Is that too much to ask for with some people? It shouldn't be. Everybody should have an opinion on this, it's just that some don't play very well in print.
So a state has districts that have large numbers of voters condensed in populated areas. It also has districts that are rural that have thousands versus hundreds of thousands of voters. The board of elections, who's job is to insure smooth voting logistics such as providing an adequate number of voting stations needed to serve the voters, takes an area already known to have lines that take to long to get through, and reduces days, hours, and even drops as many as 16 polling stations.
So given that it's easy to see which districts have had the number of polling stations dramatically reduced, not hard to figure out that they are the highest populations, and not hard to see that 82 other districts stayed the same regardless of the fact that they were adequately covered to where there were no lines...
...wouldn't it be safe to say that the election board had brought a certain target agenda to the table?
...wouldn't it also be safe to say that any defense for their actions would be rather lame?
If there is a defense, if there is a reason, if there is something that was done that somehow reduced voter fraud by making the lines so long that turnout was down by something like 90% or more, let's hear it. Some states have taken this way too far to where there isn't a court in the land that will support their actions, unless the court is just as corrupt. Conservative courts are striking down actions like this over and over and they are being taken as far as the supreme court.
I will take silence as the acknowledgment that this is blatantly indefensible. Yet there are those who don't think about it at all, yet they see nothing wrong with it if it comes up.
We talk about political ignorance yet there are people who don't have a clue what's right about issues like this. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on this is something that isn't right for anyone.
So a state has districts that have large numbers of voters condensed in populated areas. It also has districts that are rural that have thousands versus hundreds of thousands of voters. The board of elections, who's job is to insure smooth voting logistics such as providing an adequate number of voting stations needed to serve the voters, takes an area already known to have lines that take to long to get through, and reduces days, hours, and even drops as many as 16 polling stations.
So given that it's easy to see which districts have had the number of polling stations dramatically reduced, not hard to figure out that they are the highest populations, and not hard to see that 82 other districts stayed the same regardless of the fact that they were adequately covered to where there were no lines...
...wouldn't it be safe to say that the election board had brought a certain target agenda to the table?
...wouldn't it also be safe to say that any defense for their actions would be rather lame?
If there is a defense, if there is a reason, if there is something that was done that somehow reduced voter fraud by making the lines so long that turnout was down by something like 90% or more, let's hear it. Some states have taken this way too far to where there isn't a court in the land that will support their actions, unless the court is just as corrupt. Conservative courts are striking down actions like this over and over and they are being taken as far as the supreme court.
I will take silence as the acknowledgment that this is blatantly indefensible. Yet there are those who don't think about it at all, yet they see nothing wrong with it if it comes up.
We talk about political ignorance yet there are people who don't have a clue what's right about issues like this. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on this is something that isn't right for anyone.
