This tweet needs to be permanently pinned to the top as an example

[Blue_Tires]

Link to tweet

[guillaumeb]

1. So voting is important?

Who could have imagined?

The GOP, that is who.

[ismnotwasm]

2. I saw that one I completely agree

[L. Coyote]

3. This is why Rs are passing unconstitutional voting laws, to suppress those 69 voters.

[frazzled]

6. But its also all the people who decide to stay home

Because:

a. There’s no difference between the candidates, and neither one reflects my own personal impeccable tastes/ideals

b. It’s too much trouble and won’t matter anyway

c. There’s an election?

Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin in just this way, with only a few people in enough precincts who didn’t vote.

[L. Coyote]

10. Way more people were legislated from voting in Wisconsin than Trump's margin.

That's a fact you cannot sweep away with pure conjecture.

[frazzled]

11. Its not a fact

We don’t know exact numbers on either count.

[L. Coyote]

12. Who needs "exact" numbers for factual certainty?

https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)
A new study shows how voter-ID laws decreased turnout among African-American and Democratic voters.
By Ari Berman -- May 9, 2017

[frazzled]

19. That is a highly disputed study

One cannot deny that Voter ID laws deter voters, especially minority voters, and it probably had some effect; but so did voluntary non-participation.

Baldwin’s claim is based on a study by a left-leaning group, Priorities USA. Election experts have widely criticized the report, but 0ther Democrats, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), have made claims based on the report.

The study looks at turnout in Wisconsin and Minnesota, which does not have a voter ID law. It finds that Wisconsin had lower turnout among nonwhite communities, while Minnesota did not. The study concludes that “if turnout had increased by the national no-change average, over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016.”

But correlation isn’t always causation, and the study does not offer evidence of causation.

One of the main criticisms of this study is that it attributes all 200,000 votes to Wisconsin’s voter ID law. Yet it’s not that simple. While the law likely had some impact on deterring potential voters, there are other things that may have affected the lower turnout.

For example, many voters in Wisconsin decided to sit out this election. There was a lack of enthusiasm among voters for Clinton or Trump, and some may have believed Trump didn’t have a chance at winning Wisconsin, PolitiFact Wisconsin wrote. PolitiFact Wisconsin also pointed out that 2016 turnout in the state was higher than in 2008, before the voter ID law.

Rick Hasen, an elections expert at the University of California at Irvine, noted that black voters in Milwaukee, which experienced a dramatic decline in turnout in 2016, were not motivated by Clinton the same way they were for Obama in 2012 or 2008. Moreover, there was a general decline in the black vote in 2016, compared with 2012 or 2008, in both states that had voter ID laws and states that didn’t.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/30/do-voter-id-laws-help-or-hurt-voter-turnout/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0d3872d7e4a5

[NewJeffCT]

29. I tend to agree

However, the margin was so small that it still likely made a difference. Difference was around 23,000.

Even if those 200,000 suppressed votes are accurate, are all of them people that would have gone out to vote if not suppressed? Just a guess, but I'm guessing of the 200,000, somewhere close to the actual turnout percentage would have tried to vote. Let's say about half - or, 100,000. Since most of them were likely minority voters, we can probably say that at least 80% would have voted for Clinton, with the remainder going to Trump, Stein or Johnson.

80,000 more votes for Clinton, maybe 10,000 more for Trump and 10,000 for Johnson or Stein.

Clinton wins by 47,000.

Even if 80% is too generous, let's go with 75% and 80,000 suppressed voters instead of 100,000
Clinton gets 75%, or 60,000 more votes
Trump gets 15%, or 12,000 more votes
Stein & Johnson combine to get 8,000 more votes

Clinton still wins, but only by 25,000 votes.

[spike jones]

14. Mandatory Voting.

I have always though we should have mandatory voting. There could be a “none of the above” box for people who do not want to vote, but everyone must show up at the voting booths. The fine for not showing up should be a twenty percent tax on gross income.

[Sunlei]

25. Mandatory Voting, don't have to have a fine or show up-Its a much fairer system & hard to fraud

[thucythucy]

30. A better idea might be making election day a mandatory holiday

or paid day off.

There are people who work ten or twelve hour shifts on election day, have kids to deal with when they get home, or aged parents to care for.

Other democracies either make election day a holiday, or they extend voting over the course of two or three days so there's more opportunity to vote.

Our "first Tuesday in November" system comes out of an era where most people were farmers, and had to work all spring to get in the planting, all summer to manage it, and through the early fall to get in the harvest. Having elections the first Tuesday in November was done as a matter of convenience--a day people would be able to take off from working their farm.

Now it's just the opposite--difficult for working people, especially working parents, especially single working parents. Like the Electoral College, November elections is another one of those anachronisms that eventually will have to go.

There ARE states that have early voting and absentee ballot voting, but of course Republicans are busy trying to gut those options as best they can.

[iluvtennis]

18. Ditto

[smirkymonkey]

4. Even in solid blue states it's important.

We can never allow ourselves to get complacent. Every vote counts!

[bdamomma]

20. 11 months of hell we have been through

want it to stop VOTE!!!! please.

[Yonnie3]

5. The talley is different on the official state site

Member House of Delegates (040)

23 precincts of 23 (100.00%) reporting
Candidate Votes Percent
Donte T. Tanner
Democratic 14,988 49.73%

Timothy D. "Tim" Hugo
Republican 15,103 50.11%

Write-In 48 0.16%

Last Modified on 11/08/2017 12:48 PM

Sorry. We will have to wait to see what effect the provisional ballots have. I am sure there will be a recount.

http://results.elections.virginia.gov/vaelections/2017%20November%20General/Site/GeneralAssembly.html

[TeamPooka]

7. Every. Vote. Counts.

[onenote]

8. Unfortunately this result has been updated and the republican now leads by 115

Donte T. Tanner has 14,988
Tim Hugo has 15103

Recount almost certainly coming.

[Ezior]

9. They found 100 additional votes for Hugo somewhere

Damn.

http://www.fauquier.com/updated-vote-canvass-flips-unofficial-result-to-hugo-lead-in/article_27e05bce-c439-11e7-a744-43c79c487fb2.html

[Roland99]

15. But there is still this

“had yet to review hundreds of absentee ballots and much smaller number of provisional votes.”

[Girard442]

22. Slippery little buggers, those Republican votes.

You never know where you'll find them.

[Roland99]

24. Yeah. Interesting the two sets of ballots were found when they needed them

And both sets were in precincts near each other? Special ballots pulled out when needed?

[BBG]

13. Pinned Hell, make it a billboard!

There’s more of us than them, we just need the motivational reminders.

[progressoid]

16. It's going to a recount.

http://www.fauquier.com/updated-vote-canvass-flips-unofficial-result-to-hugo-lead-in/article_27e05bce-c439-11e7-a744-43c79c487fb2.html

[cwydro]

17. It should be pinned - absolutely.

I’ve seen posts on this site where people said they didn’t see any point in voting. Or they could vote “their conscience” because it “wouldn’t count.”

Gah!

[Honeycombe8]

21. It's 68 people, not 69...but the result is the same. That's amazing!!!! A recount? nt

[lastlib]

27. 68 fewer D votes would've resulted in a tie. It took the 69th....

to prevent an R- win.

[Honeycombe8]

31. Then I would say thanks to that ONE D who didn't stay home. nt

Or thanks to the 68 Repubs who DID stay home.

All sorts of ways to shake it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. K&R!

[Bleacher Creature]

26. That lead evaporated today and Hugo is now leading.

That's why we need to keep running up the score.

[IronLionZion]

28. Both parties are the same, no point voting, it's all rigged anyway, blah blah blah

be wary of any so-called liberals trying to discourage our people from voting