Tag Archives: voting

The Racism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Separate from the segregationist identity politics so loudly practiced by the Left and its Progressive-Democratic Party is this. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two Arizona voting cases

Arizona Republican Party v Democratic National Committee and Brnovich v Democratic National Committee involving Arizona election laws that ban ballot harvesting and voting in other precincts.

As the Editorial Board puts it [emphasis added],

The Ninth Circuit and some other lower courts have interpreted [the Voting Rights Act] Section 2 broadly to enjoin any law that allegedly has a disparate impact on minorities no matter if the laws have a non-discriminatory intent. The Arizona cases provide the High Court an opportunity to clarify and tighten the standards for Section 2 claims.
Liberals are warning that the Supreme Court in the Arizona cases could “destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act,” as one headline howled.

And the money quote to end the editorial:

As ever, the left is playing racial politics as the election approaches.

There’s Voter Suppression

Posted on by
Reply

…and there’s voter suppression. A poll taken two days after the first Presidential debate and run by The Wall Street Journal and NBC has Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden opening up a 14-per centage point lead over incumbent President Donald Trump.

However.

Aside from the fact that the poll sampled registered voters, rather than more accurately sampling likely voters, the poll oversampled (Progressive-)Democrat registered voters by eight per centage points (and thereby undersampled Republican registered voters by the same amount), which greatly biased the results.

On the other hand, a Daily Express poll, taken after Trump’s diagnosis with the Wuhan Virus (but which methodology is not described) indicates a different status of the race:

68% said the illness would not affect their vote while 19% said they were “more likely” to support Trump and only 13% “less likely”.

And these poll results:

National Popular Vote

Trump (Republican) = 46%

Biden (Democrat) = 45%

Jorgensen (Libertarian) = 3%

Hawkins (Green) = 1%

Undecided = 5%

And

Battleground States – Popular Vote

Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Trump (Republican) = 47%

Biden (Democrat) = 43%

Jorgensen (Libertarian) = 4%

Hawkins (Green) = 1%

Undecided = 5%

Aside from having Trump in the lead in this poll, the other takeaway suggests that, despite low Libertarian support (in 2016, there was somewhat stronger Green support), a third party candidate could seriously affect the election’s outcome.

Which raises the question: is such evident bias in the WSJ/NBC poll an attempt to discourage Republican and Conservative voters from voting? It’s hard to believe these two news outlets could run such an incompetently done poll. In truth, though, they’re not alone. News outlets typically run such oversampled/undersampled polls.

Which makes the bias widespread, and the suppression, to coin a term, systemic.

Another Activist Judge

Posted on by
Reply

…stacking the vote and demonstrating the need for judges at all levels who will be true to their oaths of office and rule based on what the law says and not on what the judge wants the law to say.

[L]ast week a [Michigan] state judge ordered officials to keep tallying ballots that arrive up to 14 days late, provided they bear a postmark of November 2 or earlier.

Never mind what Michigan State law actually says on the matter. The judge knows better than the people’s representatives, and she considers herself eminently qualified and obligated to stray from her judicial constraints and intrude into a political matter.

This also illustrates the need to get a Justice confirmed for the Supreme Court seat previously held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—so Court ties can be settled by nine Justices, and not by a capricious Chief Justice.

A Naked Purchase Attempt

Posted on by
2

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have given $250 billion (that’s with a ‘b’) to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, an election activist organization that’s active in a number of Progressive-Democrat strongholds in Wisconsin and expanding nationwide.

George Soros, even if the tales are true, is a piker. Zuckerberg and Chan are openly trying to buy the upcoming election. This is another example of the Progressive-Democratic Party in action.

Our republic is in increasing danger from the Patrician class.

For another perspective, that works out to about a dollar a voter in the general election. When I was in the Philippines during the post-Marcos (it turned out) Philippine Presidential election, the one that brought Corazon Aquino to power, my house girl told me that she’d been offered by a lower-level politician candidate 20 pesos—about a dollar at the time—if she’d vote for him. She then proudly said she’d declined his offer; she’d already accepted another politician’s pesos, and she’d stay with that one.

Voter Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s collect some data; although, it’ll take State by State legislation to set the capability.

There’s concern about late-arriving ballots, especially in close elections, and their meaning—actual votes cast and why they were late to be found or delivered to the counting facility.

This occurs with in-person voting as voting stations are delayed in producing their results, but it’s mostly a problem with mailed ballots, whether absentee ballots that must be explicitly requested by the voter—who must also prove he is who he says he is and that he’s eligible to vote in that jurisdiction—or universally mailed-out ballots to a voter registration list that is often inaccurate or that has no longer current or deliverable addresses. In both of these cases, ballots must be mailed back to the jurisdiction’s counting facility.

Here are the data to be collected and how they should be collected.

Set a State-wide deadline for State or national elections, or a local deadline for strictly local elections, by which cast ballots must be counted. The vote tally as of that deadline would constitute the official tally that the State’s election official must certify.

Continue receiving and counting ballots after that date, but don’t include them in the official results. Instead, publicize their lateness, why they’re late—or the reasons offered by those who delivered the ballots too late—what the vote count is for each of the candidates in these too-late ballots, and whether any of those ballots would have been disqualified anyway, had they arrived on time (signature mismatch, ineligibility of the voter, incorrectly filled out ballot, etc), and who delivered the ballots—vote harvesters, post office, etc.

These data would be illuminating.