3 ms·
That was part of it. Another part was that some Floridian voters were illegally denied the right to vote because their names happened to be the same or similar
by usefulcat 3y ago
That was part of it. Another part was that some Floridian voters were illegally denied the right to vote because their names happened to be the same or similar to names on a (poorly maintained, IIRC) list of convicted felons. The privately owned company in charge of maintaining said list was aligned with the Republican party, and most of the felons were African American.
Edit: that may sound like a small number of votes, but in such a close election even a small number can make a huge difference.
- bmer 3y agoWhy is a private company in charge of maintaining this list, versus the state police, or a federal agency in charge of census keeping?
- usefulcat 3y agoMost likely it's basically a corporate handout. It can also be a way to invite reciprocity. I don't know if that was part of the original intent here, but given the raft of voter ID laws that the US has seen in recent years (which prevent such an infinitesimal amount of actual voter fraud, yet coincidentally happen to adversely affect voters of one party much more than the other) it doesn't seem at all far fetched. Naturally it's never described that way. It's typically framed as something like 'we should delegate this task to the private sector because they're more efficient'.
- specialist 3y agoYes and: Since corporations are not subject to public records requests, privatization (outsourcing) is a terrific way to transmute even banal administrative functions into black boxes.