Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > November > 12 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHouse chairman: Trim back early voting and the 50 percent rule
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Another Republican voice now says early voting should be cut back — and that perhaps a state law that demands election victors to win by a 50-percent-plus-one margin isn’t such a good thing after all.
The Associated Press this morning quotes state Rep. Austin Scott (R-Tifton), chairman of the House Governmental Affairs Committee, as saying that changes to state election law are likely to come with the winter session of the Legislature.
State Senate leaders, also Republican, have already voiced their concern with the implications of early voting, but hadn’t mentioned changing the threshold needed to win elections.
Wrote AP:
State Rep. Austin Scott said he expects legislators to discuss tightening runoff guidelines in the wake of the surprising showing by Democrat Jim Martin that forced a Dec. 2 showdown with Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
He also said he was considering whether to draft a measure that would shorten Georgia’s 45-day advance voting period.
“Most people think it was stretched out too far,” said Scott, a Tifton Republican who chairs the House committee charged with drafting electoral policy. “Maybe two weeks would be long enough.”
….Scott said the six-week advance period also could expose the system to more voter fraud, and he said legislators could limit potential abuse by tightening early voting.
“The two goals of the election are access and integrity,” he said. “And reaching that balance is sometimes easier said than done.”
Republicans also could overhaul election rules that now require a runoff if none of the candidates earn more than 50 percent of the vote.
Scott and a slew of House Republican leaders unsuccessfully proposed lowering the bar to 45 percent last year, and he said the provision could resurface from legislators concerned about the mounting costs of runoffs.
Statewide runoffs have cost tens of thousands of dollars in the past, and the Dec. 2 contest could top $100,000.
“The counties have asked for that 45 percent threshold because of the cost of elections,” Scott said.
Comments
By BigTim43
November 12, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Typical Republicans - Crying because the rules they created backfired on them. Let’s see, Voter ID, Early Voting, and now lowering the margin of victory threshhold. What will these cowardly politicians think of next?
By petepenguin
November 12, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
More republican efforts at keeping the vote count down.Anything to keep people from voting is their goal and the rest is a smoke screen.
By Chris
November 12, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
So did I just read that the republicans are changing the election law because a Democrat did well?
By Chris
November 12, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
So did I just read that the republicans are changing the election law because a Democrat did well?
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
November 12, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
That answer would be YES.
The Party is Mother. The Party is Father. The Party is All.
By Grumpy
November 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
Of course they want to limit early voting and the 50% rule. Republicans are starting to lose their stranglehold on political power in Georgia and don’t want to let the people decide their future.
By Famuan
November 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
These people are shameless. LOL…so too many people voted early, therefore, let’s cut that down?!?! LOL…wow…they have NO shame.
By Cherokee
November 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
If Republicans spent as much time actually developing policies that worked, instead of time spent trying to disenfranchise the people they don’t like, they’d be much better off.
By MrLiberty
November 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Of course a member of the criminal class that rules us would want to scale back the miniscule defense we have against incumbents winning every election. Is it not enough that you have made it nearly impossible for third party candidates to get on the ballot? These candidates by the way actually have principles. They stand for something other than the status quo.
Now you want to diminish the value that they offer to the election by enabling some clown to get elected with a simple majority.
In most elections less that 50% turnout is good. Frankly far fewer people should endorce these farcical events, but that is another issue. Let someone win with just 40% of the vote and now less than 20% of the electorate has endorced this person.
Meanwhile they get into office, violate our rights, take away our money, and pretend that they were actually “elected” by a majority of the voters.
If we aren’t going to have principles in our elections, at least lets have a requirement that a majority of the idiots that showed up must support you.
As for early voting, until the poll workers can evolve enough to catch up to the technology, we will need more than one day just to handle the load.
Of course once there are no black presidential candidates on the ballot the black vote will dry up as is classically the case. Then the polls will be empty again.
By Early voter
November 12, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Scott on early voting: “Most people think it was stretched out too far.” Most people? Who? I’ve not heard anyone say that. Everyone I’ve talked to about early voting liked it.
By h ryder
November 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
Is there something gravely wrong with being civil to fellow human beings? Rarely is an opinion fact, an opinion may be based on fact(s), or with time be a fact. The vehement attacks on those who state opinions should be viewed as what they are, denouncement of a person who is brave enough to express their idea(s) regarding a given topic.
By petepenguin
November 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this
That presupposes the opinion is based on factual information. An opinion based on half-truths,lies or distortions really isn’t worth much as an opinion,don’t you think?
By gafarmer
November 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this
Democracy is not cheap but anyone should be able in two weeks; and you still have the absentee option.
50% plus one of those voting is usually a small part of those that could have voted. Don’t change the majority rule.
By WMOL
November 12, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this
Can the Republicans site any “real” instances of voter fraud in this most recent election with advance voting of 45 days. Perhaps they should discover voter fraud before they go about making changes to the length. Any solution in search of a-non-problem. Only can the Republicans manage that.
By Gusto
November 12, 2008 9:03 PM | Link to this
All of a sudden now, the republicans wants two weeks for early voting. They created it to have an advantage together with the voter ID and it did not work, so now let us change the rules. It is really weird to listen to these same guys whom advocated for “free” elections in Iraq, yet now they are advocating limiting the people participation here in the USA. Shame on them. We the People will NOT allow that.
By Gusto
November 12, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this
All of a sudden now, the republicans wants two weeks for early voting. They created it to have an advantage together with the voter ID and it did not work, so now let us change the rules. It is really weird to listen to these same guys whom advocated for “free” elections in Iraq, yet now they are advocating limiting the people participation here in the USA. Shame on them. We the People will NOT allow that.
By Republicans4Martin
November 13, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
In his Gettysburg Address, Republican President Lincoln stated that government is of the people … by the people … for the people … and that it shall not perish from the earth. Early voting is a good thing. In my county hundreds of people lined up to vote from day one of early voting. Taking this option away or changing it to less time would only serve to make us (Republicans) look like fools in the long run … So we opened the door to liberals and lost our foothold of power. Perhaps we should have long ago if there are that many people out there that have a different opinion than we do, and who were unable to say anything due to not being able to get to the polls. Is that how we want to win?? By taking away the right to vote from anyone we don’t agree with?? We need an overhaul of the whole party system. It’s gone to the dogs.
Show our party that we mean business on change to the way our party has been working — vote for Jim Martin!!
By Rick Henderson
November 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Why change advance voting? becuse it worked? Here is a novel idea, leave it alone. PEOPLE VOTED, PEOPLE LIKED IT.
By Rick Henderson
November 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Why change advance voting? because it worked? Here is a novel idea, leave it alone. PEOPLE VOTED, PEOPLE LIKED IT.