Sinister & Silent Voter Disenfranchisement

Everyone knows what voter disenfranchisement is, and knows what voter disenfranchisement looks like when it's so blatantly done, which many Dems have argued happened in 2000, and also in 2004. I'm not so sure about 2004, but clearly we all agree 2000 was stolen in more ways than one. I wrote a paper when I was in high school back in the late 90s calling for the abolition of the electoral college, so don't get me started...

However, there's a more sinister, a more silent type of voter disenfranchisement that goes on throughout the land. A type of voter disenfranchisement that adds to the reasons why Presidential election years should be federalized throughout the states, and fuck state's rights. For example: In rich counties in Ohio they have newer voting machines, which count more accurately, and also work faster allowing lines to be shorter. In the lower income counties, they have the older, crappy voting machines that are counting mistake-prone, are slower to work, and thus cause lines to be infinitely longer. Moreover, these poorer counties can’t afford as many machines as they need to keep lines down. So, while the rich counties may have 10 fancy, new machines, the poor counties would then have 5 slower, older, less accurate machines. This is the quiet type of voter disenfranchisement.

The quiet voter disenfranchisement that is not seen because blatant disenfranchisement still occurs today. For example, the current case from Indiana before the Supreme Court. Where the state of Indiana wants to require all voters to have a license or some shit like that. Poor people generally don't have cars, and thus don't have a reason to have a type of state-issued ID. Mark it down now though. The Court will vote with Indiana and will allow them to require some type of state ID to be shown at the polls. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote briefs for Bush in 2000 for Bush-vs-Gore, despite Bush trying to deny that Roberts had any connection to the fiasco.