Ohhhhh. Okay, yeah, so I worked for a data aggregation company for a time and there was absolutely an odd (personally identified) correlation between lead exposure areas of the US and heavily red voting.
I worked for an insurance company in latent bodily injury claims (asbestos, lead paint, etc), and the symptoms of lead paint poisoning include lowered IQ, reduced emotional control, impaired risk assessment, and increased aggression.
There was a black man killed by cops for the crime of impoliteness in response to racial profiling several years ago, who had been one of our claimants. I didn’t find a reference to lead paint on the Wikipedia page, so I don’t think it’s public information and I won’t say who, but it’s unfortunately not a unique story.
Lead paint is nearly exclusively still present in awful apartments rented by slumlords to the poorest people in the US.
There’s also ambient exposure from leaded gasoline, but that’s not really an ongoing problem anymore (for now, I could see this regime fully legalizing leaded gas again). Even though lead hasn’t been legal in house paint since 1978, shitty landlords just painted over it instead of remediating it, so kids get exposed to sweet tasting paint flakes, as well as the dust released when it flakes off ending up in their homes or in the soil surrounding their buildings.
I’d be more likely to blame the lead exposure on the deregulation that red areas tend to favor, but I know the truth is more insidious: both are correlated to poverty.
If there’s carbon monoxide, then someone might fill in a bubble thinking it makes the candidate less likely to win, get the candidates mixed up, forget to fill in the bubble, etc.
It could work if done selectively on key areas that are statistically slanted to one side, but the logistics of pulling that off and keeping it a secret mean it’s just not a logical conspiracy.
Carbon monoxide in a voting place could affect which choices are picked by voters who use the booths.
Ohhhhh. Okay, yeah, so I worked for a data aggregation company for a time and there was absolutely an odd (personally identified) correlation between lead exposure areas of the US and heavily red voting.
I worked for an insurance company in latent bodily injury claims (asbestos, lead paint, etc), and the symptoms of lead paint poisoning include lowered IQ, reduced emotional control, impaired risk assessment, and increased aggression.
There was a black man killed by cops for the crime of impoliteness in response to racial profiling several years ago, who had been one of our claimants. I didn’t find a reference to lead paint on the Wikipedia page, so I don’t think it’s public information and I won’t say who, but it’s unfortunately not a unique story.
Lead paint is nearly exclusively still present in awful apartments rented by slumlords to the poorest people in the US.
There’s also ambient exposure from leaded gasoline, but that’s not really an ongoing problem anymore (for now, I could see this regime fully legalizing leaded gas again). Even though lead hasn’t been legal in house paint since 1978, shitty landlords just painted over it instead of remediating it, so kids get exposed to sweet tasting paint flakes, as well as the dust released when it flakes off ending up in their homes or in the soil surrounding their buildings.
Leaded fuel is still used in small planes so that’s definitely still an issue in some areas
Tell me about it. Every time I get near the planes we use for skydiving, I can smell the damn difference.
Nah, y’all can stop blaming lead.
Lead makes people more aggressive, not transform you into a nazi.
My city still have issues with children getting lead poisoned, but its blue af. People become nazis by choice. You can’t just shift the blame to lead.
Edit: To re-iterate: “My lead poisoning made me do it” is not a valid excuse at the Nurenmberg trial.
I’d be more likely to blame the lead exposure on the deregulation that red areas tend to favor, but I know the truth is more insidious: both are correlated to poverty.
I hope no one is going into the booth without a choice already made.
If there’s carbon monoxide, then someone might fill in a bubble thinking it makes the candidate less likely to win, get the candidates mixed up, forget to fill in the bubble, etc.
Oh, maybe. But then it could go either direction. So that shouldn’t affect results.
It could work if done selectively on key areas that are statistically slanted to one side, but the logistics of pulling that off and keeping it a secret mean it’s just not a logical conspiracy.
I’m no expert, but wouldn’t that require more longterm exposure? As opposed to a few minutes in a voting place that is.