Hey protesters, I have a message for you.

warpus said:
Aren't African American voting turnouts fairly low? Maybe I'm talking out of my butt here, but if they came out in force and voted in high numbers, I think they could actually make a significant enough difference.
Click to expand...

A large part of the problem is that fewer African-Americans vote, which isn't always entirely down to laziness. It's harder for various reasons to vote if you're black, or working-class for that matter. That is particularly the case in the South, where African-Americans are more numerous anyway.
 
Flying Pig said:
A large part of the problem is that fewer African-Americans vote, which isn't always entirely down to laziness. It's harder for various reasons to vote if you're black, or working-class for that matter. That is particularly the case in the South, where African-Americans are more numerous anyway.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that trying to "rally the troops" and getting people to turn out to voting stations en masse would be a really good way of furthering the agenda here. I never put it down to laziness that the turnouts have been so low - just general apathy and a general atmosphere of "voting doesn't really work, so who cares".

Imagine if at the next election there was an 80% voter turn out rate in African-American communities. Wouldn't this lead to some change? .. Is it unrealistic?
 
Flying Pig said:
A large part of the problem is that fewer African-Americans vote, which isn't always entirely down to laziness. It's harder for various reasons to vote if you're black, or working-class for that matter. That is particularly the case in the South, where African-Americans are more numerous anyway.
Click to expand...

FP beat me to it.

Employers are supposed to allow employees to "be in late" or whatnot to vote but that's not always the case.

I'm lucky in that my ballot gets mailed to me because I'm in such a rural district so once I mail it back I'm done. Absentee ballots need to be easier to acquire, that would help alleviate that problem some.

And I must say, as an off topic comment for the thread, having just joined CF, I think I'll appreciate seeing how things evolve here occasionally. :D

*sniffs air* FRESH MEAT!
 
It's more complicated than apathy. African-Americans, disproportionately more so than whites, have a limited amount of free time and have to expend most of their effort in making ends meet, so measures which demand timely effort to register and identify yourself (using documentation that you have to pay for) hit them disproportionately hard. If you're urban and not particularly wealthy, you quite likely don't have a passport or a driver's license, so you're unlikely to pay for those just for the privilege of voting, especially if you don't have that much money.
 
Flying Pig said:
It's more complicated than apathy. African-Americans, disproportionately more so than whites, have a limited amount of free time and have to expend most of their effort in making ends meet, so measures which demand timely effort to register and identify yourself (using documentation that you have to pay for) hit them disproportionately hard. If you're urban and not particularly wealthy, you quite likely don't have a passport or a driver's license, so you're unlikely to pay for those just for the privilege of voting, especially if you don't have that much money.
Click to expand...

"Jim Crow" is still alive and well in some areas, especially the South.

Compare Texas voting requirements to Minnesota for instance:

Texas:

  • Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
  • Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
  • Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
  • Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
  • United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
  • United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
  • United States passport

Minnesota:
You can register to vote online, by mail, or in person with your local election official OR at the polls on Election Day.

You don’t need identification to register to vote in MN UNLESS you register at the polls on Election Day.

When registering on Election Day, you must bring one of the following:

  • A valid photo ID such as a MN driver’s license, permit, or ID card (or a receipt for any of these IDs).
  • A valid student ID card that has your picture.
  • Can only be used if your college has given a student housing list to election officials.
  • A photo Tribal ID card that shows your signature.
  • A valid voter registration in your same precinct showing a different name or address.
  • A registered voter residing in your precinct who can sign an oath confirming your address.
  • An employee of your residential facility who can sign an oath to confirm your address.
 
bhsup said:
:lol: And in truth, not really accurate. I mean, we have an actual rocket scientist in OT from Missouri! And then there's Phrossack. That little brainiac surely has me beat as well. All the other fellow Missourians, though, I got em' smacked.
Click to expand...

Aw, shucks.

Hobbs and I are from Missouri. You're the only poster from Missouruh. So you're the smartest poster from that state by default :p
 
I'm not clear on what happened, was Widen at a community college being protested so the ceremony he was supposed to attend was delayed 15 minutes?

or was the ceremony at the community college?
 
Moderator Action: Aelf, I've edited your post to what you should have written. the flaming may help you feel better, but it makes you appear worse and there is no need for it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

aelf said:
Again, you fail to understand anything. I wrote according to what was written. Your own self-righteous indignation is irrelevant and misdirected.

Movements need to stave off disaster, that's true. It is indeed possible to screw up badly enough to lose. But it's going to be a gamble. At some point, there will be confrontation and that will create inconvenience. People like you hate anything that does not conform to your narrow-minded expectations. You would have disagreed with strikes or any form of civil disobedience, whether it was led by militant groups or by Gandhi. Only the celebrity of Gandhi would make you say otherwise now. If you had lived in those days? I wouldn't be so sure you wouldn't be one of those commenting that disdain towards him was not a moral failing.
Click to expand...
 
Flying Pig said:
It's more complicated than apathy. African-Americans, disproportionately more so than whites, have a limited amount of free time and have to expend most of their effort in making ends meet, so measures which demand timely effort to register and identify yourself (using documentation that you have to pay for) hit them disproportionately hard. If you're urban and not particularly wealthy, you quite likely don't have a passport or a driver's license, so you're unlikely to pay for those just for the privilege of voting, especially if you don't have that much money.
Click to expand...

You world has no idea the sorts of things I would do if I had billions of dollars..

For one, I would pay for all those people to get IDs and get them out to vote on a specific election, in key districts. Populist politicians would be elected into office and the political landscape of the country would forever change.

I would probably fail, but.. I guess I'd first email some African Americans who have influence, like maybe Samuel L. Jackson.. see if they want to help me out. I don't see anything wrong with my plan - but first I need to become a billionaire - or none of those emails are going to get a reply and I won't be able to fund anything anyway.

See how cruel the universe is? The people who end up with billions of dollars spend them on yachts, castles, bribes, expensive jewellery, ways to guard their money, and even more ways to try to get more. Not fun stuff, like what I suggest above.
 
Gucumatz said:
You are missing the entire point of Flyingpig's point though. Pig isn't hating on anything, merely pointing out most people don't care about issues that affect them and annoying/disrupting their daily lives can go in one of 2 ways:

1. Make them feel like what they are currently doing is hurting themselves (IE Boycotts encourage individuals to try and resolve the issue of the boycott for their own self interest)

2. Annoy a group without reaching them in some other way.

Gandhi's protests disrupted India and forced the British government to act out of its own self interest. The Birmingham bus boycotts brought tons of bad press for the city when it was trying to push for tourism and cut off a revenue stream for the city. Cesar Chavez caught the attention to sympathetic peoples through his rallies/boycotts by shocking them about the lives of others

Organizing is like playing a game of chess. People are inherently lazy/unsympathetic in most cases, the key to most succesful protests is to hit someone where it hurts while still gaining sympathy elsewhere. This [the ceremony protest] is bad press with little real benefit and only serving to annoy without doing any of the positive of the above.

Gandhi, C. Chavez, MLK, etc. all had their misplays as well, I am not sure why the anger Aelf
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. I don't know if you realise this (I guess you don't), but you're saying what I was saying. People think this is something about "the bad white man", but that's just bias and stupidity talking.

I said that maybe this is an error on the protesters' part. It could be, but it happens. Not everyone is a brilliant strategist or organiser. What I'm tired of seeing is people latching on to bad PR as though protesters are supposed to be like image-conscious multinationals, which is both unfair and misses the point.

And then they ask, "Is this supposed to win them any supporters?" If you don't support a good cause just because you think the people fighting for it are loud and annoying, then you're a shallow person - simple. Same as what I was saying about Westboro, just in reverse (and I used the word "hate" because that's the word warpus used - I was more annoyed that Flying Pig completely missed or ignored that). Shallow people's support will evaporate anyway. It's not worth paying much attention to them. If some people don't care about the issue, why should the protesters bother trying to win their support by taking no risks whatsoever?

I'm also irritated by the whole attitude that says, "You can't blame people for being apathetic. Why are those people so angry, anyway?" It's much easier to be calm and polite when you're not being persecuted. Calm and polite is usually the social elites' way, because they can afford to be and they have the tools and socio-political capital at their disposal. It also depends on the context. It's easier for the SPCA to be loveable because they operate under much more forgiving conditions - in contrast to ELF, which I believe is fighting for a cause far away from wealthy publics' eyes, where corporate thuggery reigns supreme. Like how you wouldn't expect a soldier in the jungles of Borneo in the 1960s to lay down his arms and beseech his opponents to leave in peace.

It can be patronising to tell people how they should voice out. That might be power and privilege talking.
 
warpus said:
You world has no idea the sorts of things I would do if I had billions of dollars..

For one, I would pay for all those people to get IDs and get them out to vote on a specific election, in key districts. Populist politicians would be elected into office and the political landscape of the country would forever change.

I would probably fail, but.. I guess I'd first email some African Americans who have influence, like maybe Samuel L. Jackson.. see if they want to help me out. I don't see anything wrong with my plan - but first I need to become a billionaire - or none of those emails are going to get a reply and I won't be able to fund anything anyway.

See how cruel the universe is? The people who end up with billions of dollars spend them on yachts, castles, bribes, expensive jewellery, ways to guard their money, and even more ways to try to get more. Not fun stuff, like what I suggest above.
Click to expand...

:lol: Warpus for billionaire!

It'd be funny to run a political campaign based on selling out to donors and using half the money generated to help people that need it.
 
aelf said:
If you don't support a good cause just because you think the people fighting for it are loud and annoying, then you're a shallow person - simple.
Click to expand...

I support their cause, I just think they acted like dicks and need to be called out on it.
 
Flying Pig said:
That's still only counting registered voters, though, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Nope. Apparently black voters were "over represented" compared to their total share of the population, not just registered voters. See:

Using census data and exit polling, the AP found that black voters were 13 percent of the electorate even though they make up only 12 percent of the population. White voters represented 72 percent of the electorate, outperforming their 71.1 percent share of the population, but not to the same degree they have in past elections.
Click to expand...
 
warpus said:
I support their cause, I just think they acted like dicks and need to be called out on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're like that. My point is I have no idea why people think that pleasing such people is at all important.
 
EgonSpengler said:
We sort of have the answer to this already. Black voter turnout for the '08 and '12 presidential elections may have been 65.2% or 76.6%, depending on whose number-crunching is more correct.
Click to expand...

Wow, I had no idea. Those are much higher numbers than I would have expected. :eek:
 
People who protest are fundamentally prone to be stupid?

Evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom