE illegitimate. As would be a victory for Abrams (which won't happen). The voting system is designed to produce whatever results are set up by the voting machine companies, companies which are controlled by Republican CEOs.

Voter suppression and outright illegal disenfranchisement is a huge help to the criminal gangs which control our government, but without publicly hand-counted paper ballots, all the "winners" are guaranteed to be bastards.

Get rid of all computerized voting machines. All paper, with a trail, our democracy demands it for those who can think.

...or short of that, ADD a paper trail. In other words, have redundancy so that either system can be checked against the other one.

Beyond the insane fact that the voting machines are made and operated by republican-owned private companies, we all know that computer systems are hackable in general; a paper trail could flag when and where that occurs.

A discrepancy between paper and electronic counts would highlight fraud, if it occurred either on computer or paper system (yes, corrupting paper is possible too, but with TWO systems, defrauding a dual-voting system would be much harder.