Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalibah
Last one- So the poll was closed? What time was it? The report doesnt mention this- its completly worthless without CONTEXT
Names didnt appear on the rolls? Ohh okay thats intentional black voter disanfrachisment... right
None of these prove blacks were TARGETED- these lack context- being turned down because your name isnt on the rolls- the real question is- WAS HER NAME ON THE ROLLS? If it was- and she was turned down- then that would be disanfranchisment- but turning down someone who isnt on the rolls isnt discrmination
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof.pickles
These examples will all be cut off before fully explaining the disenfranchisement scenario because I don't want to spam the board with pages of stuff.
|
That explains the lack of context.
Doesn't the fact that a large number of black voters had their name disappear from the rolls even though they were regular voters strike you as odd? If the precentage of "lost" black names was significantly higher than other races, doesn't that seem a tad bit suspicious? Why were the ballots of black voters rejected at such a higher rate then other groups? Why weren't polling stations moved without notice in white districts?
Taken alone, all of these things may not appear that damning but taken together and a pattern begins to form. If there is no systemic problem here then we are looking at the largest coincidence ever....somehow, I just don't buy that. There doesn't need to be any sinister conspiracy or KKK members involved for racism to have influenced the election....all it takes is an official dose of neglect.