{"id":1362,"date":"2017-03-13T09:58:52","date_gmt":"2017-03-13T14:58:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/trot\/?p=1362"},"modified":"2017-03-13T09:58:52","modified_gmt":"2017-03-13T14:58:52","slug":"how-voter-suppression-shapes-election-outcomes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/trot\/2017\/03\/13\/how-voter-suppression-shapes-election-outcomes\/","title":{"rendered":"How Voter Suppression Shapes Election Outcomes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Photo by Democracy Chronicles, Flickr CC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

President Trump and his administration have <\/span>insisted<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, although evidence has not supported this allegation. Instead, the evidence points \u00a0to significant issues surrounding\u00a0voter\u00a0suppression\u00a0<\/em>in the United States<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n

One contributing factor is felon disenfranchisement — when people with a felony conviction permanently lose the right to vote. Since the late 1860\u2019s, U.S. states with the largest non-white prison populations have been more likely to implement voting restrictions for felons. Today, formerly incarcerated persons constitute the largest portion of the disenfranchised population, which also includes people with disabilities and those without valid forms of identification. Importantly, restrictive voting laws have actually altered political outcomes. For example, it is estimated that Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election if formerly incarcerated persons in Florida had been allowed to vote. <\/span><\/h5>\n