That’s what Democratic Socialist and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) thinks ought to happen. He couches this as all citizens having a right to vote, “even terrible people.”
Unfortunately, though, Sanders has misunderstood the nature of the social compact, and the Lockean nature of our American social compact.
There is a Defcon computer security conference in progress at which a Voting Village hackers collection is busily hacking various voting machine manufacturers’ machines. As McMillan and Volz put it in their Wall Street Journal piece about the Village,
These hacks can root out weaknesses in voting machines so that vendors will be pressured to patch flaws and states will upgrade to more secure systems, organizers say.
Sadly, many of those manufacturers are upset over it, even to the point of warning about voting software license abuse. Even State government representatives don’t like the idea of testing this software’s and these machines’ security. Here’s Leslie Reynolds, National Association of Secretaries of State Executive Director:
I’ve written before about the duplicity of Facebook and its MFWIC Mark Zuckerberg.
Here’s another example, even more blatant than that last.
Permanent link to this post
(56 words, 1 image, estimated 13 secs reading time)
Progressive-Democrats like to decry claims of voter fraud, denying the very existence of it and deprecating those who worry about its impact on elections, even as they worry—correctly—about Russian attempts to alter our elections.
Non-American citizens are increasingly found on voter rolls thanks to covert registration methods, with nothing actually stopping them from casting a ballot in an election.
Elizaveta Shuvalova, a Russian citizen who became a US citizen only last year, was registered as an eligible voter in 2012 and added to the San Francisco voter rolls, The Washington Times reported.
A Maryland gerrymandering case, this one brought by the Republican Party, after it lost an election in the newly gerrymandered district, was before the Supreme Court this week.
One of the plaintiffs’ arguments is that the redistricting “violated Republican voters’ free-expression and political-association rights.”
Justice Sam Alito had the correct response to that bit of nonsense:
[I]f understand it, I really don’t see how any legislature will ever be able to redistrict
If the Republicans don’t have anything more than whining about losing an election, how can their legitimate gerrymandering complaints be taken seriously?
The Supreme Court heard arguments the other day on an Ohio voter registration law. That law removes voters from the roll if they haven’t voted over a two-year period and don’t respond to a follow-up notice from Ohio’s Secretary of State.
It’s a partisan case from the Left’s perspective: those opposing the law argue, with some justification, that those who live in urban regions (and who happen to vote Democratic) relocate more frequently than do those who live in the ‘burbs and out in the country (and who happen to vote Republican). This would seem to put Democrats at a disadvantage in elections since they’re more likely to have not voted over a two-year period and not responded to the follow-up notice.
North Carolina’s Congressional districts are illegally drawn, says a special three-judge court.
A special three-judge court invalidated the North Carolina map after finding Republicans adopted it for the driving purpose of magnifying the party’s political power beyond its share of the electorate.
I’ll leave aside the disparate impact sewage that local districts must reflect the larger State’s electorate “demographics.” The larger problem is with the underlying premise of gerrymandering: that some groups of Americans need their political power enhanced relative to other groups of Americans because some groups are, in some sense, fewer in numbers than other groups.
This is a preview of
Congressional Districts and Gerrymandering
. Read the full post (332 words, estimated 1:20 mins reading time)
Further on the Supreme Court’s considering a Wisconsin gerrymandering case, and that dredges up some thoughts in my pea brain.
Taking the Federal government as my canonical example, I suggest the following to saucer and blow the whole gerrymandering question. Each State should be divided into squares having substantially equal numbers of citizens resident. Then, starting with four squares sharing a common corner that is at the geographic center of the State, add squares around the four, building outward in that fashion to the State’s borders, deviating from the square and the square’s straight-line sides only at those borders.
The Supreme Court has taken up a Wisconsin gerrymandering case, Whitford v Gill, in which some Liberal plaintiffs claim the State’s Republican legislature went too far in gerrymandering the State’s state legislature districts. The plaintiffs are centering their beef on the idea that Republicans are overrepresented in the State’s legislature compared to State-wide voting tallies; Democrats didn’t get their “fair share” of the seats.
The plaintiffs are targeting Justice Anthony Kennedy in what is likely to be a sharply divided court, and some of Kennedy’s remarks at oral argument are, indeed, troubling.
Certainly these are different from each other in method and often (but not always) in purpose, but is there an important difference were these successful in altering our election outcomes or in raising doubt about those outcomes?
I didn’t think so.
Why, then, are so many who should know better so obstructive of the Federal effort to understand the method and extent of election fraud?
There were nearly 150,000 attempts to penetrate the voter-registration system on Election Day 2016, State Election Commission says
That’s the subhead of Sunday’s Wall Street Journal piece on US Election Hacking Efforts. Illinois was hit as badly: