These days Voting Rights Bill is a political hot topic and Democrats are pushing to get it passed in the Senate.

It seems most of the Democrats' voters reside in urban areas and are from middle social class with relatively higher education in comparison to Republicans' voters that are mostly from rural remote areas (see for example a discussion from NYT). So, my assumption is that middle class people living in the large metro areas (which seems are overwhelmingly pro-Democrats) don't need the facilitations offered by Voting Rights Bill to be able to vote . I think people living in the rural areas with lower social class are the ones that mostly benefit from this bill.

If the above statement is relatively true, I believe it doesn't make sense for Democrats to push for Voting Rights Bill to make voting more accessible in the remote areas, while it seems they won't vote for Democrats if they will be given a chance to vote. It's naïve to think that Democrats are trying to pass the Voting Rights Bill just for sake of democracy and goodness. So, I'm thinking there must be a political gain behind this huge effort.

One benefit that I can think of is that Democrats wants to just showoff that they are making progress towards liberal ideas of diversity, inclusiveness, etc. and make vote more accessible to everyone. Honestly, this reason doesn't make much sense to me, because it seems this political fight won't add any new voters to their voters pool and I believe there are much easier ways to keep their current voters in-place if this effort is to keep current voters loyal.

So my question is that: if Democrats probably will not get a huge political benefit from the Voting Rights Bill, so why they are pushing for it? They are so eager to get it done that they somehow wants to take the risk of changing filibuster rules, which might have consequences when GOP would brings some of their bills to the Senate's floor (see it here for example)

I hope someone can explain it more or shed light on the point that I'm missing here.

  • This question is ill-posed. You start off saying "it seems [demographics]" when you could easily just put the actual demographics in. Then you say the fact that voters live in cities means they don't need the provisions in the VRA, but I don't see why that's the case. Jan 13 at 21:54
  • 2
    Why would they push to ensure that everyone is able to execute the right to vote? Last I checked it is more important to ensure people are able to vote then what party they are voting for.
    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 22:02
  • 1
    Like I said in my answer, I think this question is based on a false premise from the start. However, it could still be asked without the following type of finger-pointing: Democrats wants to just showoff that they are making progress towards liberal ideas of diversity, inclusiveness, etc. and make vote more accessible to everyone. Jan 13 at 22:17
  • The question seems based on a false premise. Even if 90% of your vote is urban, the additional 10% could still win or lose an election (especially in the US with the electoral college). Some poor rural voters, especially ethnic minorities, do vote Democrat, and if you secure them the vote they might even be grateful and vote for you for that reason.
    – Stuart F
    Jan 14 at 13:00

I don't get this reasoning. In a place like Georgia, which thinks of itself as traditionally Republican, it was a dead heat for the 2020 Potus race,

Biden narrowly won Georgia by a margin of 0.23% and 11,779 votes.

From the point of view of an urban voter in Georgia, every vote counts, even if they believe it is being suppressed in a rural county.

And the flip side, if Republicans believed their votes were being suppressed in urban areas, would also apply.

If your question was somehow limited to local elections, like mayoral elections, then yes, you might have a point.

Last, what makes you think measures like limiting the number of dropbox ballots to one per county does not affect urban voters?

  • I don't mean to nitpick; the point is that no one should believe that others are purposely trying to prevent them from voting (that includes Democrats and Republicans) without proof. I do think you have a point about local vs. national elections, but I just don't agree with the idea that some people are preventing others from voting (even if that belief is being promoted by Republicans), since there's no proof that that is so.
    – user41637
    Jan 13 at 22:01
  • @user27954 But that's besides the point in answering this question. This question wasn't "is there proof of suppression?" It's "why should they care?". Jan 13 at 22:02
  • That's true. I guess I misunderstood. Though I do want to point out that if the Voting Rights Bill would help rural voters in Georgia, then you'd think the Republicans would win, no? I think that was the original question. The fact is that Republicans are firmly against the bill, even though it's supposed to help some of their base vote as well. The question is why. Unless you're saying that Democrats believe they could've won by a wider margin.
    – user41637
    Jan 13 at 22:16
  • I'll explain by mail.
    – Dan
    Jan 14 at 3:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .