You liberals don’t get it. Bricker pointed out that he never missed an election in his life. The answer to why the poor and minorities aren’t voting can be found in cataloging the shortfalls in their moral characters compared to Bricker’s.
I mean, we already know liberals are takers. I’d go so far as to say that is literally by definition. I’m sure one could think of other common character flaws of liberals, put it all together and then grasp how their troubles with voting are really their fault.
Interestingly that when I proposed a similar scenario involving closing rural polling places for budgetary reasons similarly involving an approximately 4 hour ordeal for certain voters you gave the following response.
I can’t look at this: (the video) because when I try, I get “This video has been removed by user.”
What’d it say and why do you suppose the user removed it?
That link: notes: As Karen [Osborne] (elections director) indicated a lot of these people who voted a provisional ballot were people who were not eligible for that election. Maybe we need to make it clearer somehow that when they go to MVD or Service Arizona they realize what they’re doing when putting their party or not putting their party. Because if you don’t put anything it automatically puts ‘party not designated’ which is the same as Independent.
and states: So many voters who had changed their information via the AZ MVD had changed their party affiliation status without realizing it and were automatically registered as Independents. Many others were completely unaware Arizona had changed its elections laws that wouldn’t allow Independents to vote in the primary election, which was another huge oversight. Purcell also blamed them for the holdups at polls, because they too waited in line and took up election officials time.
I can see that the occurring with people who were registering to vote for the first time, or for the first time in Arizona/Maricopa County. I can’t say that it would account for all of the people who voted ended up provisionally; I suspect some people didn’t register for a party and some Independents just wanted to vote and weren’t aware they had to be registered with a particular party to vote in that party’s preference election. (personal anecdote: I’d been bugging the manager of the coffee shop I go to to register to vote. One nite she proudly announces she’d registered when she had get her drivers license renewed. I asked which party, she told me she didn’t know, she’s just checked the box on the form to be registered. So she’s an example of somebody not affiliated with a party who wasn’t eligible to vote in this election.)
And that quote about … one polling place for every 108K residents, many of them Latinos.Residents? Not eligible voters but residents? And nothing about being registered voterswith a party registration.
Here’s a map showing the locations of the 60 polling locations in Maricopa County.
The pop-up when you put the cursor over an area shows Voting Age Population NOT Registered Voters.
The article states: Both rich and poor areas in Maricopa County were left underserved by the lack of polling sites for Tuesday’s presidential preference election, but polling places were particularly sparse inpoorer areas of west Phoenix, Glendale and the southwest Valley, according to an analysis byThe Arizona Republic.
Do those areas have a lower percentage of registered voters? If the population is under-aged/non-eligible/non-registered voters, it would make sense to have fewer polling locations
The article also states: O’Neil said he doesn’t believe officials intentionally suppressed the vote. In a primary, preventing voters from casting ballots doesn’t help Republicans over Democrats like it would in a general election.
I have to agree with Bricker on this one. What was confirmed was that something was screwed up. That could be due to fraud (although it’s a little hard to see precisely who benefits by committing large scale extremely obvious and non-secret fraud during a PRIMARY election), or it could be due to incompetence or error or what have you.
“Fraud” definitely implies nefarious intent to deceive, which I don’t think we have any evidence for at this point.
Do we have any reliable info on who the “Establishment” Republicans in Arizona favor? Dump the Trump and Cruzin’ for a bruising? Like I asked before, do they have any way to know how the early ballots add up, any reason to prevent in-person voters from upsetting that? Because, absent that, its hard for me to see what nefarious purpose they might have, here.
Absent extraordinary evidence, I’m inclined to put this one down to just plain dumb. May well have an upside, too. If there is pressure to see that polling places are more equably arranged in a transparent fashion, could be a very good thing.
Even Bruce Tinsley is willing to admit it, although it *is April Fool’s Day. Today’s “Mallard Fillmore” strip has the intrepid conservative duck saying "In other news, fewer people are voting for Democrats in states with new, stricter Voter ID laws! Imagine that… *Brennan Center for Justice"
Yes, I know, he’s implying that many Democratic voters are ineligible, although he’s certainly as aware as **Bricker **that that is simply not true.
Like Smapti you have a non-human like doggedness on certain issues that might lead us to suspect you’re a replicant. So … Pro-tip for Bricker: If your human-emotion emulation module is smart enough to deduce you’re responding to a joke, acknowledge it with a smiley-face icon.