59 Comments
Yvette Gagum
1/24/2016 08:20:43 pm
While the article had many key points about Voting and Voting Rights Acts that allowed much more of the population to vote, I feel like it focused too much on Civil Rights and the steps made to ensure the Black Vote. While I realize this is a key part in our country's voting history and that the anniversary had approached, I feel like the article should've mentioned, or even touched briefly on other voting rights and acts that guaranteed easier voting and voting to women. Plus it was probably twice the length as the last article we had to read, and while this article seemed to be the more unbiased of the two, reading line after line of civil rights acts tends to get boring (and leads the reader to run out of ways to make this sound profound and AP worthy without making things up).
Reply
Yvette Gagum
1/26/2016 05:50:07 pm
Well I guess I do have to remember that back then Black suffrage was a big step to universal suffrage in the US...then women suffrage was shortly after and then 18 year old, but I still feel like it focused heavily on the subject of Black suffrage.
Reply
Imelda
1/26/2016 07:48:34 pm
I think the title hints toward the idea that the article supposed to focus on race and not gender because A Dream Undone refers to MLK's I have a Dream speech.
Reply
Jacob
1/26/2016 08:23:55 pm
I concur with you Imelda. The fight for voting rights has been a long fought battle by and for African Americans since the conception of our government, It is unfortunate that many of these ground-breaking legislations are being repealed by Republican legislators as many are still unable to make to the ballot themselves.
Jacqueline Fonseca
1/27/2016 06:31:53 am
I agree with Imelda. Due to the article focusing on only black suffrage with that connecting to the article title. I didn't really notice that before, but sense you pointed it out it makes everything more clear.
Nina Almase
1/28/2016 10:28:40 am
I agree Imelda. The article was bland and didn't take a stance, felt like I was reading a textbook. 1/28/2016 12:43:00 pm
After the 19th amendment women were not institutionally discriminated against in a way the kept them from voting.
Jacob
1/26/2016 08:27:49 pm
Yvette, I like how you pointed out how this unnecessarily long article only focused on the suffrage of African Americans and didn't take the time to explore other groups who faced hardships in ensuring that their voice was heard. Women's rights is another paradigm of how one group of people should fight for their rights.
Reply
Barter
1/27/2016 09:08:33 am
You guys skim everything so stop you whining.
Kynzie Watahomigie
1/26/2016 08:39:19 pm
Yvette had a good point on the length of the article and the untouched part of our nations history that revolved around voting. I believe this article wanted to stress on race rather than any other factor.
Reply
1/26/2016 10:10:52 pm
I mainly focused on the aggressive acts against the Voting Rights Act, as everything else was so small in comparison. The touched on history but the majority of the article (that I apparently focused on) was all of the attacks, and the attacks funny failures. Well, I see what your getting at, now that I think about it, as they did mainly focus on Blacks and Hispanics (kind of). It prioritized the idea of voting, yet it showed more injustices, and most of them through civil rights, then it probably should have.
Reply
Andie Stockell
1/26/2016 10:16:35 pm
I agree that the article was completely focused on the impact of the Voting Rights act made to African Americans, and though it might be significant to mention the other groups who were effected, the choice was well made. The issues and impacts of the systme have been most clearly seen through their lives
Reply
1/28/2016 12:46:29 pm
The purpose of the voting rights act(s)was to re-enfranchise black voters. Imelda this article was supposed to be mostly about black people voting rights and suppression, the fact is that women vote in higher numbers than males currently and there hasn't really been any effort to curb specifically women voting since they did receive the right to vote
Reply
Barter
1/28/2016 12:47:21 pm
What he said
Barter
1/28/2016 12:39:29 pm
The recent stuff was the most relevant to read.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
1/25/2016 10:27:11 am
This post focused a lot on how African Americans were restricted from voting and what the United States government did in order to change it and fix the problem. However in the article it says the government in the way throughout the years still restricted people from voting. While trying to fix the problem they still had tweaks to fix in order to create the best voting rights act law. The article seemed like it did not have much of an opinion, it just was like a text book listing the different choices that the government made in order to be where it is now. In the case of the voting rights act and who is able to vote has changed a lot and therefore has allowed the United States to become more democratic.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
1/26/2016 05:44:26 pm
I'm glad you pointed out that the article was unbiased because that's something I didn't notice at first, and because of that it takes a good look at both sides, something you also mentioned. So um good job of summarizing everything! (^・ω・^ )
Reply
1/26/2016 10:16:34 pm
The article was unbiased!? Naw, I am just messing around. Honestly, I did appreciate the rundown through history at its major points, with the biggest help being the "party switch." Never understood how or why Republicans went from "equal rights" to the Democrats "white majority" mindset and vice versa. It was nice though how it really put in perspective the changes coming from the political parties and their actions in an unbiased view.
Robert M
1/27/2016 05:36:17 am
I also like the fact that you touched on the unbiased was of the article. It at first focused on the inherent flaws of the Democratic Party as progressives and then went on to address the republicans and why they could not attain a black vote. I also like your statement on government tweaks. As with all things, simple mistakes can get corrected with a little time and patience, but in a case where voting should seem like a blind fundamental right, is waiting so long as a few years and with a long and tireless history is patience still there?
Reply
Ryan
1/27/2016 09:21:21 am
I would disagree that the voting rights act I'd no longer important because it can still be sighted for many groups today
Reply
Barter
1/28/2016 01:31:21 pm
What does that mean? Be clear as to what the removal of Section 5 by the court actually did.
Imelda
1/26/2016 07:40:15 pm
The article began with the story of a man who wanted to vote, but dropped that story and did not really focus on the lives of those who were not allowed to vote even though they were affected most by the decisions discussed. Instead it focused on those who opposed steps toward voting equality and when it discussed their motives it seemed to justify them despite most of them being selfish. Also there were lots of examples of voter fraud, especially in the 90's so it seems like the efforts made to correct this have been very successful since voter fraud is not a huge problem today.
Reply
Imelda
1/26/2016 07:44:07 pm
I agree that the article seemed objective and maybe lacked a stance, but that was kind of interesting because it discussed both the opinions of those who opposed the voting rights act and those who were for it.
Reply
Laura Jackson
1/26/2016 09:55:19 pm
I absolutely agree -- some parts of the article appeared biased, but then the author included multiple perspectives and it became balanced. I think the goal was primarily to inform and spread awareness about the history and formation of the Voting Rights act (which could, arguably, be a stance, but that isn't the vibe I took from it).
Reply
Andie Stockwell
1/26/2016 10:19:06 pm
It did irk me that the article lacked a stance. I wanted it to prove something to me instead of enforcing my original opinions in some ways and not in others. It made the article less engaging.
Reply
Jacob
1/26/2016 08:32:59 pm
I like how this article provided an objective take on the history of the Voting Rights Act. It is very unfortunate to hear, however, how many of these laws that have helped to safeguard many from disadvantageous conditions are being repealed in favor of alleged "voter fraud" and for the sake of modernity. I believe that, for example, early voting ballots be allowed a spot in America's voting procedures and allow for citizens to vote in the comfort of their homes and when they choose.
Reply
Kynzie
1/26/2016 08:43:03 pm
I agree that the reason voting is being "restricted" is because of voter fraud. I think this is used as a scare factor rather than actual possibility. I believe this is used because the Republican Party believes that if less people vote it will support them. I think that people should be able to choose from their house or at a polling place and the government should not be able to place restrictions on that.
Reply
Payson
1/26/2016 10:19:50 pm
I agree that it was good that the author was objective because partisan writings rarely actually yeah anything; rather, they simply enhance the views you already have. An impartial view helps us to see both arguments about the Voting Rights Act, and various other voting related acts, in a clear and truthful way.
Reply
Kynzie Watahomigie
1/26/2016 08:36:40 pm
I am on mobile help me. Okay I feel like this article was heavily focused on race and I felt like that was important to the main point the author wanted to get across. This article starts at the major injustices seen before African Americans were given the right to vote and it shows how the ability of people to vote has transformed. This is good because all US eligible citizens should have the right to vote rather than be limited do to race, gender, religion, or other. This article had a point of explaining how voting rights can be strengthen or limited by the government.
Reply
Laura Jackson
1/26/2016 09:44:22 pm
I agree! I think the author chose to focus on race because they realized it played a very important role in America's voting history. The focus on government also created a well rounded report and showed the ways we can either expand or constrict voting in modern times.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
1/27/2016 06:35:09 am
I agree that the author focused on race only. But I wish he would have put in a little of maybe women suffrage just in order to compare the two or even divide up all of the different laws with black suffrage.
Reply
Jerbear
1/27/2016 06:58:43 am
I think that the author focused on race in order to show its importance to the development of the 19th amendment and therefore showing that race is not more important per say, but it was the spark that lit the fire.
Reply
Barter
1/28/2016 01:09:08 pm
I like how all the guys are pointing out the article wasn't supposed to be about gender
Deanna Strayer
1/27/2016 08:08:16 am
I agree with Jackie that I would have liked to see some about women's suffrage, perhaps just because I find the topic interesting, but I can understand why the author chose not to include it in this particular article. It's clearly meant to portray a specific group, if it were inclusive of all changes in voting rights the article would lose focus and be much longer and harder to muddle through.
Reply
Laura Jackson
1/26/2016 09:37:17 pm
I think the article's focus on the history of voting rights provided a good background that detailed the many different perspectives and political mechanisms that have influenced the development of the Voting Rights act. Providing quotes and facts from both sides gave a clear, unbiased picture of what life was like during those times. However, I think the article's overall message is somewhat lost in the extensive history. I would have liked to see a more detailed insight into the act itself and what has or hasn't been changed in recent history. The author's narrative focus' on African Americans is insightful, but doesn't explore the other areas the Voting Rights act has affected. That said, I think it was a wise decision to focus on this particular group because they were the most deeply impacted (and original target of the Voting Rights act) minority at the time. I believe that the Voting Rights act should not be dismissed or changed simply because there doesn't seem to be a "need" for it in modern times; The reason racial discrimination has been significantly lowered is because of the Voting Rights act - removing it takes away the barrier stopping these racially motivated acts. Some may argue that it infringes upon state's rights, but I believe that the rights of an individual overrule partisan scheming.
Reply
Payson
1/26/2016 10:15:04 pm
Yes I agree that the Voting Rights Act shouldn't be dismissed but not because it still plays an important role. It shouldn't be dismissed because that is simply extra work from our government that does no good and we should be focusing on things that are still an issue today.
Reply
Robert M.
1/27/2016 05:39:48 am
I actually did not notice that point until you brought it up, the other minorities that were protected under the act were seldom my mentioned. However I feel as though the purpose is that we usually associate suffrage with African Americans so the intent was more of to raise awareness. And with blacks as the major minority voters, I could see the prevalence of the articl
Reply
Robert M
1/27/2016 05:42:42 am
E. I also saw that you touched upon not removing the act simply because it doesn't really have pertinence to today. I feel the same way, looking back through history we can see certain amendments not having a pertinence in the present of the past however as history progressed it had more of an impact. We had a second reconstruction so what is to say that there won't be a third or fourth where these portions of this act become more prevalent than they are now. Protecting more than it is seemingly protecting now.
Jerbear
1/27/2016 06:56:15 am
I agree i think that the article focuses way to extensively on the history of the Voting Rights acts. But i think that they lack warrant that ties the evidence (History) back to their claim... The main message was lost with this overwhelming evidence, and kind of drown. I have to say that i disagree with your "I think it was a wise decision to focus on this particular group" because in only focusing on African Americans and not other racial groups i.e. Indians and how they got their voting rights, we leave out crucial parts in our history.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
1/27/2016 07:10:29 am
You know, once you look past Jeremy's jokes, he does make a good point. We are continually bombarded with information of the black civil rights movement, and there is generally just less information out there about other suffrage moments. This may be due to the enormity of struggles that African Americans faced, but I do think it is important that all the bases get covered when talking about suffrage. Like I genuinely don't know how the Indians got to vote, and, to be honest, I don't know much about women either.
Deanna Strayer
1/27/2016 08:12:08 am
I understand what you're trying to say about being all inclusive, but this article was written specifically to showcase African Americans, it',s not meant to be a definitive textbook on voting rights. There are other articles out there about women's suffrage if that's the topic you're looking for.
Barter
1/28/2016 01:20:51 pm
JUNE 2, 1924 1/26/2016 10:05:21 pm
So, I read the article and all I can say is that history is really funny isn't it. Summed up, this article is basically about the Voting Rights Act but focuses on the bill's opponents. It honestly is still a blur to me now and I just read it, but what intrigued me most about the article was how almost every act against the bill backfired. The history was nice, but we have heard it all before. "Segregation, abuse, civil rights", that is common history. However, I liked seeing all these aggressions end up damaging the opponent in the end. A candidate hires a group to check if voter fraud gave the election to the opponent, investigation shows that the hired groups results were falsified as some of those asked were lead to saying yes. Hires DBT to scrub the state rolls for ineligible voters to minimize voter fraud, investigations show DBT scrubbed a disproportionate of black voters off the roll, 90 percent of them who voted for Al Gore. My favorite is how the Voting Rights Act was made to give equal voting rights to everyone, so obviously it wasn't made to favor white people, who already had all of the rights. What makes it my favorite is how people who oppose the bill argue that it favors the minority and not every American. In my eyes, that just paints them as people who believe white superiority is the normal. Well, anyhow, it was a nice article and it is a common fact that history has a way of repeating itself. It is just unsettling on how accurate that saying truly is.
Reply
Payson Harris
1/26/2016 10:10:58 pm
I know it may sound crazy, but not all of the anti-voting laws are without reason. While a lot of them were done to discourage blacks and many other to give advantage to the Republican Party, some of them had real reasons to be passed that actually benefited the US. The initial surge of those laws around the progressive era helped to stop voter fraud almost completely because it used to actually be a thing. I would say that reduced voter turnout is better than a turnout that doesn't accurately reflect public opinion. So obviously it would be good for everyone to vote, but that doesn't mean that all vote restricting laws are bad.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
1/27/2016 07:03:10 am
While I agree that voter fraud used to be a significant issue in the past, I think that it's important to recognize it is no longer an issue, so the push for anti-voting laws today are less likely to stop fraudulent votes but to gain an advantage over the minority.
Reply
Barter
1/28/2016 01:12:18 pm
Think you both are right. It seems to me that by now we would have fool proof ways preventing voter fraud that didn't involve a picture printed on piece o' plastic.
Andie Stockwell
1/26/2016 10:11:59 pm
This article focuses on the evolution of voting rights from 1865 to presnt in a rather extensive way, focusing primarily on the effects such efforts or destruction of efforts had to African americans. The exhaustive history provided precise stories from unbiased sources.It is in these stories and examples that the relevance of the Voting Rights act is shown as applicable,even today. It has fought discrimination and protects against the biases of political parties or people in general.
Reply
Payson
1/26/2016 10:22:41 pm
Barter your website sucks. It says I posted my responses like an hour before I actually did.
Reply
Robert M.
1/27/2016 05:17:37 am
I find that the article delves into (very specifically) the nature and history of our voting. Along with the luxuries and the downfalls of what has occurred since the time of Lincoln. I find specifically that the article really focuses on the Voting Rights Act. And, personally I believe that this act was intended to improve the voting nature of suppressed blacks. And, eventually make its way to being able to ensure that the minorities would not be treated unfairly by the tyranny of the majority. And then as time progressed, it would go on to ensure that everyone had equal opportunity to vot
Reply
Robert M.
1/27/2016 05:20:51 am
E. However, many lawmakers saw this as threatening their powers of re-election. And as a result rights were hard to pass as one party was always going to lose votes. And as time progressed some felt that these practices were racially biased and countered the idea of a blind law, however sometimes in order to attain that blind law you must bring everyone to an equal standing and then base your judgement I feel. As a result I feel that this article was well written and chimed in on important concepts following the struggles of voting for African Americans.
Reply
Nina Almase
1/28/2016 10:33:27 am
Word to you Robert. Except, were you really captivated by the writing or were you lying?
Jeremy Bessett
1/27/2016 06:49:38 am
First of all this article was entirely too long. I never thought it possible to talk so much about voting rights acts. Regardless i find it to be interesting how unbiased this article appears to be. But in a sense would it not be more biased by not including other races or woman's rights to vote. If the article were to focus more on all of these groups that have experienced voting exclusion, it probably would be worth the effort it took to read this.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
1/27/2016 06:58:32 am
This article focused primarily on the voting rights act and all of the failed attempts end it. it goes into the Civil Rights movement and the steps made to ensure the Black Vote would be counted. The voting rights act was created in an attempt to create equal voting for all people, but often the argument against was that it would be beneficial to minorities. This is simply not true; its not like it gives blacks two votes for every one white vote. This just goes to show the normalcy of white privilege that has been implanted in so many people's minds that suddenly, just because others get the same benefits, it makes it unfair somehow. The amendments guaranteed the rights to vote, but the voting rights act gave the authority to enforce the law. However, some of the ability of the VRA have been hindered in an attempt to discourage "voter Fraud" the battle against voter fraud nowadays is completely irrelevant. No one today is stealing votes. Its a made up scheme to acquire a more favorable position in political parties.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
1/27/2016 07:24:32 am
This was a very interesting article especially with the personal story from the black Air Force officer. It was a very in depth sequential look at the history of the voting rights act, I do feel as though it was a little biased against republicans at least at the beginning, even though it is like what the heck guys
Reply
Deanna Strayer
1/27/2016 07:53:36 am
This article showed the evolution of voting right for African Americans from the beginning until the current time. The title itself is a reference to MLK and his "I have a dream" speech since the article focused really only on African Americans and their voting rights. While I noticed some bias during the course of the article, it did a good job of presenting the facts. It also shows a sort of bell curve for voting rights where in the beginning rights and voting methods were crappy and restricted, then more citizens gained rights and voting was way easy, then again back to taking away some of the east of voting.
Reply
Nina Almase
1/28/2016 10:32:34 am
The obstacles discussed over Voting Rights were interesting in seeing the timeline of opposition towards African Americans. This made the article logical. I definitely thought this article was too long, and wish there was more of an opinion rather then just facts.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |