4 ms·

This might be better described as the "hard news" version. Guardian's article pulls in a lot of additional context -- about the racial impact assessments in st

This might be better described as the "hard news" version. Guardian's article pulls in a lot of additional context -- about the racial impact assessments in states with a long history of voter disenfranchisement going away, analysis of where these polling places closed (it was in places with large minority populations), etc. None of that really slants the article, but it does involve more analysis.

belorn 7y ago
After having read both, the only thing the ties the two article together is HN and the seemingly word Texas. The two articles describe two completely different problems. The parent article discuss the issue of voting sites being used to target specific voters. Rather then trying to maximum voting participation, the article describe the problem of targeted desirable voting populations at the exclusion of others. By removing temporary polling places and enforcing a rule that all polling places must remain open for all 12 days of early voting, it forces polling stations to focus only in areas with high populations. The submitter article writes how texas is closing down most polling stations, making it more difficult for people to vote and arguably benefiting Republicans. It is saying that more voting locations close to Latinx neighborhoods got closed than in non-Latinx neighborhoods, and that Latinx people had to travel farther to vote than non-Hispanic whites. It also writes that places where black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state’s poll site closures. Two different completely different problems, two completely different articles, discussing the same event. Thanks to HN I at least see a bit more from multiple sides, but it demonstrate quite well the issue with news article like this.

4 ms·

This might be better described as the "hard news" version. Guardian's article pulls in a lot of additional context -- about the racial impact assessments in st

by awinder 7y ago

belorn 7y ago
After having read both, the only thing the ties the two article together is HN and the seemingly word Texas. The two articles describe two completely different problems. The parent article discuss the issue of voting sites being used to target specific voters. Rather then trying to maximum voting participation, the article describe the problem of targeted desirable voting populations at the exclusion of others. By removing temporary polling places and enforcing a rule that all polling places must remain open for all 12 days of early voting, it forces polling stations to focus only in areas with high populations. The submitter article writes how texas is closing down most polling stations, making it more difficult for people to vote and arguably benefiting Republicans. It is saying that more voting locations close to Latinx neighborhoods got closed than in non-Latinx neighborhoods, and that Latinx people had to travel farther to vote than non-Hispanic whites. It also writes that places where black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state’s poll site closures. Two different completely different problems, two completely different articles, discussing the same event. Thanks to HN I at least see a bit more from multiple sides, but it demonstrate quite well the issue with news article like this.