Tag Archives: voting

It’s Ours By Right, Dammit!

Posted on by
Reply

No Labels is looking hard at running their own President/Vice President ticket for the 2024 election. The Progressive-Democratic Party is in fury over the possibility, to the extent that its Arizona arm is going to court to try to stop No Labels from registering its candidates in that State.

It [the Arizona chapter of the Progressive-Democratic Party] filed a lawsuit in state court against No Labels alleging that the signatures we collected and the petition approved by Arizona’s secretary of state should be thrown out.

Party’s rationale—and they’re absolutely serious:

No Labels’ presence on the ballot could “make it more difficult to elect Democratic Party candidates,” and “require [the party] to expend and divert additional funds and staff time on voter education to accomplish its mission in Arizona.”

It’s Party’s God-given right to have its members elected; they shouldn’t have to compete for voters.

I won’t be surprised when if Party files a subsequent suit to do away with Arizona elections altogether on the grounds that Party shouldn’t have to expend and divert additional funds and staff time on voter education to get its members elected. Just appoint them, and save all that time and waste.

This is what Progressive-Democratic Party one-party rule looks like.

Side note: it’s only the Progressive-Democratic Party that insists on obstructing competing candidates from even competing. Republicans similarly are concerned about what a third party would do to their own candidates’ chances, but Republicans engage only in jawboning against the third party while preparing to compete against the third party’s candidates as enthusiastically as they are against Progressive-Democratic Party candidates.

A National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Posted on by
Reply

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact wants to put together a coalition of States whose Electoral College votes aggregate to 270—the minimum majority required to elect the President and Vice President—and which coalition then would allocate their Electoral College votes to the national popular vote winner, instead of to the popular vote winner of the particular State.

This is a naked attempt to defeat the purpose of the Electoral College as it is constituted in our Constitution.

This is what Art II, Section 1, says about the Electoral College:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

This is what the 12th Amendment of our Constitution says about the duties of those Electors:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President….
…
…if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote….

Notice that. The intent of the Electors of the Electoral College is to give each State its own, individual, voice in the election of our President, to place each State on an entirely equal footing with each of the other States.

The Compact, however, argues that

The compact points out that in the 2012 presidential race all 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just four states.
“Thirty-eight states were completely ignored,” the compact concludes.

The Compact wants to subsume those individual State voices into the tumult of a collective. This not only deprecates each State, it’s plainly unconstitutional. Worse, what this Compact wants to do is have its collection of States whose Electoral College votes total 270 to be the sole determiner of our President and Vice President—to explicitly ignore every one of the other States. Their votes simply wouldn’t count at all.

The Compact argues further that each State’s legislature can decide who the State’s College Electors are in any way the legislature wants to do. That’s true; see the Art II quote above. However, the legislature may not dictate to its Electors what their duties are—for whom they must vote. The 12th Amendment’s stricture has already determined that, and in this venue our Constitution supersedes the State’s wishes. The Electors must cast their own votes, not the national population’s votes.

The Compact complains that it’s somehow unfair for a Presidential candidate to get all of a State’s Electoral College votes when the candidate “won” the State with only a bare plurality instead of an outright majority in those States that have winner-take-all allocations. No Compact is needed to address this perceived unfairness. The State(s) in question can amend its allocation, if the citizens of that State wish it.

The Compact is doubly unconstitutional; even the name gives the game away. Here’s what Art I, Sect 10, of our Constitution says about interstate compacts:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State….

The States involved in this Compact think they’re getting around this minor Constitutional impediment by not strictly formally entering into an agreement. But the intent is clear, from the Compact’s title through its statement that

The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).

No wink and nod and fingers crossed nonsense can cancel the fact of their intent to form this Agreement or Compact among the States.

The Compact’s pushers know this full well. But what else would be expected from the Left? After all, as Ezra Klein, then of The Washington Post, put it during reign of the Progressive-Democrat Barack Obama in a canonical example of the Left’s contempt for law,

[Y]ou can say two things about it [the Constitution]. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.

Our Constitution, our laws—who cares? Us average Americans do.

Cyber Voting

Posted on by
Reply

New York State Progressive-Democrat Congressmen want to allow absentee voters to return their ballots over the Internet.

Those Congressmen want absentee voters to be able to [emphasis added]

submit ballots for federal, state and local elections using “electronic absentee ballots” submitted by email.

“Government watchdogs” object.

…Reinvent Albany and Common Cause New York said they have “grave concerns” about the proposed legislation. They warned the move would “put the security of New York’s elections at high risk for cyber incidents, and undermine public confidence in election results.”

However well-intentioned such a move might be, those watchdog groups are right about the security failure such a move would present to the sanctity of each voter’s ballot.

They don’t go far enough in their objection, though. Email, even supposedly encrypted email (and who seriously believes the State government is equipped to send and receive encrypted email?) can be hacked. But the real threat is in the enclosed (attached?) ballots. Ballots are too easily forged, and those forgeries, as images attached/enclosed in a putative absentee voter’s returned email, can have malware embedded in them, in a technique known by the cute name “steganography.” Indeed, stenography can embed the malware in the emails themselves.

That malware can contain code that does far more than just infest the ballot or the ballot-counting and -recording and voter registration processes. That malware can be designed—as any script kiddie knows—to spread itself across internal network connections from the voting/voter registration areas of the government’s software to much more lucrative areas of government software and only then execute its mission. That mission can range from a ransomware attack to a denial of service attack to theft of any government data deemed useful by the hacker.

This is an idea whose time should never be.

Opening up for Election Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law yet another pathway to illegal voting. This new election law

allows people to register online to vote in the state by providing the last four digits of a Social Security Number and an electronic signature.

Never mind that those “last four” are broadly publicly available. Never mind that electronic signatures far too often don’t even remotely resemble a person’s actual signature: it’s done by clicking a link labeled with words to the effect of “by clicking this link, you’re certifying you are who you say you are and electronically signing,” or by presenting a signature field wherein you squiggle something with your finger or with your mouse.

Now anyone can vote in Washington, and do so multiple times; the putative voter needs only access to multiple “last fours,” and then he can “electronically” sign multiple voter forms.

What a boon for Washington citizens, especially the non-real ones.

I Have Questions

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Maricopa County, AZ, has developed a hoary history of election ballot and counting irregularities, most recently in the 2022 election in which the county was unable to deliver sufficient ballots in sufficient numbers to accommodate the voters, many of whom were denied their right to vote by those ballot failures. Maricopa County investigators, led by Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, have released their report on causes of those…snafus.

Between the August primaries and the November general contest, the county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to 20 inches in order to include all of the required information. The increased ballot size in combination with the use of 100-pound ballot paper, the report concludes, was too great a strain on the printers.
“Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound ballot paper and a 20-inch ballot during the 2022 general election was to require that the Oki B432 printers perform at the extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained by a substantial number of printers,” the report states.

That raises questions in my poor, dumb, flyover country northern Texan mind.

Who reviewed the performance specifications for the Oki B432 printers?

Who tested those printers on the larger paper?

Who tested those printers on the heavier-weight paper?

Who tested those printers on the combination of larger size and heavier weight?

Finally, an encompassing question: of the County’s election officials and staff, for how long have the staff members—the bureaucrats and volunteers, not the elected officials—been in place?