Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 531555 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
This does not look good; top vote machine company ditches paperless voting
« Reply #1050 on: July 27, 2019, 12:29:48 AM »
Russia is believed to have probed voting systems in all 50 states in 2016, the Senate intelligence committee said in a heavily redacted 67-page report on their investigation into Russian interference with U.S. elections.
One key detail: "The committee found no evidence of Russian actors attempting to manipulate vote tallies on Election Day, though again the Committee and IC's insight into this is limited," lawmakers wrote in their Thursday report.

Another key detail: A "probe" isn't necessarily an attack, so this doesn't necessarily add to the Department of Homeland Security's 2017 finding that Russian hackers actively sought to penetrate 21 states' election-related systems.

The bigger deal: the Senate committee that has spent the most time looking into foreign interference can't agree on how to stop it. As Joseph Marks writes in the Washington Post: "The long-awaited 67-page report released yesterday contains dozens of recommendations for securing elections. But most artfully sidestep a boiling policy battle between Republicans and Democrats over whether the federal government should ensure they actually happen." The GOP members say it's up to the states; the Democrats say that's a recipe for letting Russia repeat its work from the 2016 U.S. election.

Related: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., blocked two election-security bills on Thursday. The first would have required the use of paper ballots (a common-sense security measure that voting-machine manufacturers actively support) and boosted funding for the Election Assistance Commission, had already been passed by the House. But the Senate majority leader called it "partisan legislation" and blocked it.

The second bill would have required "candidates, campaign officials and their family members to notify the FBI of assistance offers from foreign governments," The Hill reported. McConnell blocked it one day after former special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated that Donald Trump's campaign had failed to notify U.S. law enforcement after Russian agents offered their aid, warned that Russia is currently trying to interfere with upcoming elections, and lamented that American politicians' acceptance of foreign help — previously seen as a terribly un-American thing to do — would become "the new normal."

Irate: Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, an intel committee member, blasted the report in an addendum and tweeted this for good measure: "Russia's biggest ally in its quest to infiltrate America's elections again is Mitch McConnell."

=================================

https://www.wired.com/story/a-top-voting-machine-company-is-finally-ditching-paperless-voting/?fbclid=IwAR2AW-aAKIIhTthL3Me0YVbqxHhmSmr9HQFcUAAUfE_TZarSvZafc1ojuig

============================================



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile
cannot find any truly objective site
« Reply #1052 on: July 27, 2019, 10:18:57 AM »
that explains exactly what the election "security " bill does except to throw more money for "security"

a lot of Leftist trope about McConnell not allowing vote on it of course from NYT and WP claiming his reasoning is to suppress votes etc.

I don't know why no one had any problem with Soros backing at least one of the voting machine companies we talked about few yrs ago.

Rush is correct.  The Left has now and forever opened up " election integrity " that can be used by either side when they lose an election .

Our elections were safer before the electronic voting machines as far as I can tell.

The Lefts answer to keep outside influences from tampering with our elections is always the same as their other fixes - throw more tax payer money at it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1053 on: July 27, 2019, 10:44:17 AM »
This plays badly for us I think.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1054 on: July 27, 2019, 11:19:21 AM »
"This plays badly for us I think"

With the MSM blasting one sided headlines :

"Republicans block voter systems  security" , with no real objectivity - I agree with you - sounds bad on the face of it.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18452
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1056 on: July 29, 2019, 06:23:01 AM »
I don't know the merits and flaws in the current bill but the recent history has been crystal clear.  Republicans have been the party of election integrity and Democrats have been the party of election fraud.  One example, Voter ID.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1059 on: July 31, 2019, 10:09:46 AM »
You mean 9-0, yes?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile
9 to 0 NOT 7 to 0
« Reply #1060 on: July 31, 2019, 02:10:29 PM »
yes

I posted 6:59 ; one minute before I start work.
I was just beginning my energy drink and think that explains the mistake.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile
disaster in waiting
« Reply #1063 on: August 13, 2019, 05:40:20 AM »
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/voting-paperless-study-brennan/2019/08/13/id/928377/

we have had at least 2 election that are paperless in NJ
we sign in on paper then go into curtained machine and press electronic buttons then leave.

no one could guarantee this being fool proof
of cousse paper is not either but this I believe has potential to be worse

only matter of time


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1065 on: September 24, 2019, 04:56:02 PM »
"Hawkins’ arrest comes just months after she was honored May 18 at the Michigan Democratic Party’s Legacy Dinner"

certainly one of her accomplishments to get this honor was voter fraud

just not to get caught.

it seems mostly it is the absentee ballots

no wonder Dems always try to hold off the close elections looking for the "lost ballots".




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18452
    • View Profile
IRS Targeting Scandal
« Reply #1069 on: October 30, 2019, 10:11:00 AM »
Posting this in two threads for easier retrieval before it is forgotten.

God this was hard to find, go to page 188:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT%20-%20IRS%20&%20TIGTA%20Mgmt%20Failures%20Related%20to%20501(c)(4)%20(Sept%205%202014,%209-9-14%20update).pdf

Reminiscing the tactics of Trump's predecessors.  What did Biden know and when did he know it?  Does he even know it now?   Does the MSM? 

IRS Targeting - 700 conservative groups were prevented from raising money and participating (against Obama's reelection and policies) by action / inaction of the federal bureaucracy, while the IRS commissioner was visiting the White House 500 times more often than his predecessor. 
-----
Page 188 of the report claiming, "both liberal and conservatives groups received the same bad treatment and were targeted by the IRS":
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/reports

"104 conservative groups were asked 1552 questions.  7 liberal groups were asked a total of 33 questions.

100% of liberal group applications were approved."

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT%20-%20IRS%20&%20TIGTA%20Mgmt%20Failures%20Related%20to%20501(c)(4)%20(Sept%205%202014,%209-9-14%20update).pdf

100% [all] of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12" were denied tax-exempt status for two years coming into Obama's reelection.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323873904578571363311816922

That's not the same bad treatment for right and left.
-----------------
What is missing from a valid Nazi analogy to the Obama administration is that the government did not then go out and kill them when they submitted opposition group applications.

All of this swept under the rug - even by our side.   (
« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 10:20:42 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Mythology of Voter Suppression
« Reply #1073 on: November 23, 2019, 11:16:32 AM »

TEXT
94
OPINION  REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Mythology of Voter Suppression
Democrats cling to the falsehood despite the election turnout facts.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 22, 2019 7:02 pm ET

Voters form long lines at Ousey United Methodist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, Nov. 6. PHOTO: MIGUEL JUAREZ LUGO/ZUMA PRESS
Democrats picked up 40 House seats and nine governorships last year. We’d call that a good year. Yet during the debate Wednesday night the presidential candidates continue to flog the falsehood that Republicans stole the 2018 Georgia Governor’s race and are generally stifling voter turnout.

“Right here in this great state of Georgia, it was the voter suppression, particularly of African-American communities, that prevented us from having a Governor Stacey Abrams right now,” Cory Booker declared. Bernie Sanders claimed that voter suppression “cost the Democratic Party a governorship here in this state” by “denying black people and people of color the right to vote.” Pete Buttigieg opined that “partisan voter suppression . . . dictates the outcome of elections before the voting even begins.”

Impeachment Polls Turn Down, and Moderate Democrats Go Up


SUBSCRIBE
The facts are that Black and Latino turnout nationwide last year hit a record high for a midterm election despite voter ID requirements, registration checks, and limits on early voting in some states. Turnout increased 13.4 percentage points for Hispanics (40.4%), 11.4 percentage points for blacks (51.1%), and 11.7 percentage points for whites (57.5%) from 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Democrats say Ms. Abrams, last year’s Democratic nominee for Governor in Georgia, lost because Republicans cancelled 1.4 million voter registrations. But federal law requires states to periodically remove names of registered voters who haven’t cast ballots in awhile to ensure the integrity of the vote. Only Georgians who hadn’t cast ballots in more than seven years and didn’t respond to notices to confirm their residency were removed.

This alleged voter “purge” had scant impact on minority turnout: A larger share of blacks (59.6%) voted than whites (56.1%) last year. Black turnout in Georgia increased 16.6 percentage points from 2014 versus 11.3 percentage points for whites, and Ms. Abrams received 90% more votes in Atlanta’s Fulton County than the Democrat did four years earlier.

Democrats also say Republicans in Georgia and some other states have limited early voting to make it harder for blacks to cast ballots. In 2011 Georgia cut early voting to 21 days from 45. Three weeks is ample time for anyone to cast a ballot, and a longer early-voting period means voters might miss information about candidates that emerges late in the campaign.

The people most likely to vote early tend to be more educated and have higher incomes, perhaps because they are more politically engaged. And folks in the South are 10 times more likely to vote early than those in Northeastern states. If Republicans conspired to suppress minority turnout, they failed.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
Citizens United was correctly decided
« Reply #1076 on: January 21, 2020, 10:47:21 AM »
Celebrate the Citizens United Decade
The ruling has empowered small-dollar donors and political outsiders, not corporations.
By Bradley A. Smith
Jan. 20, 2020 3:59 pm ET


‘Last week,” President Obama declared a decade ago, “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.”

Mr. Obama was wrong in almost every respect about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which the court decided on Jan. 21, 2010. Hysterical predictions about Citizens United—then-Rep. Ed Markey, among others, compared it to Dred Scott—haven’t held up.

Contrary to Mr. Obama’s assertion about a century of law, Citizens United overturned portions of McCain-Feingold, a campaign-finance law that wasn’t even 10 years old, and another law from 1947. Those laws prohibited unions and corporations, including nonprofits, from voicing support for or opposition to candidates for federal office.

Citizens United didn’t affect the longstanding ban on corporate contributions to candidates, and it didn’t legalize foreign political spending in the U.S. Most Russian online ads in 2016 would have been protected under the First Amendment even before Citizens United, because the ads didn’t urge a vote for or against a candidate.

Far from handing power to the 1%, Citizens United unleashed rapid political diversification. Since the ruling, the White House or Congress has changed parties in every federal election except 2012. Twenty eighteen saw the highest midterm voter turnout in a century. Small-dollar donors are more coveted than ever. Donald Trump raised more money from donors who gave less than $200 than any candidate in history.

Since Citizens United, party outsiders such as Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders have risen to national prominence. And money hasn’t been able to buy elections as predicted. Sheldon Adelson donated record amounts to Republican super PACs in 2012 but failed to prevent strong Democratic victories. Democrats Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg came up empty after putting huge sums of money behind climate change and gun control.

Hillary Clinton outspent Mr. Trump 3 to 1 in 2016. Congressional leaders and big-time fundraisers such as Reps. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) and Joe Crowley (D., N.Y.) lost their seats to primary challengers who spent a fraction of what the incumbents did. Incumbent re-election rates in the House never dipped below 94% from 1996 to 2008, but did in 2010, 2012 and 2018.

Citizens United deserves a share of credit for all these trends. The decision made it easier to promote (or criticize) a candidate without help from party leaders or media elites.

Perhaps the worst prediction was that Citizens United would allow a corporate takeover of democracy. The New York Times accused the justices of having “paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections” and “thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.”

A decade later, most spending comes from the same place it always has: individuals who donate directly to candidates, up to legally limited amounts. Corporations contribute well under 10% of federal political spending, Their voice is not dominant—and voters have a right to hear it. Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues didn’t hold that “money is speech” or “corporations are people.” The ruling was part of a healthy shift in favor of free speech in politics—a trend that began with 2007’s Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, and continued through 2014’s McCutcheon v. FEC.

The questions is whether the justices think their work is done. If they truly want to empower democracy, they should continue to look skeptically at regulation of campaign finance. Political speech, after all, is at the core of the First Amendment’s protection.

Mr. Smith served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission, 2001-05, and is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech.






ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile
Putin helps Trump in Iowa
« Reply #1082 on: February 04, 2020, 06:43:14 AM »
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/952511/1

Who would have thought electronic counting would have problems like this?

no one on this board

Klobacher happy as . lark
Butti claims he won
Bernie screwed again

and Napoleon keeps spending his bottomless pit of money for himself and has already bought out the DNC.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18452
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1083 on: February 04, 2020, 07:11:35 AM »
They can't make a website work, can't name an impeachable offense -in an impeachment trial, can't tally caucus results - with turnout way down, but they want to run all of our healthcare, shutting down all alternatives.  Hopefully voters tell them to go pound sand.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18452
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1084 on: February 04, 2020, 08:17:23 AM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
WSJ: Will VA drop electoral college?
« Reply #1087 on: February 18, 2020, 01:45:24 PM »
Will Virginia Drop the Electoral College?
The new Democratic state government moves for a popular vote Presidency.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 17, 2020 4:42 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
680

The Virginia State Capitol in Richmond.
ILLUSTRATION: ZACH GIBSON/GETTY IMAGES
Virginia has long been a presidential battleground, but with Democratic control in Richmond it’s moving swiftly to shed its swing-state status. Last week the House of Delegates passed a bill that aims to do an end run around the Electoral College.

Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Virginia would award its 13 delegates to the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide no matter how he performed in Virginia. The compact goes into effect once states worth 270 electoral votes (a majority) have signed on. If Virginia ratifies the compact, that would bring the number to 209.

Barr Takes on Trump's Roger Stone Tweets


SUBSCRIBE
The remaining 61 would be a steep climb, but getting there isn’t out of the question as the legitimacy of the Electoral College becomes a partisan issue. A Democratic statehouse sweep in 2020 could put 270 within reach. Once the compact became active the lawsuits would rain down, and let’s hope the Supreme Court would provide clarity before the compact throws an election into chaos.

Our view is that the compact is likely unconstitutional, but that’s not the only reason to oppose it. Choosing Presidents by plebiscite could make the general election for President look like the Democrats’ Iowa caucuses. The winner-take-all Electoral College is a barrier to regional and third party bids. A national popular election would invite many more candidates, and the results might regularly not be known for days after Election Day. It could also deepen polarization as less populous regions are passed over because getting out the vote in large urban areas is more efficient.

Virginians might also heed self-interest. The state has turned blue in large part because of the growing number of gentry liberals surrounding Washington, D.C., but the socialist candidate currently leading the Democratic field doesn’t cater to that constituency. The Old Dominion could be competitive in a changed 2020 map, and a potentially decisive state may want to think twice about giving up its influence picking the President.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
WSJ: Campaign Finance Laws created candidate Bloomberg
« Reply #1090 on: February 25, 2020, 11:39:20 AM »


Campaign-Finance Laws Created Candidate Bloomberg
They don’t level the field; they tilt it to the advantage of billionaires, especially if they own media firms.
By Bradley A. Smith and John R. Lott Jr.
Feb. 24, 2020 6:33 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
203

Michael Bloomberg in Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2001.
PHOTO: MARK WILSON/NEWSMAKERS
House Democrats held a panicked hearing this month about how to respond to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the right of corporations to spend in elections. Their concern was the undue influence corporate spending might have on the coming elections.

In the entire 2016 campaign cycle, corporations spent less than $300 million on federal races, less than 5% of total spending. Meanwhile, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already spent more than $360 million on cable, broadcast and radio advertisements since declaring his candidacy in mid-November. That doesn’t include Mr. Bloomberg’s spending on staff, office space, logistics and internet advertising. Overturning Citizens United wouldn’t touch that money.

Can Mike Bloomberg Rebound From His Debate Flop?


SUBSCRIBE
“It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate,” tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent typifies liberal angst with the claim that Mr. Bloomberg’s spending “threatens to constitute a moral and political disaster.”

Whether Mr. Bloomberg’s ad barrage translates to more than a brief blip in the polls remains to be seen—he was savaged by his rivals in his first debate.

But Mr. Bloomberg’s ad campaign is likely to help the eventual Democratic nominee, whether it is Mr. Bloomberg or someone else. Many of his ads directly attack President Trump. Since Mr. Bloomberg is a candidate, federal law mandates that he get the lowest unit ad rate. If Mr. Bloomberg used the same money to fund a super PAC, it would have to pay market rates. Thus being a candidate wins Mr. Bloomberg an advantage in softening up Mr. Trump for the Democratic nominee. At the same time, super PACs backing other candidates have to pay far more for their ads than Mr. Bloomberg does, while their campaigns are subject to strict limits on the size of contributions they can receive. The former mayor doesn’t need contributions.

But all this misses an even bigger elephant in the room: Bloomberg Media, which Mr. Bloomberg owns. Federal law exempts the institutional press from campaign finance restrictions, allowing media corporations to coordinate their spending with campaigns—which is illegal for other corporations—and to avoid burdensome reporting requirements, all the while spending what they want to elect their favored candidates. Favorable media coverage—or hostile coverage of an opponent—is invaluable.

A media corporation owned or controlled by a candidate is excluded from the exemption unless its coverage is part of “a general pattern of campaign-related news” that gives “reasonably equal coverage to all opposing candidates.” But unless and until they are formally nominated, Mr. Bloomberg and President Trump are not, under the law, considered “opposing candidates.” The law holds that until then, Mr. Bloomberg is competing only with other Democrats for the nomination. So for now, Bloomberg News is free to trash the president and his policies all it wants.

Thus, attacking the president and sparing his Democratic rivals is the official policy of Bloomberg News and its 2,700 reporters. Bloomberg’s editor in chief has written, “We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike . . . and we will extend the same policy to his [Democratic] rivals.” But it “will continue to investigate the Trump administration.”

Even if Mr. Bloomberg becomes the Democratic nominee, there is no way to prevent Bloomberg News from shaping its coverage of the economy and current events to help its owner’s candidacy or harm the president’s. For example, despite the strong economy, on a recent weekend Bloomberg News headlines included: “In Hot U.S. Jobs Market, Half of College Grads Are Missing Out,” “All the Ways Stock Market Bulls Have Gone Off the Rails. Again,” and “China Trade War Walloped More Than Half of U.S. States in 2019.”

OPINION LIVE EVENT
Election 2020 and the Future of American Politics

Join WSJ Opinion’s Paul Gigot and Kimberley Strassel with guests Marie Harf and Karl Rove as they discuss the upcoming election at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas on Tuesday, April 14 at 7 p.m.. Sign up here.

Wage growth has been strong, and those with lower incomes have seen the largest percentage increases. But this decline in income inequality is no reason to celebrate at Bloomberg News, which frets, “In recent years, while high-school graduates have seen a sharp pickup in earnings, the lower-earning half of college graduates haven’t—and the gap between them is now the smallest in 15 years.”

Bloomberg News also runs regular over-the-top opinion pieces criticizing Mr. Trump, with headlines such as: “An Unrestrained Trump May End Up Trapping Himself,” “Trump Is Already Making Stuff Up About Voter Fraud,” and “Trump’s Tariffs Haven’t Rescued American Steel.” Again, all from a single weekend.

The value of these stories to Democrats in general, and to Mr. Bloomberg in particular, almost certainly exceeds Mr. Bloomberg’s advertising expenditures. But there is no way that the government could or should police Bloomberg News’s content for political bias.

Further, Bloomberg News’s headlines and stories are not substantially different from those one finds in the Washington Post (owned by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos), the New York Times (which is controlled by the Sulzberger family and for several years counted Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim as its largest shareholder), or most other traditional news outlets. Meanwhile, candidates operate under strict limits on contributions, making it difficult to counteract the influence of magnates with newspapers.

The whole saga illustrates the impossibility of putting government in control of campaign speech, and the unfairness that results from trying. Campaign finance laws don’t equalize political influence—they give an advantage to some of the richest and most powerful men in America.

Congressional Democrats have busied themselves with proposing constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United. That’s small beer. If Democrats want to make campaigns “equal,” they’ll have to repeal the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedom. I doubt they want to go that far.

Mr. Smith served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission, 2001-05, and is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech. Mr. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
Prager U.: Is voter fraud real?
« Reply #1091 on: February 25, 2020, 11:45:58 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18689
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
WSJ: CA fux up
« Reply #1094 on: March 07, 2020, 08:19:26 AM »
California Steals Its Own Election
Voting reforms create an electoral mess and deny Sanders a bigger win.
By The Editorial Board
March 6, 2020 7:14 pm ET

Voters arrive to cast their ballots for the 2020 presidential primary at Castelar Elementary School in Chinatown, Los Angeles, March 3.

PHOTO: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Bernie Sanders supporters who complain that the Democratic primary contest is rigged may have an ironic point. Look how he was denied what might have been a bigger victory in California on Super Tuesday that would have countered Joe Biden’s Eastern U.S. rout narrative. Blame incompetent progressive government.

California’s tally at our deadline Friday had Mr. Sanders with 33.6% of the statewide vote to Mr. Biden’s 25.3%. But about three million mail-in and provisional ballots still have to be counted, and the state has until April 10 to certify results. So we won’t know how many of California’s 415 delegates Mr. Sanders won for another month or so.

Experts predict Mr. Sanders will win most of the uncounted ballots since young people often vote late. But the delayed results will dampen the benefit he might have gained from his California victory on Super Tuesday’s election night. Not that his friends on the left in Sacramento care. “In the state with the largest electorate in the nation, the vote count does not end on Election Night—and that’s a good thing,” declared Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Tuesday.

Mr. Padilla is trying to put a positive spin on California’s voting fiasco. Lawmakers recently overhauled election procedures in the name of making it easier for young people and Hispanics to vote. Yet the result was the opposite, and Mr. Sanders is the victim.

Start with the state’s 2016 Voter’s Choice Act, which allowed counties this year to reduce polling places and instead send absentee ballots to all voters. The law also expanded in-person voting and let voters cast ballots at any polling place in their county. Voters may also register, or change their party identification or address, on Election Day.

As a result, polling places were swamped with new voters and independents who didn’t realize they had to formally request mail-in Democratic ballots. Fifteen counties experienced problems trying to connect to online voter databases. After waiting in line for hours, many voters had to cast provisional ballots.

The Legislature gave Los Angeles County an exemption from the 2016 law after local officials complained it was too expensive to mail ballots to each of its 5.5 million voters following a $300 million voting system upgrade. Called Voting Solutions for All People, the upgrade made Iowa’s caucuses look competent.

Poll workers were supposed to use computer tablets to look up voter registrations, but the devices stalled as more tried to connect with the county online database. Then voters couldn’t figure out the high-tech voting contraptions, which required selecting choices on a touch screen, printing out a physical ballot, re-inserting the ballot into the machine and clicking a final button.

Many voters left without completing all steps or realizing they didn’t vote. Because machines repeatedly broke down, many voters had to complete write-in forms, some of which were in languages they didn’t speak. All these dysfunctions resulted in hours-long lines, which one voter compared to being stuck in traffic on LA’s 405 freeway.

Only two companies bid for LA’s new voting system because one condition was that it be publicly owned—i.e., socialized. One was U.K.-based company Smartmatic, which got its start developing a new system for Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela in 2004. The other had developed ObamaCare’s Healthcare.gov website, which famously crashed on its launch date. Smartmatic won. Voters lost.

Even considering uncounted votes, turnout is running lower than in the June 2016 primary. So to recap: California Democrats moved up the state’s primary to make it more relevant and reduced voting obstacles to boost liberal turnout. In the end they disenfranchised many Democratic voters, and denied Mr. Sanders the flush of his primary victory. This would be darkly amusing if it didn’t undermine trust in the legitimacy of election results.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
Redistricting in VA (Holder flip flop)
« Reply #1095 on: March 12, 2020, 09:09:10 AM »
WSJ

Eric Holder’s Redistricting Flip
Virginia is revealing the cynicism of complaints over gerrymanders.
By The Editorial Board
March 10, 2020 7:13 pm ET

Former Attorney General Eric Holder insists that his redistricting lobbying and litigation shop merely wants to make maps less partisan. Responding to our editorial last November on his court redistricting coup, he wrote that he supported “citizens or nonpartisan commissions to draw electoral lines so neither party benefits.” Interesting, then, that he’s not supporting such a reform in Virginia now that Democrats control the Legislature.

Last week Virginia’s House of Delegates voted 54-46 to place a referendum on the November ballot to establish an ostensibly nonpartisan citizen commission to draw legislative and Congressional maps after the 2020 Census. A majority of the General Assembly must vote in two successive sessions to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Friday was the second vote, and it’s notable that the referendum passed because nine Democrats joined all 45 Republicans. Most Democrats supported the referendum last year while in the minority but did an about-face after winning control in November. All Republicans but one supported the referendum even when they were in the majority.

Many Democratic legislators now say the referendum would give too much power to unelected judges, and they have a point. Maps would be drawn by a 16-member commission composed of eight citizens and eight legislators. But the state Supreme Court would have the final say, and the technocratic design makes us wonder if Pete Buttigieg helped design it.

The Legislature’s four party leaders would each nominate 16 citizens, and a committee of five retired state circuit court judges would select two from each leader’s list. Four of the judges on the committee would be selected by the four party leaders and the fifth would be chosen by the four other judges. Comprende?

New maps would have to win the support of at least six legislators and six citizens on the commission. If the commission deadlocks, the state Supreme Court would draw the maps. Ditto if the General Assembly rejects the commission’s maps.

“I fear any ‘democracy’ in which control of the legislature is chosen by judges who were chosen by a legislature that was chosen by the judges chosen by the legislature in a never-ending loop that permanently circumvents voters,” Democratic House Member Mark Levine wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.

We also have qualms about redistricting commissions, which have shown they can be easily manipulated by partisans (see California) and dilute political accountability. But Democrats in Virginia said they were worried the state Supreme Court’s conservative majority would wind up drawing maps to favor Republicans.

This is ironic since liberal federal judges last year redrew the state House map to help Democrats after Mr. Holder said districts were racially gerrymandered. Pennsylvania’s Democratic Supreme Court also redrew maps in 2018 that helped the party win three seats following a lawsuit backed by Mr. Holder.

Now Mr. Holder is refusing to support the Virginia referendum, which he says lacks protections for minorities. Yet the referendum states that “every electoral district shall be drawn in accordance with the requirements of federal and state laws that address racial and ethnic fairness.” Mr. Holder supports “nonpartisan” maps only if they favor Democrats.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18452
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, Early voting means wasted votes
« Reply #1098 on: March 16, 2020, 08:42:07 AM »
Our host yesterday voted early for Bloomberg who is not on tomorrow's ballot in her state.

The answer for this is something called Election Day, not Ranked indecision.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69883
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 10:03:52 AM by Crafty_Dog »