Republicans blatantly attempting (and succeeding) to erase the black vote in Georgia

[IndyCovaHart]

I'm in a rural area. I'm currently doing a 30 mile round trip beer run.

Lmao where there’s a will there’s a way?

 

[panamaican]

You think that if they could target white democratic voters more efficiently then they could target black democratic voters that they wouldn't? That seems unlikely to me.

Then you're disregarding the historical element of disenfranchising black voters. Disenfranchising minority voters has a lengthy history in this country and it's not that strange why.

If it's anti-minority elements trying to sway elections to advance anti-minority policies, psychologically they're not going to target non-minority people for harm. They might not agree with the white (in group) people on the other side of the aisle but they share the commonality of not being part of the minority (out-group) populations.

This in-group, out-group difference in how displeasure is expressed isn't novel or unique to voter suppression

They target the out-group first, the in-group second.

Eventually, they might get around to disenfranchising white democrats but they're not going to start with those voters.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Then you're disregarding the historical element of disenfranchising black voters. Disenfranchising minority voters has a lengthy history in this country and it's not that strange why.

If it's anti-minority elements trying to sway elections to advance anti-minority policies, psychologically they're not going to target non-minority people for harm. They might not agree with the white (in group) people on the other side of the aisle but they share the commonality of not being part of the minority (out-group) populations.

This in-group, out-group difference in how displeasure is expressed isn't novel or unique to voter suppression

They target the out-group first, the in-group second.

Eventually, they might get around to disenfranchising white democrats but they're not going to start with those voters.

Ok, that might be the case 50 years ago but you do realize they have mathematicians and logicians analyzing this stuff now in order to gain the best advantage right? I have no doubt that racism is increasing on both sides. That is what identity politics does. I don't think many Republicans are lamenting the idea of disenfranchising black voters but ask yourself this;

Target group A: black population 92% democratic voters
Target group B: white population 93% democratic voters

If both groups are the same size and the GOP has the opportunity to disenfranchise either group I would bet they do group B 10/10 times. Quite frankly even if there was a way to come close I would bet they would do the white population to avoid the fall out. The correlation between black voters and democratic voters is kind of unprecedented in the western world for any demographic. It makes them a relatively easy and tempting target.

 

[Ruprecht]

It'd be amazing what a change compulsory voting would have on American politics.

 

[tonni]

If both groups are the same size and the GOP has the opportunity to disenfranchise either group I would bet they do group B 10/10 times. Quite frankly even if there was a way to come close I would bet they would do the white population to avoid the fall out. The correlation between black voters and democratic voters is kind of unprecedented in the western world for any demographic. It makes them a relatively easy and tempting target.

Which fallout? They've been getting away with it for forever. I would bet they'd go for the black group btw.

 

[Madmick]

Because in these areas, political control of these small boards tends to be financial first, political second. Just because it first costs money and time to even get on the ballots. Second, because poor people generally don't have the time to even learn the correct process to get on the ballot. There's no guarantee that those people are Dems, given the demographics of the area - I think it's a fair bet that they're Republicans.

It's not expensive to run campaigns in small communities. I live in one. There's a reason nobody cares about campaign finance reform at the county or municipal level in rural communities. If the Democrats are too lazy, incompetent, ignorant, and/or stingy to participate in the Democratic process, then bitching when the Republicans attempt to finesse it to their advantage is a pitiful appeal for sympathy. You can get on a computer at a public library if you aren't one of the 85%+ of Americans who already have private internet access, and learn the ballot process with a single Google. I'm willing to bet this population isn't having trouble accessing YouTube.

In small communities like mine a lack of volunteers to run polling stations on election night has emerged as an issue with my generation that historically preempted most concerns with funding multiple, smaller, outlying stations.

Volitional helplessness doesn't persuade me, and there's plenty of that going on, here. It's dirty, disingenuous politics, but I find both sides contemptible. You have sleazy go-getters on the one side, but on the other, you have righteous whiners who refuse to empower themselves despite being granted the greatest gift imaginable with a system designed to enable just that.

 

[panamaican]

It's not expensive to run campaigns in small communities. I live in one. There's a reason nobody cares about campaign finance reform at the county or municipal level in rural communities. If the Democrats are too lazy, incompetent, ignorant, and/or stingy to participate in the Democratic process, then bitching when the Republicans attempt to finesse it to their advantage is a pitiful appeal for sympathy. You can get on a computer at a public library if you aren't one of the 85%+ of Americans who already have private internet access, and learn the ballot process with a single Google. I'm willing to bet this population isn't having trouble accessing YouTube.

In small communities like mine a lack of volunteers to run polling stations on election night has emerged as an issue with my generation that historically preempted most concerns with funding multiple, smaller, outlying stations.

Volitional helplessness doesn't persuade me, and there's plenty of that going on, here. It's dirty, disingenuous politics, but I find both sides contemptible. You have sleazy go-getters on the one side, but on the other, you have righteous whiners who refuse to empower themselves despite being granted the greatest gift imaginable with a system designed to enable just that.

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. You asked why Democrats are not in charge of the election board. I explained why. I didn't say it was expensive (although that's a relative term). I said it costs money and time. And poor people are less willing to spend the money and time on something like this with minimal tangible benefits. Especially if it's not a paid position.
http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2015/The-Inequality-of-Politics.pdf

In that specific county, the median family income is only $30k. The black income is lower than the white income across all professions (not a racism allegation, just a statement of fact). Given that the black population is more likely to vote Democrat, it's reasonable to assume that economic prosperity politically aligns with that, ie. the GOP supporters make more money than the Democrat supporters.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/randolph-county-ga/

If the concentration of economic prosperity leans towards the GOP there then there's a strong chance that most of the small commissions will lean towards GOP as well. And if the vote turned out 45-55, that's hardly a stronghold for a party.

Long story short, poor people aren't particularly politically active. That's a party neutral statement. Whether the poor in one community vote GOP or Democrats varies on the community.

No one cares about campaign finance reform in rural communities because there aren't enough people to raise a stink while the dollars involved rarely bump up against the limits. And poor people tend to have bigger fish to fry than the vagaries of election law, a niche area outside of D.C., even in most major metropolitan cities. People care about it in more populous and more economically successful communities because there's a large concentration of people who have enough money and time to get involved and so the effects of financial corruption disenfranchises more of them.

 

[Madmick]

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. You asked why Democrats are not in charge of the election board. I explained why. I didn't say it was expensive (although that's a relative term). I said it costs money and time. And poor people are less willing to spend the money and time on something like this with minimal tangible benefits. Especially if it's not a paid position.
http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2015/The-Inequality-of-Politics.pdf

In that specific county, the median family income is only $30k. The black income is lower than the white income across all professions (not a racism allegation, just a statement of fact). Given that the black population is more likely to vote Democrat, it's reasonable to assume that economic prosperity politically aligns with that, ie. the GOP supporters make more money than the Democrat supporters.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/randolph-county-ga/

If the concentration of economic prosperity leans towards the GOP there then there's a strong chance that most of the small commissions will lean towards GOP as well. And if the vote turned out 45-55, that's hardly a stronghold for a party.

Long story short, poor people aren't particularly politically active. That's a party neutral statement. Whether the poor in one community vote GOP or Democrats varies on the community.

Yes, I divined all of this from your post, but as you can see, pertaining to the truth highlighted in red, I hold no sympathy: chicken and the egg.

I'm scorning those who whine about how things are being managed when they themselves refuse to take responsibility for managing them.

No one cares about campaign finance reform in rural communities because there aren't enough people to raise a stink while the dollars involved rarely bump up against the limits. And poor people tend to have bigger fish to fry than the vagaries of election law, a niche area outside of D.C., even in most major metropolitan cities. People care about it in more populous and more economically successful communities because there's a large concentration of people who have enough money and time to get involved and so the effects of financial corruption disenfranchises more of them.

No one cares because it's not a problem, and doesn't generate corruption in elections.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Which fallout? They've been getting away with it for forever. I would bet they'd go for the black group btw.

I think its pretty clear that issues like this effect their reputation and how some voters behave. I agree that they have been getting away with it to some extent legally, but I think it would be naive to think they don't take a social and political hit for these behaviors.

 

[BudKing8806]

They could legalize pot and tax that

 

[Phelly2]

Glad they knocked this down. When a quarter of your population doesn't have cars then you better have top notch public transportation before you start extending the trip to get to the polls. Even then closing 3/4 of your polling stations is insane.

The same percentage of the population is under 18. No idea if those are largely the same people.

If 22% of the population legitimately have no car (and no access to a car...), and there's no public transportation, how do they get to work everyday considering their unemployment rate is only 4.4%? And what are they spending their money on, if not a car? Is this county just so compact that thousands of people have a job within walking distance from their home? Doesn't add up for me.

 

[Darkballs]

Typically Republican, and blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[panamaican]

The same percentage of the population is under 18. No idea if those are largely the same people.

If 22% of the population legitimately have no car (and no access to a car...), and there's no public transportation, how do they get to work everyday considering their unemployment rate is only 4.4%? And what are they spending their money on, if not a car? Is this county just so compact that thousands of people have a job within walking distance from their home? Doesn't add up for me.

There is public transportation. How good it is is a different question. Which is why the issue of public transportation matters. When 22% of your voting population does not have a car, it means that they are dependent on public transportation to get to their polling place.

The issue with public transportation is one of access. No place has public transportation that gets to every little street in the area. Outside of major metropolitan areas, it's less likely that they have buses running every 10 minutes. But if people are dependent on the bus to get to the polls then you need buses that most of the population can easily get to and you need buses that run frequently enough to allow people to get to and from the polling stations without undue hardship.

So, a bus that require a 3 mile walk, only runs once per hour and takes 45 minutes to get to the polling station is not a very helpful option. It means that if you miss the bus, you're going to have to wait an additional 2 hours to get to your polling station...after the 3 mile walk. And that's assuming the polling station is a short walk from the bus stop when you get off. If it's another 1 mile walk to the station that's even worse. It drastically increases the odds that you might not get to the polling station before it closes if you can only go after work.

Reducing the polling stations from 9 to 2 increases the number of people who will have lengthy public transportation commutes and greater chances of missing the closing time for the polling station. That's less of an issue with getting to work because you don't have anything competing with your trip to work. But work will compete with your trip to the polls. If your shift ends at the wrong time or your boss holds you over to discuss something or you get home with only a few minutes to prepare food for the kids before the bus to the polling station starts. Lots of variables impact that trip that you only make 1x every couple of years compared to the trip that you actually build your life around.

As for what people are spending money on other than cars? Food, shelter, etc. Median income is $30k before taxes. That's not a lot of discretionary capital to devote to a car, gas, insurance, upkeep, etc.