Social Justice and Voting for U.S. Presidential Elections

I see voter turnout as a social justice issue. Voter turnout has consistently stayed between 45 to 85% of the voting age population in the United States. Voter turnout has clearly correlated to social justice issues, including who is allowed vote, who can afford to leave work to vote, and who feels politically empowered enough to vote. We see large dips in voter turnout prior to the great depression, as well as in the early 2000s around the recession and around the recession in the 1980s. Whenever there are poor economic times, we see dips in voter turnout. We also see dips in voter turnout when the population has less confidence in the government– this is especially true for during and post Vietnam war era United States.

Another social justice issue related to voter turnout for presidential elections is the fact that those who are financially disadvantaged tend to not be allowed to leave work to vote within voting hours. This is an issue that has been combatted by other countries including Australia, which enacted mandatory voting legislation in 1918 and has imposed fines on those who do not vote. However, since voting is not mandatory in the United States, not all employers let their employees leave work to vote. Since the United States does not have mandatory voting laws, we can attribute many changes in voter turnout to social justice issues.

 

Link here to data.

Negative Impacts of Gentrification in Brooklyn

The process of gentrification in urban areas can have a disastrous effect its inhabitants. The process refers to a physical, social, economic and cultural phenomenon whereby urban neighborhoods are converted into more affluent communities resulting in heightened property values and the discharge of low-income families. Gentrification happens not only all over the United States, but all over the world.  On my term abroad in Washington, DC this past spring, we witnessed gentrification in its prime—we saw nicer, new buildings being constructed in a poverty-ridden area.

Due to the construction of new buildings, the area becomes more expensive to live; rents rise, and therefore, impoverished people cannot afford to live there any longer.  They are forced to leave.  This process, gentrification, changes areas drastically over the course of several years.

The article I decided to analyze from RacialMath looks into gentrification of Brooklyn, New York.  The article, Who Hurts, by Ben Gibberd published in 2005, looks deeper into the personal problems of individuals being directly influenced by the gentrification in the area. Gibbered explains the new attractiveness of the area, and how it draws wealthy, middle-high income individuals to the area. From there, displacement occurs.

An interesting story from the article is of Ms. Anaya.  She resides in an overcrowded two-family home, living with her parents, brother and twelve other tenants.  The twelve other tenant include multiple children under three years old in just the upper-floor of the apartment alone. She explains the poor condition of the apartment, explaining that ”there’s a big hole in our bathroom, and hardly any heat.” And, her parents pay $1,000 a month in rent.

However, even though Ms. Anaya and her family want to move out—they cannot. Due to gentrification issues, they cannot afford a new place in Brooklyn.  She illuminates these problems by saying, “”Everything’s $725,000,’ and that’s on a bad block.”

The issues raised in this article led me to another article posted on the RacialMath site. This article looks at the changes of rent from 1990 to 2000. I made a graph to show the increase in rent during the ten-year span.  Due to the large increase between these two years, we can only imagine how high the rent is today in Brooklyn, 18 years later.