Tag: elections

Categories
ballot access partisanship

Sore Losers Lumped

Stacey Abrams, voter fraud, elections, democracy, power

“[R]ight now,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger expressed to Margaret Brennan, host of CBS’s Face the Nation, last Sunday, “we need to restore trust wherever we can.”

Having “stood up to” pressure from President Trump after the 2020 election, and now persona-non-grata in his own party, Raffensperger has become a popular guest on progressives’ legacy media . . . though, not always providing the soundbites they crave.  

“In Georgia, we’ve been fighting this — this theme of, you know, stolen election claims — from Stacey Abrams about voter suppression [in 2018], and then 2020 it was about voter fraud,” explained the secretary. 

“Both of them undermine voter trust.”

“They may both undermine voter trust,” Brennan quickly countered, “but I’m sure you draw a distinction between someone who doesn’t hold any kind of office and the president of the United States actively putting pressure on you to find and manufacture votes. They’re not equivalent,” she added.

Raffensperger acknowledged that the president’s “positional power is just much higher than a candidate running for governor. But be that as it may,” he continued, “when people lose races, I think the proper thing to do is admit that you lose. And if you want to run again, by all means do so.”

Partisans will debate whether Abrams’ claims of voter suppression are more right or wrong, defensible or incredible, honest or dishonest than Trump’s charges of vote fraud. But both have been blindly accepted not only by their own political side, but by the rah-rah crowd in the respective partisan corners — er, halves — of the media as well.

Leaving other elected officials to grab their midnight trains to somewhere else, the lonely Georgia Secretary of State stands his ground, making a non-partisan, principled point.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Reforms from Ground Zero

Margaret Brennan, Face the Nation, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, voting, elections, democracy, citizenship

“Georgia has become ground zero in the fight over election integrity,” Margaret Brennan, host of Face the Nation on CBS, alerted her audience on Sunday, introducing the state’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who, she reminded, “became known nationally in the wake of that election because [he] refused to succumb to pressure from President Trump.”

Given the walk that Mr. Raffensperger has walked, his talk should carry some street cred with media outlets that are truly non-partisan and interested in election reform. 

Raffensperger proposed three reforms to secure elections: (1) No ballot harvesting, wherein a person gathers up or “harvests” many mail-ballots not his or her own; (2) “a constitutional amendment . . . that only American citizens vote in our elections,” and (3) “photo I.D. for all forms of voting.”

“Only U.S. citizens do currently vote in elections,” Brennan critically interjected (incorrectly), “but go on.”

Raffensperger did, explaining that “cities are trying to push noncitizen voting.” A few years ago, the council in Clarkston, Ga., voted to study allowing non-citizens to vote. Just last month, the New York City Council gave the right to vote in city elections to 800,000 non-citizens (including 110,000 Chinese nationals); last year, the Vermont Legislature approved non-citizen voting in two cities; and non-citizens (documented and undocumented) have been voting in San Francisco; and in 11 more cities across the country.

The Secretary of State noted that citizen-only voting, “just like photo I.D.,” is “supported by all demographic groups and a majority of both political parties.”

Citizen-only voting belongs in our state constitutions so that any future decisions on providing the vote to non-citizens requires a vote of the people, and therefore, cannot be made by politicians alone.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: Illustrating the usual split between politicians and voters, the New York City Council enacted a law for non-citizen voting while a poll of New Yorkers showed more than 60 percent opposed the measure.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access Voting

Our Elections — How Broken?

ballot fraud, democracy, cheating, elections, finger, ink

Election fraud didn’t suddenly disappear during the 2020 presidential election.

Or so observes John Fund, co-author of Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote, in a wide-ranging interview with Jan Jekielek, Wall Street Journal reporter and elections expert.

The list of problems is long. One example is what happened in New York City during the last days of the Bloomberg administration.

Testing the election system, the Department of Investigations sent 63 inspectors to try their hand at fraudulent voting. The inspectors used names of dead people, jailed people, people who had moved out of state. All they had to do to immediately get a ballot was supply a name and address. There was no double-checking.

In almost every case, the inspectors had no problem putting over the fraud. (Fake fraud; they didn’t follow through.)

In one case, an inspector was merely sent from one precinct to another precinct, only a temporary delay.

In another case, an inspector was rebuffed only because he had used the name and address of an imprisoned person who happened to be the son of the poll worker the inspector was trying to con.

In response to an exhaustive and damning report, furious Board of Elections officials demanded that the inspectors be criminally prosecuted for impersonating people. The officials testing the system were so widely savaged for this temerity that they backed off.

We must not back off, though. Ballot fraud is an insidious enemy of democracy. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Big Bucks Buy Votes

elections, money

Want to know how Washington works? 

Or doesn’t work? 

Drafting legislation to provide COVID (and COVID lockdown) relief, President Joe Biden and Congress contemplate just how big to make the next round of government checks sent to “the inhabitants of America.”

And which folks to send the freshly printed moolah.

“Something very weird is happening,” explains Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman. “On one side you have Republicans and conservative Democrats saying people at higher incomes don’t deserve this government help. On the other side you have liberals advocating that higher-income people should share in this largesse.” 

Including socialists Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“So if I were Biden,” Waldman advises, “this is the argument I’d make to [conservative Democratic Senator] Manchin:

1. People like it when you give them money. A lot.

2. The more people we give money to, the more people will be pleased with us.

3. That will improve our chances of keeping control of Congress in 2022 and the presidency in 2024.

4. If we keep control we’ll be able to do more of the things you want to do. If we lose control, we won’t be able to do anything. . . .”

Translation? Stay in power by buying votes. 

Seems the advice you’d get from a sleazy political consultant, not a newspaper columnist.  

Biden and senior Democrats have also unveiled a plan to pay parents up to a certain income over $50,000 per child from birth to 17 years of age.* One obvious benefit? “Its execution could also prove crucial to deciding Democrats’ ability to maintain control of Congress,” informs The Post, “given its likely direct impact on the lives of tens of millions of voters.”

This is our direct-deposit Republic.

But not Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The Democrats’ plan came just “days after Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) surprised policymakers with a proposal to send even more in direct cash per child to American families.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption Voting

Democrats’ Shadow Play

shadows, Democrats, Democrat Party

There is more than one way to rig an election.

Sometimes all you need is a monkey wrench. A little chaos might help you get your way.

Last February 3, Democrats voted in the Iowa caucuses, placing Bernie Sanders in the lead. But a major “foul-up” occurred. “The state party was unable to report a winner on caucus night,” explains Tyler Pager at Politico, “the mobile app to report results failed to work for many precinct chairs, the back-up telephone systems were jammed and some precincts had initial reporting errors.”

The chaos certainly did not help winner Bernie Sanders, disabled from making publicity hay while the sun shined. There was enough darkness for democracy to die in.

The Iowa Democratic Party commissioned an audit to throw some belated light on the brouhaha, and the results are in: the Democratic National Committee is mostly to blame. 

“According to the report, the DNC demanded the technology company, Shadow, build a conversion tool just weeks before the caucuses to allow the DNC to have real-time access to the raw numbers because the national party feared the app would miscalculate results.” But the DNC and Shadow used incompatible database formats, spawning chaos. 

In a generous mood? Call it sheer incompetence. 

But the mess sure . . . smells . . . suspicious.

“The caucuses are a cherished tradition for Iowans,” reports Reid J. Epstein at The New York Times, “but an increasing number of national Democrats say they are outdated and undemocratic.”

Well, they are when you make them so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Seeing What’s There

“One can squint and see ballot measures as a kind of super-survey of the electorate, with much larger samples and actual stakes,” wrote Sasha Issenberg over the weekend in The Washington Post. “The results then can be interpreted as a pure representation of voter preferences on discrete issues, without the vexing overlay of partisan polarization, incumbency, candidate personalities, scandal or gaffes.”*

Which “can be seductive,” he warns in an essay entitled, “Ballot measures don’t tell us anything about what voters really want.”

Nothing? 

Mr. Issenberg is willing to toss out these results because “ballot measure contests operate within a framework so different from elections for public office — with few financial limits”** and “lopsided spending.”

He cites Florida’s Amendment 2, pushing the state’s minimum-wage up to $15, where the yes-side spent nearly 10 times as much as the no-side. And California’s victorious Proposition 22, which he argues “declined to protect gig workers” even though that is exactly what it does, and where supporters also outspent opponents roughly ten to one. 

Issenberg also points to marijuana-related issues passing while widely outspending opponents. “In New Jersey, where more than two-thirds of voters said yes to legalization,” he explains, “supporters spent 65 times more than the leading opposition committee . . .” 

But that only amounts to proponents spending half-a-million, which doesn’t go very far in Jersey. 

While Issenberg, the author, journalist, and UCLA political science teacher, acknowledges that “a higher minimum wage and marijuana legalization are broadly popular” and don’t require greater spending, he argues that lopsided “multiples” of spending, like in New Jersey, “are unimaginable in the world of people running for office.” 

Really?

Just try. Numerous candidates for office run without any opposition at all or completely token competition. Take Illinois’s 4th congressional district, where incumbent Democrat Jesús Garcia outspent his Republican challenger by a margin of 704 to one — $593,219 to $843.

Look at the ballot measures decided weeks ago. Don’t squint; put your glasses on, if you need them. And unlike Issenberg, believe your eyes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Initiatives can suffer from the “personalities, scandal or gaffes” of their proponents. Still, there is clearly far less partisanship and no incumbent, per se.

** Actually, ballot measures have no limits at all. The federal courts have ruled that campaign contributions can corrupt candidates receiving them, but since ballot initiatives are written down in black-and-white and cannot be changed after the election, financial contributions cannot corrupt a ballot measure. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access U.S. Constitution

Pandemic Petitioning?

closed, electronic signature, voting, elections, petitions, citizen,

“Our political system, our way of life, our Constitution cannot be let go,” the Libertarian Party’s Nicholas Sarwark argued on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, “just because there is a terrible illness spreading through the country.”

His concern? Libertarians — and Greens and other parties or independent candidates — must still gather hundreds of thousands of voter signatures to put their candidates on state ballots this November. 

And so, too, must citizen-initiated ballot measures.

But who wants to petition into a deadly pandemic? Supposing you carefully made a grocery run, would you stop to chat with petitioners and grab their pen to sign? 

“That would be a public health nightmare,” explained Sarwark, “to force petitioners to go out with clipboards and gather signatures.” 

Libertarians are asking governors “to suspend these requirements that would endanger the public.” 

Cogent points, but I’m not so sure governors have lawful power to order candidates or initiatives onto the ballot. 

Much less the inclination.

Legislatures could act . . . but why help competing candidates gain access to the ballot? 

And as for green-lighting issues that haven’t gone through their sausage-maker? 

Puh-leeze.

Back in 2010, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that electronic signatures were legally valid. Rather than facilitate that process, the state legislature quickly banned it. 

But it is the obvious solution: allow voters to sign petitions online for candidates or ballot initiatives.* 

“The law has long recognized electronic signatures as legally effective where hand-signed signatures are required,” contends Barry Statford in a law review article. “As early as 1869, the New Hampshire Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of a contract accepted by telegraph.”

The courts should mandate state acceptance of electronic signatures. 

Let’s sue.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Voters in Boulder, Colorado, passed an initiative allowing electronic signatures in 2018.  

PDF for printing

closed, electronic signature, voting, elections, petitions, citizen,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
political challengers

Running Interference

foreign interference, Canada, Bernie Sanders, elections,

When rumor of “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential election hit the news, my first thought was: electronic/computerized voting machines — they are known to be insecure, easy to rig.

But when it turned out that folks at CNN and MSNBC were hyperventilating about a very clumsy ad campaign on social media, designed to seed discord more than secure an election for any particular candidate, I rolled my eyes.

I also remembered that the Steele Dossier underpinning the whole bizarre “Russia hacked our elections!” investigation was itself an example of foreign state and private actors seeking to “hack our elections.”

Long story short: when we talk about “hacking elections,” we should worry about compromised vote-counting systems, not Facebook ads.

Maybe that’s why when I read “These Canadians can’t vote in U.S. elections, but they’re campaigning for Bernie Sanders” I didn’t panic, I chuckled.

And maybe raised an eyebrow.

My generally ho-hum reaction is the result of my trust in the American people. The voters are in charge, in the end. Sure, young Canadian communists and communitarians and the like cannot vote here, but they sure wish to influence the election.

Interference?

No. Even if they are unwise, and not citizens, let them express their values.

Hey: maybe one reason I am “soft” on “foreign interference in our elections” is that “interfering” in elections is just a nasty way of describing what I do when I petition in Oklahoma or Colorado to help enable citizens to decide an issue, or join a march against totalitarianism in Hong Kong.

The struggle for freedom is worldwide.

Dare to interfere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

foreign interference, Canada, Bernie Sanders, elections,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

In, Over and About

Putin, election, interference,

Sometimes losing track of a story pays off.

Last week, Facebook and Twitter and that minor player, the “major” news media, erupted with Democrats glorying in and gloating over and harrumphing about a story from Reliable Liar & Leaker Adam Schiff — I think that may be his semi-official position in the House of Representatives. 

Schiff’s office confirmed that the House Intelligence Committee — which, in fact, Schiff chairs — had been briefed on February 13th to the effect that Russia favors the Trump Administration and will again, this year, ‘interfere’ in U.S. presidential elections. 

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running for the presidency as a Democrat but who calls himself a ‘democratic socialist’ (but of whom Nobel Laureate in Amnesia Paul Krugman dubs a mere ‘social democrat’) . . . well, he got in the news with the story that he had been briefed with “intelligence” that Russia was trying to throw the race towards him. Sanders sputtered his protests.

In 2016, it has been determined, Russian operatives had placed lame social media ‘memes’ into the political mill, impressing no one at the time, but scandalizing Democrats after the ‘inexplicable’ loss of their much-hated candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps they are priming their Excuse Reservoir for another ignominious defeat?

Anyway, last week I was so distracted that I did not comment on the whole story. Which, conveniently, has now received enough “pushback,” denials and contradictions to close the chapter on it.

In record time, it was over.

That’s about it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Putin, election, interference,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
term limits

Term Limits Apply to Socialists,Too

Bolivia, term limits, democracy, elections,

We don’t see a lot of pro-term-limits writing in our major, “corporate” media outlets — but a New York magazine account of the ouster of Bolivian President Evo Morales is a welcome exception.

“The disgraceful and chaotic manner in which the once-beloved Morales is leaving office is an object lesson in why presidential term limits are important,” writes Jonah Schepp. “Running a country for more than a decade has a tendency to make people more susceptible to authoritarian impulses, whether or not they started their careers as dictators.”

The Atlantic also acknowledges term limits’ vital role. “Evo Morales Finally Went Too Far for Bolivia,” the “too far” being the “authoritarian powers” claimed “in the name of the popular will.” Yascha Mounk explains how Morales’ once-touted support for presidential term limits evaporated in 2016, when he placed before voters a binding referendum to allow him to stay in office indefinitely. Bolivians voted No, only to witness their supreme court set aside term limits using the bizarre rationale “that limits on the length of his tenure in office would violate Morales’s human rights.”

After irregularities in the October 20 presidential vote, Bolivians took to the streets. Morales resigned on Sunday. 

“For a socialist president who was until recently hailed as the great success story of the Latin American left,” New York’s Schepp explains, “this unseemly end serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when world leaders remain in office for too long.”

On a 2015 trip, President Obama remonstrated African leaders for their attempts to overturn popular term limits. “I’ll be honest with you,” he said before the African Union, “I’m looking forward to life after being president.”

Mr. Morales, Bolivia’s now-former president, is not so fortunate. Yesterday, he fled the country. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Bolivia, term limits, democracy, elections,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts