>>16472253>The bigger difference is that it was easier for people to eventually accept because they weren't really directly impacted by homos, as far as they knew. This on the other hand, would be a change that impacts a lot of people directly in something they like doing, which is exercising the right to vote.actually that makes me wonder how the homo thing happened because i'm pretty sure people made tangible arguments against it because they did feel like it was directly affecting them, like gays being a bad influence corrupting kids, associated with things like aids, maybe drug use, general immorality, oh and emasculation, parents wanted their boys to grow up to be strong men, etc. so i don't know exactly the story of how consensus shifted on all that, the obvious answer is it has a lot to do with media warming people's opinions somehow, idk exactly how though, but anyway i think that's actually more visceral than voting, i just looked up the stats and in the united states, for the last 6 presidential elections voter turnout hovered around 59% (as a percentage of the voting-eligible population (vep), meaning people who are old enough to vote minus those who are old enough but disallowed from voting due to things like felonies or mental incapacitation), so that's the amount of people who bothered to vote in the biggest elections, i know that doesn't mean the 40% don't care, like if you asked the 40% that don't vote if they cared about the right to vote probably a majority of them would say they do, but i think that lack of participation speaks to their sentiments toward the system, i think a lot of people, even the ones who vote, would easily say their vote doesn't really matter, and that makes it easier to get to restricting voting privileges, at least it's a little step toward that direction, but yeah if voting gets restricted i imagine it'd probably be a glacial process
char lim
