| | | "Bought" doesn't imply I had you cash in exchange for your personal vote.
That's not how I intended it. I thought perhaps that by providing a nice voting experience the voter might be grateful and want to thank the provider, who was showing them respect and attention unlike their state budgeteers.
Bernie Sanders has bought votes -- very successfully - with free stuff like promises of higher minimum wages and numerous other "freebies".
Well, that's out of context here. Bernie was not at the polls. You're getting your issues mixed up.
Surely the election officials manning the nice Z facilities were not in a position to promise the voters anything other than maybe a nice facility again next time. In your other context, if Bernie is "buying" votes, then the R's are also "buying" votes when they promise tax cuts. Or any politician who brings home a library or airport. Besides, volunteers at the polls in heavily Democratic neighborhoods are likely to be Democrats, who, if they were to stray from their duties and try to influence voters, would influence them towards the Democrats with our without Z's money. Your complaint makes no sense.
But it is NOT okay for private contributors to fund voting operations at those sites.
We've been over that before. They were funding locations that had been shortchanged by their states in terms of facilities and operations, locations that in most states run by Republicans, were poor and black. That poor and black people tend to vote Democratic was coincidental. The most you could support in claims that the D's found it fortuitous, thus didn't stand in the way. Had Z funded D communities that weren't disadvantaged, then you'd have an argument that it was partisan. But there's no indication that happened.
If you want to obviate the problem, get your team to play fair with their budgets and facilities. Then no angel would feel a need to step in. |
|
