SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
THE PETTICOAT REBELLION OF 1916
WOMEN GAIN RIGHT TO VOTE, SUCCEED IN OVERTHROWING GOVERNMENT
Or something like that, might have been Newspaper Headlines of the day.
The real story is that on December 5th, 1916, the polls opened at 8:00am in the small town of Umatilla, Oregon, for a municipal election. And there was not a woman in sight.
Until.
At 2pm, the women showed up in droves and with write-in ballots, they proceeded to elect an all-woman council: a coup d'etat, of sorts.
The story is at:
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-petticoat-rebellion-of-1916/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/63262/laura-starcher-and-petticoat-revolution-1916
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Petticoat Rebellion: Women 'Hack' an Election
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 53 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's not reality that's important, but how you perceive things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:29PM
When the rich overwhelm the elections, it's a travesty of democracy. When women do it, it's a testament to their "can do" attitude, only to be voted out by the next election.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:38PM
You're not a scholar of history, are you?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @10:22PM
When the rich overwhelm the elections, it's a travesty of democracy.
Yeah, because the rich don't overwhelm elections by actually voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:25PM
Weren't you whining previously about most candidates being rich white males?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @10:31PM
No, I wasn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:57PM
You are equating money in politics with actual voters. I guess that just fits your butthurt narrative of "feminism is unfair woe is me the white male". People voting == democracy in action. Money buying political favors and manipulating election == corruption.
It just fits so well with the modern "conservative" viewpoint. Money is God to you isn't it? It's ok, Jesus isn't listening, you can tell me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @11:06PM
The major flaw in your analysis (of many I can tell you!) is assuming when people vote a millionaire into office, they must be simpletons, unable to rightly ascertain your (more) correct point of view, but somehow when women are voted into office, it shows the sage nature of the common (wo)man.
Sorry. Can't have it both ways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:08AM
Let's get a neurologist in here! Your brain is mapping your opinions and delusions top of reality.
You're comparing apples and oranges, all I did was point that out. I never commented on the value of the women winning. There were no two ways, there is money influencing politics, and then there is actual democratic voting. One allows the will of a single person to all but directly control an election, the other is the actual process of voting... How do you not understand that these are different things? You're too caught up in your weird narrative, and its projecting outward on to reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:17AM
Can't have it both ways.
Why not? Darn Millionaire-voting simpletons that cannot do a decent false dilemma!!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:10AM
Another election in 1916 Oregon was pay-per-vote:
Portland Rose Festival officials instituted an official vote-buying system -- one cent for 10 votes. They also sought to drive up the value of each vote as the competition heated up. Special offers doled out "extra" votes for bulk purchases of $50, $200 and more.
-- http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/index.ssf/2016/06/how_massive_vote_buying_made_a.html [oregonlive.com]