I would relish the chance to read reports on how many voters were turned away, but I don’t know if that data exists or is available publicly. With nothing else to go on currently other than the outcome and previous elections/turnout, I would say that I didn’t imagine black turnout would go up enough to overcome the institutional barriers erected to stifle the black vote. Or perhaps those in charge of sending broken voting machines were only half-heartedly sending out ****ty hardware due to how poorly they viewed Moore.

Tough to say either way, but it is an impressive win for decency in America.

I’d love to say this was by design, which it is to a degree, but I’ve also been surprisingly busy lately.

You claimed earlier that I said there was no disenfranchisement of black voters, and when I pointed out that I hadn't said that, claimed I was lying and that you knew what I really meant. Here you acknowledge that, okay, that wasn't actually an implication of what I said, but that I am still claiming that the disenfranchisement, if it occurred, was okay because Jones won. Here is what I actually said:

Now, you can still believe I am lying when I say this, but if that is your view, what point is there in me talking to you? You ask me questions, but you aren't looking for an answer from me, you think you already know my views, and will just assume I'm lying to you.

You also said this:

"Furthermore, I would not have described the vote in Alabama previous to the election as "rigged," because to me that implies that it is illegitimate, and I didn't think the attempts to disenfranchise the black vote were likely to make enough difference to make the election illegitimate. "

What is the unacceptable number of people to disenfranchise at which point the election becomes illegitimate?

Furthermore, saying that disenfranchisement is wrong, but then also that it isn't so bad as to have consequences as long as it is underneath some unspecified level is an awful lot like saying that it isn't wrong.

None whatsoever. Go back to SMP.

I already answered this question here. But, to reiterate, I don't know how much disenfranchisement would be enough for me to consider an election illegitimate - it depends on the specific situation. I view legitimacy on a spectrum. Cheating obviously lowers the legitimacy of an election, but unless the election is very close or the cheating is large, we can still typically determine the will of the people in selecting a representative, and that is usually enough. In some cases, regardless of the will of the people, the cheating is large enough as to make the election a farce rather than a real choice (eg Russia, Jim Crow, Daley-style urban machine politics). But where exactly we draw the line distinguishing between a legitimate and illegitimate election is not clear to me, and probably historically contingent. In Alabama, I've not seen enough evidence of cheating to persuade me that Jones' election (or Moore, if he had won), crossed this line into illegitimacy.

No, it's not. I know the principle of charity is verboten here in Politics, but claiming that I'm stating a contradiction is not a readily available interpretation of my statement. I explicitly said disenfranchisement is wrong. The statement you are quoting is me saying that even if it doesn't impact an election it is still wrong. How is it that you think this is close to my saying the exact opposite? Is it because I am using non-consenquentialist grounds to make this claim? Given my SN, are you really surprised that I would use non-consequentialist grounds to criticize a political action?

The question of how much suppression of the black vote there was in the Alabama election is an empirical question. Some people predicted it would be large enough to cause Jones to lose. This prediction ended up being wrong. I don't know much about Alabama politics, so I wanted to know why these people thought they were wrong about the impact of voter suppression on the election. Were voter ID laws not very effective in suppressing the vote? Was there something specific to this election that made this so? Or was Jones' campaign just unusually effective in turning out the vote? Was this just an artifact of Moore being an especially bad candidate?

Thanks for the response.

Uh huh

I mean the most clear answer to why voter suppression efforts didnt work as intended in that election is that one candidate actualy said that antebellum america was better than america now

You can always tell when someone is a dishonest turd when they quote a completely different post than the one I was actually talking about. Here’s what you posted that prompted my post you’re talking about here







Post 1: black people got to vote

Post 2: you’re dumb if you think the election was rigged

Yes, you didn’t EXPLICTLY say “some black people voted, ERGO there wasn’t anything nefarious going on” but if you can’t put the two together then you’re dumber than a pile of rocks.

We’ve all seen this bull**** hand waving 100 times before, it might work on the mouth breathers at your family Christmas dinner but nobody here is buying what you’re selling, you hack.

Also just want to point out that my post you’re crying about is 3295. The “what I ACTUALLY said” post you pointed to is like two pages LATER (post 3311). Gtfo of here you ****ing liar.

So to get back to the quite simple question you haven’t answered, do you consider disenfranchisement to be a form of election rigging?

Yes or no.

He's already made it clear that the current level of disenfranchisement is not enough for him to consider the elections illegitimate.

He also mocked the idea that the election was rigged.

It's just stupid, pedantic nit-picking over the usage of the word, "rigged". As if some random post on a internet forum requires the precision and clarity of a legal brief.

Duh? Of course it’s semantics. He wants to claim it’s not rigged then when he’s called on an obvious lie he backtracks with a bunch of semantic handwaving. That’s exactly my point.

Nobody is requiring an ultra-precise, rigorous wording, we just aren’t going to allow obvious bull**** to go unchecked.

Original Position seems to want one. That's what I was talking about.

NYT reporting Moore moved to block certification of the election. Alabama elected this guy to their Supreme Court twice, lol.

Dude, he came into the thread with an absurdly nitpicking semantic post.

Agreed. Not really understanding all the grief I'm getting for pointing it out???

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/stat...23458916605957

More like Roy SORE amirite

Alabama Sec. of State has said they won't delay certification of the election, FWIW.

Maybe Alabama has a provision still on the books that an old white racist who loses because of the black vote can get the courts to only count black votes as worth 3/5ths or white votes?

Edit

Guess not.