Should voting be made easier?

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2021-03-02 14:00

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan show little sympathy for the Arizona Republican Party and Arizona Attorney General's arguments at the Supreme Court today.

By Carolyn Yeager

Voting should actually be a little more difficult than it is now, in order to stall off corruption from either political party.

Today, the US Supreme Court is hearing an election reform case from Arizona: Brnovich v. DNC, defending two voting requirements that the Democratic National Committee says cause racial disparaties in voting.

These two current requirements being challenged are 1) that voting can only take place in one's assigned precinct (something we're all used to as it's always been the case) and 2) putting limits on organized 'ballot trafficking' by limiting who may 'collect' a voter's early ballot.

Arizona's law says that only election officials, mail carriers, family or household members, or caregivers, may 'collect' a voter's early ballot (meaning deliver it to the proper election office). The Democrat Party wants party workers, or really anyone, to be able to 'collect' a voter's early ballot and mail it or turn it in to precinct election officials for the voter. This is also called 'ballot harvesting,' and is clearly a way to 'collect' ballots from lots of poor, uneducated people who maybe don't even speak English or follow political campaigns at all, by literally bringing them a ballot, helping them fill it out and place into the right envelopes, and then put it in the mail for them. It's easy to see how this can be abused. Even those few named above who are now legally allowed to handle another individual's ballot can take advantage of those they help in this way if they wish.

To those ones, I have some sympathetic understanding that I wouldn't otherwise have due to my being in a hospital in-patient rehab in late October-early November 2016 after surgery for a broken hip. Being an avid Trump supporter, I worried whether I could get to the polling location on Nov. 8th, so I arranged for a friend to bring me an absentee ballot. It was not as easy as it sounds. I first had to wait for a hospital doctor to fill out and mail in a form confirming that I was indeed a non-ambulatory patient there. To make a long story short, I ended up filling out two ballots brought by two different people because I failed to follow directions on the first one before I sealed the envelope. I then worried that both my ballots would be disqualified based on voting twice, but there was nothing more I could do. In the end, it didn't matter because Trump carried Texas by a healthy margin – it's just that I wanted to know my vote was a part of it.

Because of this, I can appreciate the wide variety of things that can go wrong in spite of good intentions. The difference is that I was well-up on the issues and wanted to vote, while 'ballot trafficking' goes after people who have little to no interest, and in many cases little knowledge of the candidates, who would not bother to vote unless a paid party person comes to them and does it all for them. This is called “overcoming voter suppression”? It's more a distortion of the “will of the people,” is it not? Voting should (must) result from some volition on the voter's part. It cannot be passive – there must be an active impetus on the part of the voter. It's understood that a certain amount of overcoming is involved in any “act,” in contrast to simply signing your name on a piece of paper provided to you. What kind of citizens are we creating if that's all we ask of them?

A ruling by the court is not due until the end of June.

Be assured that this is just the beginning of the “reform” of election laws desired by the Democrat Party, under cover of 'racial equality' and guaranteeing 'one man, one vote.' The latter slogan means that no one gets more than one vote, not that everyone is required to vote whether they want to, care to, or not.

Further down the line, we're also looking at House Bill HR1. It's provisions contain the undoing of state-mandated voter identification laws, and also allowing unchecked ballot trafficking by paid operatives, as I've described above. Both the Supreme Court debate and decision, and HR1 should have our attention and concern.

Let me add that I do not understand those who claim to be part of the White identity movement who recommend that we forget voting, forget government, let it fall by the wayside because it's not on our side. They foolishly predict (or hope) that when the U.S. does collapse, “Whites” can form their own colonies, or states, or nations on its ashes. What a far-fetched, irresponsible idea! I am ashamed that such thinking is being pandered about by so many White groups. There are many fine white men and women in government who want to preserve our historic traditions and laws, even if they can't speak everything out in plain words. These ones need our support. That is the only reasonable way to go. Step by step.


US elections


"No Republicans joined with Democrats in approving the bill, H.R. 1."

"I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of the 2020 election."

"Polling shows that large numbers of Democrats did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election and that large numbers of Republicans still do not trust the outcome of the 2020 election."

"The tragic events of Jan. 6 ... deprived the American people of a substantive discussion in Congress about election integrity in America."

"HR 1 is an unconstitutional, reckless, and anti-democratic bill that would erode [our] foundational principles and could permanently damage our republic."

"To restore public confidence in our elections, our leaders should uphold the Constitution, reject congressional Democrats’ plan to nationalize our elections, and get about the serious work of state-based reform that will protect the integrity of the vote for every American."

Hi Carolyn,
This comment:  "To restore public confidence in our elections, our leaders should uphold the Constitution, reject congressional Democrats’ plan to nationalize our elections, and get about the serious work of state-based reform that will protect the integrity of the vote for every American."  is the usual empty, vacuous, idealistic abstraction of "We should...."  etc., etc., etc.  There is no strategy or tactic.  No action orientation.
My view, the larger, more focused on root cause, is that One Man, One vote is the death slow acting toxin for any society.  The Pyramid's base is the larger population, containing the less educated, less intelligent, less self actuating, more confused, less information, and generally more emotionally driven in making decisions-over logic, evidence, empirical data, etc.
Why should their vote (which includes the mentally deranged, chronically unemployed, drug addicted and sociopaths, be given the same vote as the productive, sentient, and superior person??  I hate empty rhetoric, and virtue signalling.  It's like an endless soppy pop song, "Let's get together, come on, come on, let's get together.  Yeah, yeah."
This my first visit to your website, and I am impressed very favorably.

Just kidding. I don't think it's fair to judge Mike Pence's commentary criticizing HR1 on such narrow grounds. As a political figure, he is in no position to question "one-man, one-vote" which is a staple of U.S. "Democracy" for a very long time. He's not "virture-signaling" but is opposing the virtue-signaling in the Bill. That's the best one can expect from contemporary politicians, and you must know that.

I think that having voting requirements in place, such as photo voter ID, having to vote in person in your own precinct (unless there are extraordinary circumstances that prevent it), using paper ballots which are also used in recounts, etc. would cut down on what you call the "mentally deranged, chronically unemployed, drug addicted and sociopaths" in the voting booths. It would even cut down on those who have no real interest in the outcome, not enough to go to the trouble. This includes a lot of young people.

But I don't agree with your idea that "the less educated, less intelligent, less self actuating, more confused, less information, and generally more emotionally driven" (in whose estimation?) should be prevented from voting. And it would never be accepted in this country. Many men who hold your views would also preclude women from the vote. If an adult wants to vote, and goes to the trouble to do so, that is reason enough for them to be able to.

If you feel strongly about this issue, what are you doing about it, in the political arena?

Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America:

The New York Times did a story today [Sat. March 20] saying that various Republican groups, many of them outstanding, are rallying on false claims that conservative activists are finding that the best way to raise money and keep voters engaged is to make Donald J. Trump’s biggest fabrication, Election Fraud, their top priority. Sadly, the Election was Rigged, and without even going into detail, of which there is much, totally game changing. Democrats could not get Republican Legislatures in Swing States to approve many of the voting changes which took place before the Election, which is mandated under the Constitution of the United States. For that reason alone, we had an Illegitimate Election. The Supreme Court and other Courts were afraid to rule, they were “gutless,” and will go down in history as such. No wonder so much money is being raised on this issue, and law-abiding people have every right to do so!