Programming note: Mark will be guest hosting on Tucker Carlson Tonight this evening. Tune in to Fox News at 8pm Eastern Time / 5pm Pacific. In the meantime, here's the latest from Tal Bachman in The Bachman Beat.
Not sure how to ease into this, so I'm just going to say it:
The time has come to completely renovate America's presidential election voting process.
No, I'm not talking about the electoral college. That can stay. Nor does this have anything to do with Biden versus Trump per se (although the ongoing dispute and understandable doubt about who actually won helps support my contention).
All it has to do with is maintaining America's status as an actual representative democracy—a republic—whose citizens determine electoral outcomes by majority votes. Per Lincoln, that was the whole point, after all: government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
For that sort of government to exist in reality, and not just in rhetoric, you need elections whose results citizens can genuinely trust. They need to be legitimate, but also, need to be seen to be legitimate.
What that means is elections characterized by simplicity, intelligibility, uniformity, and voter anonymity, as well as overall transparency, formal and multi-layered scrutability, physical security at voting stations, and real-time and post hoc verifiability of vote counting.
Put all those things together into a system, and you have election integrity. Omit one or more of those things, and you have a system which begins sliding toward unacceptable levels of error and election-changing fraud. At the point where error or fraud produces false outcomes, or can no longer produce the requisite level of confidence in reported outcomes, the system becomes incompatible with representative democracy—meaning that any representative democracy which continues to use it, is ipso facto either degenerating into a non-democratic form of government, or has already completed that transition. That would be true regardless of surface appearances, or what citizens believed.
To put it more plainly, representative democracy requires legitimate elections. As Ol' Blue Eyes once claimed about love and marriage, you can't have one without the other.
You can guess where I'm going. America has done all sorts of things right, but—as Mark Steyn has pointed out many times over the years, most recently on Tucker Carlson Tonight shortly after the election—its presidential election process ain't one of them. It violates nearly all the requirements for electoral integrity and for inspiring confidence in itself. It's no wonder that, as you read this, the president of the United States, his entire legal team, and tens of millions of citizens, believe outcome-changing fraud occurred the night of November 3rd, 2020.
What I mean to say is that even if there wasn't any fraud at all, we'd all still have lots of reasons to suspect there was. That alone is completely unacceptable.
One reason for suspicion is at least one presidential election has been rigged before—election fraud in America is nothing new.
Other reasons include the hundreds upon hundreds of people convicted of voter fraud over the past two decades (virtually all of them Democrats), large-scale electoral dysfunction in other recent races, and even a recent detailed confession from a professional East Coast election-rigger.
But more relevant are the reports of misbehavior on election night: poll watchers barred, ballots re-dated, tens of thousands of votes of mysterious provenance suddenly appearing, improbable-to-the-point-of-impossible statistical anomalies and other oddities, etc., as well as questionable recount behavior.
But the most compelling reason of all is the amply-documented vulnerability to manipulation of the computerized voting machines now used so commonly. To what extent these machines were in fact manipulated, in this recent election, I can't say; but again, even if they weren't manipulated at all, their mere existence necessarily casts doubt on the integrity of any reported electoral outcome. For that reason alone, they should be discarded.
Let me just list a few indications of how lousy these machines are.
The day before the election, USA Today investigative reporter Pat Beall published a zinger of a piece detailing a number of disturbing voting machine vulnerabilities. Entitled "Will Your Ballots Be Safe? Computer Experts Sound Warnings on America's Voting Machines", Beall's piece chronicles things like spontaneous vote-switching, the instant disappearance of tens of thousands of votes, and erratic vote registering. That was days before anyone heard Sidney Powell alleging the same things.
Beall's piece is not the only credible account of vulnerabilities in voting machines. The House Administration Committee issued a report in 2018 noting some of the same problems (and, interestingly, pointed to Georgia as one of the states most vulnerable to computer vote-rigging). A number of other such reports have emerged in recent years, including a 2018 New York Times piece reporting the discovery of voting machines manufactured by Election Systems and Software with remote-access software secretly pre-installed, and—as if that weren't alarming enough—that the machines had a history of reporting vote counts at odds with votes actually cast.
Not that this is new material. Evidence indicating the fraud-friendly nature of computerized voting machines has been out there a long time. As far back as 1974, the US General Accounting Office was warning of serious accuracy and security problems with America's new vote-counting computers. (As for possible vote-tampering culprits, the CIA at least had the decency to admit during the 1975 Church Committee hearings it regularly tampered with vote-counting machines in foreign elections). In 1985, New York Times reporter David Burnham, in an eyebrow-raising piece, reported that the National Security Agency had begun investigating reports of vote-manipulation in voting machines used by a full third of the American electorate.
By the late 1980s, the potential for manipulating computerized voting machines had become even more undeniable—and unnerving. In a magisterial 1988 New Yorker piece on the topic, journalist Ronnie Duggar wrote:
"Some officials concerned with elections think about the unthinkable in their field; namely, the stealing of a Presidential election by computer fraud in the vote-counting in metropolitan areas of key states. Steve White, the chief assistant attorney general of California, said to me last spring in Sacramento, 'It could be done relatively easily by somebody who didn't necessarily have to be all that sophisticated. Given the importance of the national election, sooner or later it will be attempted.'"
Journalist Jonathan Vankin was another early chronicler of electoral computer fraud (taking time to revisit the topic in a 2000 piece, in which he pointed out compelling evidence of serious computer-rigging in Miami-Dade, Dallas, Orange County, and several other locations). A book-length exposé even arrived in 1992 courtesy of James and Kenneth Collier.
And yet here we are, nearly a half century after that first US General Accounting Office warning, still using the same easily manipulable computer systems, which bad actors have almost certainly manipulated before to fix election outcomes; and partly as a result, we're all still wondering if Joe Biden really got 15 million more legitimate votes than Barack Obama did—a gap which must strain the credulity of even the most partisan Democrat (not that they'd mind illicit victory). (We're also now wondering how many of the presidents over the past thirty years won their elections fair and square).
So as I say, it's no wonder that now, half the country suspects fraud; it's because fraud on a huge scale, thanks to the voting machines, remains eminently possible.
As for how to reduce the possibility of voter fraud, the steps are simple. And it's not like they're secret. Nations around the world use them. A functional, trustworthy, election system of integrity would look something like this.
First, it's run by a single-purpose, rigorously impartial, devoutly transparent federal entity overseeing federal elections (about which more below).
Yes, I know we're all sick of the federal Leviathan. I know it already has far too much power. It's just that in this case, we don't have much choice, do we? We're going on well over a century of chronic Democrat Party presidential vote-rigging; and it appears they just ran one of their classic tricks again just a few weeks ago. At some point, pro-America voters have to stop making excuses for why they shouldn't try solutions to these nation-destroying problems, and just try them.
Yes, I know this would require a constitutional amendment. But let's assume for now we could get one of those passed.
Second: The new federal entity—let's call it Elections USA—would then divide the nation into voting districts of equal size for purposes of federal election (that could occur within pre-existing congressional districts). Elections USA would then further subdivide the voting districts into smaller units. Working with the postal service, Elections USA would then draw up a list of voters in each unit, and designate a voting station for residents of that particular unit.
Third: In preparation for election day, Elections USA would send out flyers informing households of where to vote. The information would also be made available on the Elections USA website.
Fourth: On election day, voters travel to their designated voting stations: an elementary or high school, a union hall, a community center, whatever.
Each voting station is watched over by police or other security guards.
As voters approach, they join a quick-moving line. At the front, they present two pieces of government issued ID, at least one with a photo. A volunteer finds the voter on her list of voters for that unit. (If they've come to the wrong polling station, they are redirected to the right polling station).
The voter then approaches the voting station in a large, open room, where another volunteer hands him a paper ballot. Picking up the provided pencil, he marks the ballot behind a screen, folds the ballot, and drops into the voting box in full view of the poll clerk and attendant witnesses sitting a few feet away—typically, a few volunteers from political parties who act as "scrutineers", or official observers and verifiers. The voter then leaves. The entire process never takes more than fifteen minutes.
Once polls close, no one is allowed to enter or leave the premises until the vote count is completed.
The poll clerk—still in full view of the scrutineers—dumps the ballots on to a table and sorts them into piles according to the candidate/party voted for. She then counts the votes for each, showing them to the scrutineers as she goes. Once the votes are counted, a supervisor is called over to the table. After verifying that the scrutineers are satisfied with the counting, and resolving any lingering concerns, the supervisor signs off on the count, and the ballots are immediately placed in a special, sealed envelope. The sealed envelope is then stamped, and cannot be opened without subsequent detection.
The ballot count numbers are then phoned into Elections USA, right then and there, again in view of the scrutineers, who verify that the numbers called in match the numbers they witnessed during the count.
Once all the numbers are called in to Elections USA—a process which never takes more than two hours—the supervisor then physically transports the sealed envelopes (each marked with information like Voting Desk #4 at Poll Station #15) to the Elections USA depot, where she hands them over.
The sealed envelopes are then transported to Elections USA employees, who will then verify, and eventually formally certify, that all the numbers called in from each desk of each polling station of each voting district in the country matches the number of actual ballots. In the unlikely event any question arises about accuracy, the ballots can be accessed and counted again.
In a simple process like this, the media will have accurate election results within two hours of the polls closing, and there is virtually no opportunity for fraud. I can attest to that, because I myself have witnessed this exact process in real life quite a few times, and am friendly with several people who volunteer as election workers on election days. What I described is how elections are conducted in Canada, but not only in Canada: an identical or similar process is used in most other English-speaking countries. A few simple security protocols—not least of which is, no computerized voting machines—and your election is as fraud-proof as this mortal realm would ever allow.
When you compare this typical voting procedure to the morass of conflicting voting regulations representing fifty states, many of which—incredibly—do not even require that the voter present identification before voting, and which are being manipulated by the very state party hacks tasked with preventing fraud, you begin to see just how desperately America needs electoral reform. Credible stories of poll watchers being denied access, for example, in any normal country, would be regarded as completely unacceptable, to the point where the votes in that area would be likely thrown out as a matter of course. And yet, that type of chicanery is now so common in the United States, most people take for granted it goes on. That's how far the window of acceptable behavior has moved.
Lastly, I point out the outrageous absurdity of Democrats screaming for four years that Russia hacked the nation's vote-counting machines in 2016, only to suddenly demand—once their salaried goons in mainstream media prematurely declared Biden the victor—that we all instantly fully accept that no hacking or vote manipulation could have ever have occurred in the 2020 election...when almost all the machines remained the same.
Trump's currently demanding recounts, and that's great. But America needs more than recounts. It needs something like a constitutional amendment federalizing the federal elections and banning voting machines. It also needs an exhaustive investigation—although by whom, I don't know anymore—to identify just which bad actors have been manipulating those easily manipulable voting machines for the last forty odd years. Given the frame-up jobs we've seen the last four years, I have a few hunches about the culprits—and I don't think they were Russians.
Mark Steyn Club members can let Tal know what they think by logging in on SteynOnline and sharing in the comments section. Kick back with Tal in person by joining the rescheduled Mark Steyn Cruise along the Mediterranean next October, featuring not only Tal but also Michele Bachmann, Conrad Black and Douglas Murray among Mark's special guests.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
59 Member Comments
Nancy Hawkes is not alone in being way late to this party, as I am showing up after the party is over, which is difficult to top. Anyway, all the rules in the world, no matter how well intended or designed, will not work when one of the two major parties has as an objective not only to cheat, but to create doubt in the minds of voters regarding the reliability of the vote count. Democrats WANT people to question the outcome because they thrive on chaos and crisis.
So no matter how perfect your plan, it cannot succeed in the long term unless the participants at least want voters to trust the outcome.
Hi Tal - sorry I am late to the party. I was *gasp* traveling over Thanksgiving. (There is a baby 2000 miles away that shares my DNA, and I don't want to miss his babyhood because it is over all too fast. I weighed the risk and decided reward > risk.)
Regarding the need for a constiutional amendment required for federal election rules, I don't think that would ever pass. However, I belive there is another route to a national body to oversee federal (and other) elections. I work in the insurance industry, which has an insurance commissioner in each state; there is no federal insurance regulator. (As I recall, a federal body was discussed during the runup to Obamacare, but was shot down by the states who felt they were regulating insurance just fine under the current framework, thank you very much.)
The 50 states' (+ territories and districts) insurance regulators are tied together through the National Assocation of Insurance Commisioners (NAIC). Per their website: "Through the NAIC, state insurance regulators establish standards and best practices, conduct peer review, and coordinate their regulatory oversight... NAIC members, together with the central resources of the NAIC, form the national system of state-based insurance regulation."
That is, insurance regulation is standardized across states by the NAIC. There are exceptions, such as NY, which has much harsher regulation, but many states are fine with following the NAIC guidelines, which simplifies insurance company regulatory reporting.
The parallel with elections might be the NAEC (Natl. Assoc. of *Election* Comm.). At first, only the states that are committed to free and fair elections might join, but then the other states would be cajoled/shamed/pressured into joining. States that have cleaned up their act, e.g. Florida, can share their best practices, which other states could discuss and wrangle over and perhaps adopt as-is or tweak in some way. Studies can be done and publicized about which are the best ways to count every legal vote. The goal is transparency - states that don't get with the fraud-minimizing program will be outed publicly.
This new NAEC regime would take courage on the part of the first states to join and might need 20 years to reach fruition, but something seems better than the status quo.
I hope this makes sense. Bottom line - no amendment needed, just apply existing state regulator/national application precedent to elections.
Excellent description of the Canadian, er, ordinary boring conventional, way of voting.
Walk from home to the nearest church basement. Wait 1-5 minutes. Using picture ID, pick up a ballot from the desk corresponding to your city block staffed by a couple of people holding pencils and rulers and whom you vaguely remember seeing somewhere. Walk to the desk with a privacy screen. Mark an X next your favoured candidate(s). Go home and turn on the TV. Two hours after the polls close, the votes are counted and the winners declared. Celebrate, or, if you're a conservative in Canada, search online for a T-shirt, "Don't blame me I voted ..."
Fraud aside, the need for voting machines, computers etc in the US is a mystery to me. Computers are for doing extremely complicated repetitive things that happen every day, every second, and every millisecond. Use a computer to process 100 million transactions per hour, not 100 million votes once every 4 years. Compare how often you've voted to how often you've purchased something, sent an email, sent a text, or added up some numbers. Considering the outrageous time and money to purchase, set up, develop software, deploy, and enter data into a computer, it should be no surprise that any group of spinsters, retirees, and bank managers (armed only with pencils, rulers, and cardboard boxes) can count votes faster, cheaper, and more honestly.
Next mystery: The US two-party system.
There is only one rationale for using computerized voting machines: the ability to vote-rig. There is no other defense of them.
And as I mentioned, from almost the very start of their use, all sorts of observers began raising alarms based on outrageous vulnerabilities to fraud, error, and malfunction. These things have always been garbage.
As for the time needed to vote...yeah. As a dual citizen, I've been on site in both US and Canadian federal elections.
In the Canadian elections, guys are in and out in eight minutes, and...the processes are all dialed.
In the American elections, guys can wait two hours only to tap a (possibly compromised) voting machine which doesn't produce paper receipts, so that the vote-counts it claims can never be compared to anything, and whose only "virtue" is manipulability.
If anyone can fix this, it's Trump, and I really hope he does.
Preach, brother. It's past time to end the Democrat crime syndicate and enforce election reform to bring us in line with the standards we demand from everyone else in the world
Sydney has filed suits in Michigan & Georgia.
It will be interesting to see how the courts respond.
It seems that we either have a seismic corruption verdict or we have corruption accepted as a feature, not a bug, of the US electoral system.
Saint Sidney...
Thanks Tal for another thoughtful article into the history of election deficiencies in USA. Robert Barnes quotes a relative who stated the result is dependent not on the number who voted but who counts the vote. The affidavits and videos showing the intimidation and exclusion of scrutineers is shocking.
Thank you, Tal, for this thorough (and thoroughly embarrassing) exposé of US electoral malfeasance in our lifetimes. That we have become so complacent about such malpractice suggests that we don't deserve the republican democracy the founding fathers created (and reinforces Benjamin Franklin's prescient concern that we might not be able to keep it). We have shirked our duty as custodians of a magnificent form of government, and I daresay there are few among our current leaders who have the courage to reform the farce that our electoral system has become.
The simple reform that is necessary is that we need one independent elector for every 50,000 (this number being negotiable) people. This solves many problems
1-Equal sized districts is more transparent than the weighted voting system we have now and far easier to defend in public and it still maintains districting to prevent the mass chaos of a national popular vote (which in addition to the chaos is also quite vulnerable to voter fraud)
2-Cheaters cannot sit in stronghold districts with all the cover they want and cheat distant voters out of their electors. If they want to cheat they must be drawn into the open into battleground districts.
3-In order to cheat it would have to be done one district at a time out of several thousand districts, so this spreads the map on would be cheaters thus marginalizing their efforts.
4-There is no excuse for voting machines because the districts are small and the votes could be counted in a simple transparent fashion and quickly (there are multiple reasons to want the vote counted quickly of course)
In short: Equalize districts, draw cheaters into the open, spread the map and dump voting machines
To repeat: we need equal sized districts each with an independent elector.
If no such change is made, we will just get cheated again.
A constitutional amendment is not required. Congress has authority to regulate elections already, but rarely exercises that authority.
Article I, Section 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution:
"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."
The Democrats are well aware of this, and have proposed nationwide mail-in voting laws, etc. A Democratic takeover of Congress and the White House could lead to a law banning any state from requiring photo ID and mandating mail-in voting with none of the usual absentee ballot justifications.
By contrast, a GOP Congress could pass a law requiring photo ID for voting in all states. But then the Democrats and media would whine, and we wouldn't want that, right?
As Mark says: When the Democrats are elected, they hold power; when Republicans are elected, they hold office.
Clark, sadly I'm afraid you are mistaken. The section you name is, as you identify, about the election of House and Senate reps. The last part of the clause allows Congress to get involved (except as to place) because the Constitution was a compact agreed by the States, and it recognises that Senators and House members are Federal roles. The relevant bit for Presidential elections is Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which speaks of Electors. As Elector is not a federal role, this clause does not have an equivalent bit contemplating a role for Congress (and indeed in terms says that no Senator or House rep can be an Elector).- so we have to read that in around the scope expressly given to the States to determine for themselves the "manner" of choosing their Electors for President. See my post below on this.
True, but consider: If Congress passed a law saying that all voters for senators and representatives must present a photo ID, they would have the authority to do so. If a state wanted to work around that, they could try to cast votes for President on another day, or go through contortions like giving out a POTUS-only ballot to voters who waive their right to vote for senators and representatives, etc. Ditto for Congress regulating voting machines used to cast ballots for senators and representatives.
At that point, the burden is on the Vote Fraud Party. If they put their state's voters through a lot of trouble for the express reason of forgoing a photo ID, a lot of their own party's voters are not going to be happy with them, and their attempts at cheating will be even more transparent.
All it takes is a little courage in the GOP, which it usually lacks.
I like my own suggestions too, but what you say is all true, Clark. All the GOP needs is some forward planning, a little ingenuity and enough courage to withstand the headwinds of opprobrium and threats its members would undoubtedly face ... Hmm. What could possibly go wrong?
I like that Mark has people moderating these comments. I can't keep babbling on.
An interesting proposal, but among its many problems, it seems to hinge on the goodwill of the people who have come to power through the previous system -- and, even if they're bypassed, on the good will and moral probity of the people who'll run the new system. In a fallen world, that's a pretty weak hinge.
In addition, although it may eliminate the confusion caused by differing regulations and procedures in different states, it also eliminates the checks and balances of such a system and puts in place just the kind of centralized, monolithic agency that invariably becomes a self-protecting dictatorship in its own right, one that can create both confusion and corruption on an even grander scale. (Viz. the IRS, FBI, CIA, HHS, etc.) Better to have 50 different crooks fighting each other over their own territories than a single gang running the entire country. As the saying goes, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Part One
I didn't have space to address all the objections to American electoral reform in my piece. But since you raise a couple, I'll address them here.
1.) Electoral reform does not necessarily rely on the good will of people already in power. There are various ways to overpower whatever resistance they might put up. That can include everything from sustained public protests, public shaming, boycotts of influencers, etc., all the way to American-style violent revolution.
2.) To dismiss suggestion of electoral reform on grounds that any such reform will itself ultimately rest on the "good will and moral probity" of its future administrators, is to establish a standard which implicitly argues for *the utter futility of any political activity whatsoever, anywhere, at any time*, since all political activity will ultimately rely on some level of good will and moral probity.
This makes little sense. All human experience indicates that systems can and do influence outcomes. You can't take the humanity out of the humans running a system, but you *can* devise systems which produce better outcomes than others. That's the main argument, after all, for representative democracy over, say, dictatorship/absolute monarchy: better outcomes.
That different systems produce different outcomes is why, for example, a sports team can begin winning a much higher percentage of games once a new coaching staff shows up and *changes its playbook, strategies, etc.*, despite the player roster remaining the same. It's why companies perform better after an astute consultant implements streamlined operational procedures, etc.
3.) To your point about checks and balances:
There haven't been any presidential election "checks and balances" on Democrat-run metropolitian election processes, *ever*. And as a result of that, Democrats have reined supreme in those areas for decades. *They tamper with every election, but not only that - they tamper with total impunity*.
So you're arguing against attempting to improve a system which already is totally dysfunctional - which could hardly be worse. That is, anxiety that a proposed solution might not work is overwhelming your anxiety over a present reality *which already does not work*. And that, even where innumerable other political jurisdictions around the world provide examples of how to fraud-proof an election.
(More to come in Part Two)
Part Two
You write:
"Better to have 50 different crooks fighting each other over their own territories than a single gang running the entire country."
But this is to presume that rampant electoral malfeasance will occur no matter what systems are in place.
That presumption might have a basis within a particular nation in some time or place; but outside of local circumstances, there is no reason to presume that. There are many nations on earth in which have perfectly clean, secure, verifiable elections.
As I mentioned, federal elections in Canada are about as fraudproof as this mortal realm would ever allow.
Justin Trudeau might be a vainglorious, dangerous, airhead, but at least he was legitimately elected. Contrast that with Joe Biden, who might just wind up next January as America's 46th president. Will *he* have been legitimately elected?
Another point.
Yes, the federal agencies you mention now increasingly operate as inscrutable forces of corruption, incompetence, and malevolence. One reason for that, in the case of the intelligence agencies, is that to function, they require privacy, but that very privacy allows for outrageous misbehavior.
But no such need for privacy would attend, say, "Elections USA". They not only could, but absolutely should by legal requirement, administer elections with perfect transparency at all stages of operation. Implement a few simple, sensible such protocols, and you'd be light years ahead of the ballot-stuffing Democrats of Chicago, Baltimore, DC, and Detroit.
You ask who would watch the watchmen - but the answer is obvious: anyone and everyone who wanted, just as occurs in other nations, at all stages of process.
But if you are saying that even an "Elections USA" designed from the ground up to be rigorously non-partisan/impartial and fully transparent would *inevitably* turn into a corrupt, thuggish, partisan bureaucracy...
...then what you are really saying is that (A) no solutions will ever work, which is to say that (B) American elections will always be as inaccurate/corrupt as they are now, which is to say, (C) America simply cannot government itself - at least not without a completely different constitution - and is destined for some form of non-democratic regime.
But if (C) is the case, as you seem to imply, we (I'm an American citizen) might as well skip all the yap about elections and cut right to supporting, say, a would-be military dictator.
(I hear Michael Flynn just became available...).
Tal, I appreciate your objections to my objections, although I'm about to object a little again. This is really what we need -- the kind of scrutiny we apply to any important proposed solution to a problem, or, as Thomas Sowell would say, thinking beyond stage one. Sometimes a solution creates new problems. Again as Sowell would say, everything is a tradeoff.
So. Now that I've objected to your last 3 paras in Part Two, here's one point to consider. Our Nation was founded as a collection of states. The states act as checks and balances on each other. Even now, people are fleeing some of the blue states -- unfortunately, in some cases, thereby turning the red states purple or even blue (contra Macbeth "turning the green [or blue] one red"). And it's easier for "the people" of a state to reform a state than for "the people" of a nation to reform an entire sprawling nation such as the USA, which might actually take a revolution or civil war. We're always told to act small -- local elections are easier to swing than statewide, but local changes can influence the state. Same with state and national. State campaigns also cost less, so the political machines can sometimes be overturned. And yes, I know there are objections to this objection, too. I'm just doing some "yes, but" planning again.
Here's another point, which others have mentioned: I seriously doubt whether those who have grabbed power through the current system would agree to yield that power in order to change the system that brought them to power in the first place. To quote another truism, who will bell the cat? This isn't being defeatist. It's just looking squarely at what we have to work with.
Again, your proposals are interesting as starting points, if only to keep people looking for the best tradeoffs. By objecting to parts of ideas, we find what holds up under scrutiny. Thank you for taking the time to object to my objections.
Hello Phoebe
I hear you.
Let's start with the bottom line:
America's presidential elections are so fraught with vulnerability to fraud and error, that they do not meet the threshold for credibility. For that reason, they require significant revision, if not top-to-bottom reconstruction.
Let me pause to ask:
Do you agree with that so far? If not, why not?
Hi, Tal. I can't possibly answer your questions as you frame them. If I say "no," I seem to be denying that the current system is vulnerable to fraud and error, which is certainly not the case. But if I say "yes," I seem to be accepting your entire position that the system should be (and, by extension, can be) significantly overhauled or totally reconstructed -- which is what I'm questioning. As I said at one point, we must work with the world we have. And what we have is in-place fraud and corruption, as well as a power structure that has come into being through this fraud and corruption. Those in power are not likely to allow their system to be reconfigured or dismantled.
Like you, I have so many points to make -- and questions to counter-ask -- that I can't include them all in the comments section of a blog. But here are a few to start off:
1. We've already tried proposing some of your reforms within our current system, e.g., one-day in-person voting, voter ID, and purging voter rolls of dead and nonresident people. There have also been calls for non-computerized voting machines. In all these cases, cries went up about "voter suppression" and the usual accusations of racism (regardless of the demographic makeup of a given district). The courts in some cases have agreed with these cries. We've also had in place -- for years -- poll watchers, police presence at the polls, and double verifications. In the corrupt districts, as we've seen, all these precautions have been disregarded -- openly -- and no one has been able to do anything about it.
2. Since it's been so hard to work any reforms within the states that depend on voter fraud, it will be just as hard, if not harder, to get those states to agree to yielding their power to a central federal agency. And they do have to agree -- at least in the House and Senate, with enough votes to override a possible Presidential veto. If, however, a President attempts to create such an agency by executive order, the courts would tie up the whole process for years. Besides....
3. I return to my question of who will bell the cat. Who's going to propose such a thing? How will it be presented and to whom?
TO BE CONTINUED IN PART TWO
PART TWO:
(I've lost track of where my numbers left off, so I'll revert to unnumbered paragraphs.)
The fact remains that there are irreconcilable worldviews in play. We assume that everyone wants fair and just elections. Our opponents, however, want nothing of the sort. They don't even believe that there is a way of judging between ideas, because ideas aren't important. Only power is important, and only visceral reactions are valid. This is the postmodernist stance, and this is what we have to deal with. (Remember Harry Reid's response when he was asked whether he regretted lying about Mitt Romney's taxes? He said, "He didn't win, did he?") Furthermore, every time the left has succeeded in blocking a reform or getting away with skullduggery, it has become more emboldened and harder to counter. I can't see them yielding any power in the future, and, as Nancy Pelosi has said, they have "many arrows in [their] quiver."
So I think the best thing to do would be an attempt at enforcing the rules that exist rather than trying to undertake a major reconstruction of a system that should work but doesn't because of -- yes, I'll have to repeat this -- a lack of integrity and moral probity in some of its participants. But then we return to the lamentable facts: every attempted reform has been blocked with cries of voter suppression, partisan politics, racism, and so on. And we have not only the courts to contend with but also the growing censorship in the media. Have rallies and protests? The media ignores them or calls them neo-Nazi, the courts won't touch them, the politicians (for the most part) run and hide or are suppressed by the media, and so it goes. As the man says, you could look it up.
I honestly don't know how a reform can be done. But if a reform can't be done, how can an entire reconstruction be done? (That's a rhetorical question. Don't try to answer it.)
I'll leave it there. This is too big a matter to be 2500-charactered in comboxes. Once again, however, I appreciate your response even though I've raised objections to your objections to my objections. God bless you. (Am I allowed to say that?)
Hi Phoebe
You write:
"So I think the best thing to do would be an attempt at enforcing the rules that exist".
But that is just the thing that is impossible under the current system. Proposing that something happen, when the whole problem is that it cannot happen under the current system, and when you *also* say it's impossible to change that current system, doesn't get us anywhere, does it?
While we sit around convincing ourselves none of these things can be fixed, leftists are out there every day, changing America radically, in dozens, hundreds, thousands of different ways (which is to say, destroying it).
And this is why - to leapfrog backwards to a more fundamental topic - conservatives need a Theory of Power.
Power is where it all begins, no matter how reminiscent that sounds of the postmodernists we all loathe. The fact is - like Clint Eastwood at the beginning of "The Outlaw Josey Wales" - you can't win unless you get control of the Gatling Gun. Seize that, and you're winning. You can solve the problems.
But conservatives cannot shed their ambivalence toward the power inherent in government. As a result, their actions tend to result in the ceding of power to leftists, who then use it to destroy everything.
Conservatives must must must change this. They must change that part of their DNA. It is like weird suicidal "thought DNA".
I'm not arguing for the worship of power - a lust for power for power's sake. That would indeed be evil.
I'm arguing that conservatives must reconfigure their thinking on power from the ground up - get out of the thought-boxes - or they're going to be living in The United States of America-as-Venezuela soon. They need to accept the reality that without power, they're doomed; and because of that, acquiring power for righteous ends is itself a righteous endeavor.
What conservatives need is less libertarian sloganeering, less self-defeating circularities, and more strategic, determined, (occasionally ruthless) action.
Where conservatives don't acquire power and use it for good, leftists acquire it and use it for evil. It is that simple - and that's why conservatives must change.
Anyway, enough for now. Nice chatting.
As others observe here, the elephant in Bachman's room is the constitutional amendment required. And that won't happen any time soon. BUT ... the Constitution says states choose the "manner" of appointing electors, and I see no reason Congress couldn't pass a Voting Reform Act to say "ok, if you choose a method which involves electronic systems, their algorithms all need to be in the public domain" and "if you have voting booths, you need to ink people's fingers and can only accept those with voter ID". And so on. Some of this might eventually be ruled unconstitutional, but who knows? Lots can be done within the current Constitutional framework. The appetite has never been there in the GOP to do these things when it has had both Houses ... yet. This election (which will forever and rightly be known as stolen) is done, but it would be fitting if Trump's greatest legacy is to bring about real reform which ends the Eternally Growing Dem Steal once and for all.
Plainly electoral reform is needed in the USA, and Tal describes some very interesting proposed remedies, but that is not the matter before Americans today.
If this 2020 election confers power upon a candidate for President, upon the basis of fraud, then it may well be that not only is meaningful reform unlikely, but rather that fraud may be deepened and perpetuated in order to ensure that there cannot be any future transfer of power. Unless the Constitution is able to overturn the fraud at this election, that seems to me, much the likeliest outcome.
Now is surely the moment for every concerned US citizen to contact their own state congressmen and senators, to insist, respectfully but implacably, that any illegality or impropriety in this election, must be undone, and the elected offices at stake, conferred upon the rightful winners?
Representatives must be brought to understand that Americans will not tolerate officials who are elected upon the basis of fraud, will not cooperate with such officials and will not recognise their authority.
If the allegations now in the public domain are even half right, this means that President Trump won the vote, and should be inaugurated in January.
Yet another Canadian doing the job that Americans won't do, in terms of challenging the validity of the US election... much appreciated, Tal! Why even bother with "conservative" mainstream media?
It sounded like some pretty compelling evidence of electoral shenanigans was presented at the PA Senate hearing today, including the fact that 700,000 more mail-in/absentee ballots were returned and counted than were mailed out. Hoping - against hope - that Mark got to cover these "baseless" allegations on Fox...
PS. Matt Braynard's data analysis of multiple states - including invalid residential addresses, double voting, dead voters - leads him to conclude that it's impossible to have any confidence in the outcome, and he warns against the Russia-style voting system whereby "the regime decides" (YouTube - Voter Integrity Project.)
"Yes, I know this would require a constitutional amendment. But let's assume for now we could get one of those passed."
Why would any Democrat vote for it? They're doing quite well without it.
Stick a fork in it, America is dead. You just witnessed the raw power of the deep state when the people dared to send one of their own non-approved candidates to the WH. Mark has said it many times, this isn't just about Trump, this is about putting you and me in our place. The America our founders envisioned, the America I grew up in and loved - is dead.
Great as always, Tal.
Separating the Presidential voting from the rats and mice would be a first move.
Thumbprint or retinal scan or driver license to generate the ballot paper.
Paper only, ballots publicly counted and accounted for by the Army.
The elections are a TV ratings process, a game show. The frauds were outlandishly obvious, but only provable because the news media buy live feeds from the voting machines, aggregated and sold by "research" companies.
Most democratic countries have a single time zone - the USA suffers, because the left gets to see how the vote is going in the east and then rig the west, allied with the media (Fox and Arizona, for example).
Taking the media out of it - social media too - will be essential.
Unfortunately, the constitutional amendment hurdle is too big a barrier, for at least decades. You'd just as likely get an Article V convention of the states.
All is not lost however. Within the constitutional framework, state legislatures can do just about any magic they like in terms of selecting electors for the presidency. They don't even have to hold an election. They can decide themselves which electors to send. However, given the 14th Amendment along with existing civil rights, voting rights and motor voter laws, it should be possible for a strong DOJ (yeah, good luck with that) and a strong executive and a Congress not totally anxious to stab the President in the back (a lot of ifs), to insist on minimum standards for Federal elections. The Feds shouldn't care much about state and local. In the short term, it would be possible to tie federal funding to satisfying aforementioned standards. Eventually, legislation would be required, but a lot can be done right now. Not with a Harris-Biden administration, however.
None of this will happen, of course, unless there is an almighty stink about the ridiculous system that currently exists. In the final analysis, this is a political issue that has to be solved by the people. We have to make legislators, both state and federal, more afraid of real voters than the ones planted in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta cemeteries.
Tal as always I enjoyed the column. The saddest thing is the fact that the current system making our elections so vulnerable to fraud is not a bug to those in power but instead a feature. And in this year a system was put in place specifically to allow massive voter fraud. It's what's so maddening about the media's collective attempt to gaslight everyone by portraying anyone who points out the voter fraud that anyone with a brain can clearly see occurred as a crazy conspiracy theorist. The truth is that they committed the perfect crime and tossed the murder weapon into the bottom of the Marianas Trench where it can never be found.
Great article and research, Tal. But as others have already mentioned, it's a long shot this kind of reform would take place any time soon. It would take an act of Congress, and the Dems have drawn the long straw there for the time being. Even if there was some bipartisan committee formed, nothing meaningful would be accomplished because the Democrats want to keep voter fraud train rolling down the tracks.
If you recall, they were in lather over Stacy Abrams not winning the GA governorship in 2018 even though I'm sure they cheated there as well. Not only that, but they accused the GOP/Gov. Brian Kemp of voter fraud/suppression. Anytime common sense solutions are raised by Republican lawmakers to make elections safer and more honest, like verifying residency or showing an ID at the polls, they go nuts. They start with the racism and voter suppression accusations, file lawsuits, etc. Make no mistake, elections are their domain and they don't want anyone messing with it.
The only things that will force change and galvanize public opinion is if an election, such as the one we just witnessed, is overturned on incontrovertible evidence. And also people also need to go to prison and do time for felonies they've committed. But as we have seen with the Durham Report/Russia Hoax, Hillary's emails/Pay-to-Play Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, IRS targeting and harassment of conservatives/Tea Partiers, etc. Democrats do not go to jail and rarely face serious consequences for their misdeeds.
Madness soon becomes normal.
The Trump campaign assumed the Democrats would cheat: the point of all the frantic rallies was to build up a huge lead in legitimate votes in the swing states that the fake votes couldn't overcome.
They didn't foresee voting machine software that deleted votes for Trump.
Dinesh D'Souza asked the common sense question: why buy, why install, why put on line voting machines capable of changing the voting tallies? Other than cheating, what motivation could there be?
Luddite. Hater. Islamophobe. Arachnophobe. Climate denier. Laundromat.
My laundromat anecdote (before I die).
I was sitting in a Toronto laundromat, staring into space (my specialty). A woman across the street was walking her dog on the end of a long leash. She had succeeded in blocking the sidewalk. Another woman found this creep had blocked her path. She gave the offending dog a small boot in the arse. The dog moved on, and so did she. The ignorant dog walker began screaming (I could hear her, across the street, behind glass and over the traffic noise). I imagine the dog walker shared her ordeal of animal cruelty for many years thereafter.
If you love walking dogs, or doing laundry, this is my gift to you.
Brilliant. I'll treasure it, E. Million thanks. I'll think of you whenever I kick a dog or do the laundry. The latter is a weekly event; the former, owing to my increasing clumsiness, more irregular.
With me, madness became normal long ago. Take care.
Just don't kick the laundry and do the dog.
:D !!!!
Excellent, Tal. While I'm skeptical about all the statistical anomalies we've seen coming out of this election, (Biden's vote totals violating Benford's law in swing-state metropolitan areas, Trump winning 18 of the 19 bellwether counties that had voted for the presidential winner since 1980, Biden's raw vote total vs the Democrats in the house failing to win a single toss-up, etc), the one thing I can't get, the one thing I really have no clue about and can't wrap my head around, is why in the world do we transport ballots from one location to another? How much money do we spend on elections, and we can't get someone to pick up an extra shift to count votes until the job is done? Maybe there's a reason and I don't know it, but I doubt it's a good one
In Taiwan the vote counting is broadcast on live tv, with each party verifying every vote. We can't go to that extreme here, but at least it should be video taped for later review.
Such sound sense. Thanks.
Amazing that the need for improvement is so obvious at election-time, but absolutely nothing is done about it between elections. Frankly, to outgoing presidents who set up a hue and cry about the system after their defeat, I'd want to say, "You did nothing about it. You live with it," but I suppose that too late is better than never.
Maybe this time, as Liza Minnelli sang.
Meanwhile, I'd suggest that these snags need to be treated as problems to be solved, not as evidence that America has degenerated into a banana republic. In banana republics, whole swathes of the population can't vote at all. America has solved more difficult problems, and far more widespread crookery, than this one.
Post scriptum: It doesn't surprise me to learn that the majority of people convicted of voter fraud over the past two decades are largely Democrats (presumably supporters as well as party members). What else would you expect from people who expect the state to plunder honest people on their behalf, and unions to extort higher wages and limit performance expectations as a matter of routine?
In America, whole swathes of banana republics can vote.
You're on form, as always, O.
I heard of a case from many years ago in the UK, when Harold Wilson, then not yet Labour leader, or PM, was up for re-election. Although Huyton (just outside Liverpool) was and remains the sort of place where a Two-toed Sloth could get elected, just as long as it was wearing a red rosette, somebody still tried to fiddle the system at the count. On to a pile of votes counted for the Conservative candidate, somebody added a few Labour ones and shifted the pile to Wilson's side. The subterfuge was detected, however. In other words, the system worked, despite one individual's attempt at deceit.
We hear of the case in the 3rd November election where 6000 Trump votes were flipped to Biden through an "innocent user error." Well, I don't buy that innocence, in a month of Sundays, but in what kind of electoral system can it even be possible to switch thousands of votes from one column to another, whether in error, or by design? These computerised machines permit adjustments and are open to all sorts of tampering. They are even connected to the internet. Why? Does the voting machine need to browse a few cat videos on Youtube, while the Democrats give Cranky Joe another hundred thousand votes, in the wee, small hours?
If the failings of the US voting systems are not exposed this time, I fear it will be too late. I absolutely agree with Tal Bachman that states' rights really don't justify a zillion different ways of handling elections - not if voters' rights are sacrificed in the process. The problems could be infectious, too. Since, in the UK, we use the old pencil and paper thing, the opportunities for cheating are fewer and still as likely to be detected as in Harold Wilson's day. Nevertheless, the readiness to accept doctored results is there. The UK's Telegraph had an item about US election results and dismissed Trump's complaints as "baseless" and "without evidence." Not only was this supposed to be straightforward reporting, not opinion, but the vocabulary itself, as well as the sentiment, had been lifted straight from American media. If a British government saw fit to switch to computerised voting, I shouldn't trust our media to keep the system honest.
Well said, O. In Australia, the ABC (Australian BC, just to be clear) never speaks of President Trump's claims of election fraud without inserting the term "baseless". We're world leaders, us. We're miles past jumping to judgement, miles past the lady protesting too much: the state-funded media here make themselves complicit in election fraud by denying its possibility.
Tal, you say "federal elections," so you mean there would be no more than three contests on the ballot: congressional rep (every election), president (every other election), and U.S. senator (two out of every three elections)?
Would even that be too much complication for use of a single paper ballot per voter? Would you, instead, have one, two, or three paper ballots per voter, depending upon the year, so there was just one candidate race on any particular sheet of paper?
Restricting the proceedings to **federal** elections would get around one obvious practical difficulty that's bothered me: As it is, our ballots contain **many** candidate races and, sometimes, ballot measures -- so that hand counts would be extremely involved.
I'm entirely in favor of paper ballots and hand counts, but I'd like to see some further specifics.
In Montana -- at least in Gallatin County (Bozeman) -- we use large-sheet paper ballots on which we ink in ovals to vote, then feed the ballot into an optical-reader machine that also captures and stores the ballot. But of course it's occurred to me that I have no idea if the machine is treating my ballot "honestly." Hand counts, if practical, are really the only way to go.
I recall that, when the California primary took place for the post of Governor, the Democrats were quite relieved that a Republican candidate remained on the ballot. According to my limited understanding of these things, with the governor's job too obviously being in the bag for the Democrats, Democrat voters might have not bothered to turn up to vote at all, at which point the Democrats might have missed out on the ticks/crosses/blotches/hanging chads or whatever the heck else passes for electoral procedure in CA. There was so much baggage on the ballot paper, that the Democrats were confident that the voters who selected Newsom at the top would continue to do the same for everything else on the (D) wishlist.
Americans elect far more officials than we British do, which may or may not be a good thing, but why not split up the votes more? Instead of having ninety-five choices to make on a ballot, how about putting them to separate elections, so that people take more time to think about individual candidates, rather than doing that down-the-ballot thing?
Any movement toward electoral integrity will be met with a big beautiful wall of Democrat opposition. One person's illegal voter is another person's suppressed voter. I don't even the Democrats would deny that; they're out and proud for universal suffrage. They have the same attitude toward citizenship, or rather its abolition (at least as America is concerned). Mark likes to cite (Herbert) Stein's (sic) Law: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." America cannot go on as a republic with contempt for elections and scorn for citizenship. Short of Trump snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, she will stop.
Generally agree with your points, Tal. One thing I must have missed was the principle of one vote per citizen. People without proof of citizenship are not eligible to vote, without exception. If the vote is important to a citizen, there is plenty of time to establish their bona fides before the next election.
By the way, a friend's daughter married an illegal alien, and she, he, and his entire chain-reaction illegal immigrant family were mailed ballots here in Washington a couple months ago. This fraud should be prosecuted rather than promoted -- both the "voters" and the ones who sent the ballots to non-citizens, should be prosecuted.
I see someone beat me to it. But I'll comment anyway. Bachman, Beall, Vankin. Great ideas, but, with all due respect.... Ideas that, if implemented, will keep the US from going over the cliff with Democrats at the wheel? To quote somebody, "It ain't gonna happen." If Americans couldn't install an accurate (fair has nothing to do with it), one-vote-per-citizen-voter voting system, it will never happen with the Marxist, big-government, socialist, totalitarian crowd in charge. Stick a fork in it.
Gotta agree Michael. Tal's column is great as usual but there is no American republic left to maintain. Old America required two political parties loyal to the Constitution. It also required a reasonably fair minded press. It's all gone and will recede further in the rear view mirror very quickly. If anyone wants to bet that the Republicans even hold the Senate, I'm giving odds they don't. There once was a time all this might have been avoided. That time is over. No need for new election guidelines. Just masks...
I fear this is right ... given the likelihood we'll never have another Republican President, much less majorities in both legislatures to go with, a new Federal election process will be something designed by Pelosi et al. to make the fraud even easier to carry out.
Oh ye of little faith, M., J. and M. Truly, this is the golden age of journalism. Let's rejoice. Democracy will be dying in daylight.
The Obama years were a golden age for both parties in the Congress.
The Democrats had a mixed race President. They felt very good about themselves (by far the most important consideration for liberals - high self-regard), and opposition could be dismissed as racism.
The Republicans had a very unpopular leftist President. Raising money and winning Congressional elections was easy, especially after Obamacare.
The Republicans have Kamala pencilled in as Obama 2.0. The dopey Republican voters will fall for this, as always.
Yes. I foresee a rich vein of one-term presidencies (with putative President-elect Biden sharing his with putative Substitute-president-elect Harris). Not much of golden age in that.
Perhaps after all President Trump will be recorded in future history books as the first in that succession, and not merely as the fellow who finally blew the American fiscus out of the water. That's just as well, because putative President-elect Biden seems determined to have the last word on blowing the fiscus out of the water, with the accomplished help of Mr John Kerry, Democrat contender for the title of microcephalic macro-manager mastermind of the moment.. Mr Biden will evidently enjoy the advantage of delayed cost of the 'flu idiocy to cement his bid on the title.
I employ the term "enjoy" advisedly, not least because not many honest people will be employing it with reference to their own circumstances.
You haven't mentioned the dangers of mass postal-voting. The opportunities for fraud and manipulation it offers are huge.
Agree ... some provision needs to be made for overseas military, the disabled, and I suppose for expat citizens. But it needs to be a rigorous system with higher rather than lower levels of checks to ensure any mailed votes are truly cast by eligible persons with a legitimate basis for being unable to attend an approved local polling place in person.
I am just watching Mark filling in for Tucker.
A few days ago Tucker was looking for proof of election fraud.
This morning I watched a hearing from Pennsylvania with sworn witnesses explaining very articulately the disturbing goings on when they were observers at the Nov 3 election. Their testimony was astonishing.
I admit I was making supper at the time - did I miss out on the detailed discussion of the hearing on the Tucker show?
Great article, however this sort of thing should have been enacted maybe 50 or so years ago. As you have also pointed out " It also needs an exhaustive investigation—although by whom, I don't know anymore". Considering the complete disinterest the various federal agencies have expressed in a range of issues over the last 4 years that deserved their attention, that is not going to happen, especially on something that is going to guarantee the left free reign on power for the foreseeable future.
I really hate making these doom and gloom observations. I love the US and all it stands for or has stood for in the past. However it appears that , as Mark puts it, whilst you were sleeping the left has helped itself.
We have achieved full Banana Republic.
Cue Jimmy Buffett. Building a nation is tough and costly, dismantling it is easy. Go over to Prager U for a main reason... lack of gratitude for what the USA has and offers. Cue Joni Mitchell...go don't know what you got until it's gone. The Left has learned how to steal on a national basis from top to bottom. Why change when the goal of permanent supremacy is just one or two elections away? Free and fair elections are for losers.