Biden’s promise to update Voting Rights Act hits Senate roadblock
President Joe Biden's campaign promise to update the Voting Rights Act has hit a roadblock in the Senate today, threatening a key campaign promise made by Biden about civil rights.
Biden's live statement to press --- https://www.c-span.org/video/?517237-1/ … ing-rights
Once again President Biden stuck his neck out on Capitol Hill today to attempt to save his wounded agenda. Just as he tried to resolve myriad disputes on his domestic spending plan BBB, Biden is wading directly into a protracted battle within his own party over weakening the Senate filibuster. After flip-flopping from defender to a critic of the chamber's 60-vote requirement to pass most bills — which has been a roadblock to many of his top priorities — Biden today visited Senate Democrats to emphatically argue for changing the Senate rules to pass a party-line election reform bill.
However, it appears impossible for the president to move two of his party's most ardent filibuster defenders, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) or Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), off their defense of the Senate’s supermajority requirement.
As he left the meeting this afternoon he was clearly pissed off and gave a few words that indicated his visit was unsuccessful. And then he left without answering questions from the press. He did state --- "I hope we can get this done. The honest to god answer is I don't know whether we can get this done," Biden said. "I hope we can get this done, but I'm not sure. But one thing for certain, like every other major civil rights bill that came along if we miss the first time we can come back and try a second time." Source for Biden statement -- https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics … index.html
And then the cherry on top of today's Choco - Choco - Chip sundae --- the Supreme Court followed his lousy day with a ruling that blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its sweeping vaccine-or-test requirements for large private companies. ( He lucked out here because IMO, this was going to be another problem that would lead to disaster, and a lower confidence poll for Biden).
However, the conservative-majority court allowed similar requirements to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments. ( This mandate will lead to mare healthcare shortages, and a large problem for Biden, one he created, once again himself.)
It would seem his agenda is very much stuck in the mud.
Should he continue with, what appears to be failing political strategies or reevaluate those strategies?
And -- Where does Biden go from here to keep his campaign promises?
For me, this goes beyond President Biden's agenda and will be an issue for the legislative agendas of presidents going forward regardless of party. The issue is the Filibuster.
Empowering a minority to routinely strangle legislation favored by the majority is counterproductive, even eroding democracy.
First, it violates the central democratic principle of majority rule. It allows a minority of 41 senators to control the legislative process and prevent the majority from passing bills. A good example of this was a 2013 Senate bill to expand background checks for gun ownership – something supported by a huge majority of Americans. The Senate voted 54 to 46 to pass the bill, but the measure failed because it did not meet the artificial 60 vote threshold necessary to stop a Republican filibuster. The 46 senators who blocked the bill represented 65 million Americans, while the 54 senators who supported the bill represented 250 million Americans!
But the unfairness of this kind of minority rule can be even worse than that. You can get 41 senators from small states that represent as little as 10% of the American electorate. This means that one in ten Americans can block bills that nine out of ten Americans want. This built in ability to frustrate the political will of the overwhelming majority is a ridiculous situation in any country which calls itself a democracy.
It is being used to strangle the federal government and it undermines efforts to create a healthy and functioning democracy in this country.
We have effectively substituted rule by majority, which is what the founders intended, for tyranny of the minority with the filibuster. Filibuster rules allowing 41 senators to halt legislation effectively empower a group of Republican senators representing just 22% of the population to gridlock the government. We need change on this.
President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused. Yet, his own party used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020.
MITCH MCCONNELL: "Twenty years ago, there was no talk, none whatsoever, of tearing down long-standing minority rights on legislation. The legislative filibuster is a crucial part of the Senate. Leading Democrats like President Biden himself have long defended it. Democrats themselves just spent six years using it liberally to block bills from Senator Tim Scott's police reform to coronavirus relief. And less than four years ago, when it was Republicans who held the Senate, the House, and the presidency, 27 current Democrats, plus Vice-President Harris, signed a letter insisting this long-standing rule should not be broken."
In my view, the filibuster has served us well and promoted open discussion, and is a great tool for the people's voices to be heard, even if in the minority.
It would appear the Founders believed that passions alone are not necessarily reliable guides to pass laws. They believed and encouraged deliberation. To the extent that we jettison greater deliberation, like that which the filibuster forces upon the Senate. The filibuster slows down the Senate and makes them think carefully before they act.
Many people believe a filibuster is an important tool for the minority party to block the majority from enacting its agenda unilaterally. By empowering the minority, the Senate maintains strong checks and balances on the legislative. When the Senate is up against a bill that appears a 50/50 split it alerts them that half of American's are for, half are against... The filibuster allows for debate, and yes in most incidence the bill will be shot down, in reality, to just keep a close minority happy. But, one must consider when a bill is so split, would it be wise to even entertain passing it? The filibuster is there to respect the people especially when the minority comes close to being tied with the majority. To keep the people's wishes, one must realize that perhaps half the country would not be pleased with the law, and perhaps just consider it as a split, and can the bill.
If the minority is far from the majority as a rule a bill will pass without a problem. So the majority, as a rule, wins out, as they should. It just becomes a problem when there is a very close split in support. This is where the filibuster is useful.
I feel the filibuster is an important tool to keep a fine balance in Congress being able to represent the citizens they were sent to Washington to represent. Ultimately that is Congresses job.
Thank you Faye for commenting, your comments always make me stop and think...
But the Senate does not "control" the legislative process; it can only control what is deemed undesirable and therefore not enacted into law. Even the entire Senate cannot enact a law with 100% vote...if the House disapproves.
If a bill cannot garner support from at least 60% of Senators, can it actually be a good bill? Should a tiny majority (51%) be able to control the entire country, or should we require that only laws with considerably more support be enacted? Do we no longer concern ourselves with the minority, protecting their rights and wishes as well as a majority? And finally, are we a republic of states or just a conglomerate of people that will run roughshod over any minority opinions at will?
Sharlee & Wilderness, I appreciate all the points that you brought up. There are valid and this is a large, multifaceted issue.
Let me just hit on one part of it for consideration:
Right now, the Senate is split evenly in half, but the 50 Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republican senators.
By 2040, if population trends continue, 70% of Americans will be represented by just 30 senators, and 30% of Americans by 70 senators.
That has lots of implications, such as for the Senate filibuster, where a party that represents a shrinking minority of voters can block almost all major legislation.
We will have this sort of turbocharged minority rule. An institution chosen by people who were picked by a minority of the citizens. That's not a sustainable model for a representative democracy, is it?
I'm struggling to see how the majority, in terms of the sheer number of people Is really being represented?
You may want to study some history.
Specifically, James Madison and his belief of the Tyranny of the Majority. You need to understand the United States is NOT a democracy. In this case the majority of people make all the decisions. The United States is a Representative Republic. People elect representative to represent their voice in government.
"The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances. A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority."
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/c … e-majority
If you simply let the majority constantly rule without the influence of the minority opinion, they would constantly be in power. The states with the smaller populations would not feel their voice was heard or that they had any say in government. When this happens, populations of smaller states would break from the union. Our country would be severely weakened.
Like it or not, the voice of the smaller populations being heard is essential to keep our country united.
The filibuster is essential. The Democrats complain about it NOW because they have 50 senators. How will they feel about it when they're the minority party in the Senate? How will they feel about it when Republicans can't pass legislation Democrats don't like because they can't get 60 votes? They'll praise the filibuster.
The political pendulum swings both ways from election cycle to election cycle. It's the way it's been since the beginning of the country.
I understand history quite well. Yes, James Madison in Federalist #51 worried about the “tyranny of the majority,” but what we have now is “tyranny of the minority.” The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule. Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.
We are sliding into minority rule:
Republicans have won the popular vote for president only once in the last 20 years but have controlled the presidency for 12 years of those two decades.
The House of Representatives does represent by population, but the number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1929 when the population of the U.S was one-third the current size. Adjustments should be made.
Republican senators represent 144,725,500 voters while
Democratic senators represent 186,274,500 voters.
Quite honestly, The more that Republicans find themselves in the national minority, the more they resort to such anti-democratic tactics as racial gerrymandering, selective closure of polling places, racially targeted voter ID requirements, phantom allegations of voter fraud, and extralegal purges of the voter rolls, as well as routine use of the filibuster.
It is more than apparent we have already slid into minority rules. This is not new, in any respect. It would seem like many flip-flops back and forth when it benefits a narrative. Congress shows so much hypocrisy in regard to using the filibuster in my view they appear foolish to take a podium and change their views so frequently.
"The filibuster, which allows the Senate minority party to block legislation by refusing to end debate, has been used by both Democrats and Republicans, almost always while occupying the Senate minority.
While filibusters are used frequently, they are only recorded when a cloture vote is called by the majority party, which can end a debate with 60 votes.
During the 2019-2020 Congressional term, a record-breaking 328 filibusters were recorded with Democrats in the minority.
Since 2009, 657 filibusters were recorded under Democratic minorities while 609 filibusters were recorded under Republican minorities.
Research by Slate on filibusters between 1991 and 2008 found that Democrats successfully filibustered 63 times while Republicans successfully filibustered 89 times."
https://repustar.com/fact-briefs/do-bot … ilibusters
As you see the Democrats used the filibuster in 2020 328 times a record-breaker. So, where do we go as citizens to be heard on the perhaps overuse of the filibuster? It has become a tool to freeze a president's agenda.
Ultimately the Senators are supporting their parties' agenda. Most of the time citizens approve of the filibuster being used if it pushes their party agenda. Is this not the truth? I can remember in 2020 Democrats well supporting the filibuster when it suited them. As I am thankful for it now, due to being firmly against BBB and the Voters Act. The tool is very handy when it suits one's purpose. The country is divided, and it's clear the filibuster is stopping bills on both sides. exsample
"However, Senate Democrats had no problem using the filibuster when the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, meant to mandate` care be provided for babies that survive an abortion attempt, was being pushed by Senate Republicans. Forty-one Democratic senators voted to block the born-alive bill by filibustering the legislation and preventing it from advancing to a floor vote."
Would have you personally wanted this to pass into law? I did...
But, I looked at it as perhaps half the country did not want this to pass, and moved on.
In regard to gerrymandering --- You do realize that we just had a 10-year census done. I assume when you speak of gerrymandering you may be referring to Georgia? When a state's population grows they are by Federal law to redraw the district lines as that population grows.
Please consider this --- Georgia's 14 United States representatives and 236 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal LAW stipulates that districts MUST have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Do you feel states should ignore Federal law?
Hopefully, you have looked into some of the new voter laws in some of the states you may be concerned with. All states post their voting laws.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head for me Plus given me much more to chew on but I'll try to tackle that later.
This is the essence of the filibuster issue for me: This poll as well as others that I won't overburden this post with clearly show that a majority of Americans favor the voting rights bill. Yet it is being stymied by the minority party. Views/ positions of the minority are clearly subverting the majority. Plus as I said earlier it's also very frustrating to see that there was no real effort to negotiate or deliberate on the bill. Even Senator Sinema really missed the mark in her speech, seeking more to shine a spotlight on herself than provide a real path forward to bipartisanship. Yes, the filibuster is being treated as an immediate button to push stop on any bill rather than the true deliberative mechanism it was intended to be. Shame on many of them at this point.
The Freedom to Vote Act, which will be brought up this week in the Senate? Many of its core provisions receive majority support from Americans :
— Expanding access to early voting: 65% support, 23% oppose
— Prohibiting partisan gerrymandering: 64% support, 19% oppose
— Making it illegal to prevent someone from registering to vote: 62% support, 24% oppose
— Making Election Day a federal holiday: 61% support, 26% oppose
— Expanding same-day voter registration: 56% support, 30% oppose
— Expanding access to voting by mail: 55% support, 35% oppose
— Allowing Americans with prior criminal convictions to vote: 54% support, 32% oppose
— Expanding automatic voter registration: 51% support, 33% oppose.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/pl … hts-495693
I want to be very clear though if the parties were reversed on this, I would still feel the same. My problem is with a minority party and in this case representing a minority of the population killing a bill that has support by a majority of Americans by way of the filibuster. I don't know the value of a mechanism that seems to be increasingly used for purely partisan reasons.
"Plus as I said earlier it's also very frustrating to see that there was no real effort to negotiate or deliberate on the bill."
This is what I said earlier; there is no effort being made on hardly anything to compromise and come to a solution acceptable to all with no one "clicking their heels" happy. This is not the fault of the rules; it is the fault of massive division, massive concern for party politics and an attitude of "my way or the highway". When it becomes like that isn't it best NOT to implement legislation that only 51% of the Senate approves of?
Example: You approve of the bill - would you vote for the same things you listed but without the final four? You show over 60% support for the first 4, would you accept only those? Our legislature won't; they will demand nothing less than all of it...and then fail to get any of it, blaming the other party for their terrible, evil decision not to support something that 90% of Americans want and the nation so desperately needs. Or so they will claim; that is always the claim.
I completely agree with your thought on real negotiation and deliberation. You are correct, I see no real efforts being made to come to an acceptable agreement on the voting bill. We will continue essentially to see all majority proposals struck down by simply invoking the filibuster. This is the antithesis of deliberating over a legislative matter. It is also not what, in my opinion, the Founding Fathers intended to be the hallmark of legislative action by the Senate.
The founders thought that political parties were politically detrimental to good government. They neither made them a part of the government they were creating, nor did they mention them in the Constitution. They envisioned a Congress made up of individuals, not members of a political party, elected to represent groups of constituents. The founders anticipated that the senators would deliberate, and I emphasize that word, to decide all legislative matters before them. But this has not happened. It’s time to eliminate the filibuster rule or modify it. Make it difficult for obstructionists to delay action preferred by the majority, such as placing the burden upon filibustering senators to sustain a filibuster and instead forcing filibustering senators to stay on the Senate floor and actually debate.
The original filibuster, known as the talking filibuster, required Senators to stand up for their principles through real debate and ensured the minority had their voices heard. Interestingly, they seem to not want their voices heard. Why? Because they know that The proposed voting rights legislation is supported by a majority of Americans. But nonetheless I think they should be required to speak and go on record in terms of their opposition.
In terms of supporting a stripped down or reworked bill. Yes, I would support whatever comes out of legitimate negotiation. I want to see a functioning government.
Majority of Americans also want voter ID laws, which this doesn't provide.
I wonder why?
POLL: Majority of Dems, Non-White Voters Support Voter ID Laws
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-de … 29851.html
Do you feel states should ignore Federal law?
No, they should not and that's at the basis of my concern around gerrymandering.
District maps shouldn't be toyed with or manipulated to the detriment of voters.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently got it right when they said:
"When the dealer stacks the deck in advance, the house usually wins."
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/01/ … ander.html
l admit I have not researched the new Ohio map. Although, I do know there are rules that need to be followed to reconfigure a map, and mostly it is configured on population. Perhaps the census promoted them to mess around with their map. I do know Ohio in 2020 took a share red turn. Not sure why they would need to cook the books.
"District maps shouldn't be toyed with or manipulated to the detriment of voters."
Toyed with or changed due to population as the law requires?
I will need to look into the link you offered. Did they skirt laws in making the new map?
In a 4-3 decision on Friday, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered state lawmakers to draw a new congressional map, saying the one signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in November violates the state’s new anti-gerrymandering rules, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2018.
This really gets me because it flies in the face of voter approved legislation against this very thing.
Politics is a dirty game.
Ballot stuffing has always gone on, and with the changes made for the 2020 election it has never been easier to "fix" elections.
Computers that have no paper trail are easy to manipulate, Mail-In Ballots are easy to manipulate, and when one extends an election well past its end date, all sorts of efforts can be made by all sorts of unscrupulous individuals.
I am not going to debate the matter, but I do want to point out that without those changes made to how the election was run, in PA for example, Trump would have won the state, not Biden. PA is not the sole state where this is the case.
In my opinion voting should be made harder, not easier. Voting should be like anything else of value that you hold dear, something you have to work to maintain... like a Driver's License, a Professional License, etc.
You should be made to give some token effort at least, with proof of identification being given at the voting site. Extra-ordinary effort should be made to verify the legitimacy of any ballot not cast in person.
It shouldn't be as simple as having access to a cellphone and you click on an App to vote, it should not be as simple as requesting a Mail-In ballot and then mailing it in.
How many elderly suffering with dementia or some other ailment had a Mail-In ballot cast for them by a clever relative? How many false Mail-In ballots were created and then added to the count? How many computers that tallied the ballots are tampered with?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi … g-n1112436
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauma … e-n2581624
The more effort is made to make sure 'anyone and everyone can vote' the more certain you can be that the politics and policies that shape our country will not be beneficial to the wellbeing of the nation... when those who are responsible individuals that contribute in good faith and effort to our society have their votes diluted or fraudulently changed, then you no longer have a system that will serve the people, in particular the working class that uphold the pillars of society and keep it functional. Instead it will serve the interests of those who "count the votes".
I think you hit the nail on the head. Voting is a privilege and should be made more difficult than easier. It is very obvious Biden'svoting bill would have made it very easy to commit voting fraud, actually encouraging it.
That bill is over 800 pages, and the media dishes up a couple of tidbits...They do not go into the weeds of the bill.
As of the June 2, 2020, primary election, all 67 of the Pennsylvania's counties have deployed voting systems that produce voter-verifiable paper records and meet 21st-century standards of security, auditability and accessibility.
https://www.vote.pa.gov/About-Elections … stems.aspx
How exactly would have Mr. Trump won Pennsylvania?
Claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania have not been substantiated in any manner.
The problem is not with the voting machines as with the mail in ballots.
Pennsylvania changed its rules on mail-in ballots right before the election process.
1. Mail in ballots that don't have to have verification with a voter registration are counted. That is fraud.
2. Mail in ballots that are counted with NO post mark. That is fraud.
3. Mail in ballots with no recognizable signature being counted. That is fraud.
The 2020 election was designed to be won by fraud from the mail in ballots and THAT is exactly what occurred.
The ballots mailed in exceeded the number of mail-in ballots requested. Those in charge speculate how that happened, but there is no proof it was not fraud, and the democrat counties are fighting any type of mail-in ballot recount.
The fraud was even worse in Georgia.
Not a single court has found merit in the core legal claims in Pennsylvania. In fact judges have never found any evidence of election fraud in Pennsylvania or any other state where the campaign sued — not in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada or Georgia.
Mr Trump has brought 62 lawsuits and suffered 61 in defeat.
The lone victory for the Trump team was a small one. A Pennsylvania judge sided with the Trump campaign, ruling that voters could not go back and “cure” their ballots if they failed to provide proper identification three days after the election. The ruling affected few votes and did not change the outcome in Pennsylvania.
https://apnews.com/article/election-202 … 405c2111f9
"Not a single court has found merit in the core legal claims in Pennsylvania."
A little deeper look into this would reveal that the vast majority were dismissed because of procedural errors, not filing the lawsuit in time, etc. No Pennsylvania judge heard the merits of the case. That is how it was with the vast majority of lawsuits. They were dismissed because of procedural errors.
In Pennsylvania, ACT 77 which let the mail in ballots be counted even if they didn't match the signature on a voter ID card, didn't have a post mark or had an illegible signature is a recipe for fraud. Pure and simple.
There was illegal ballot harvesting
Proof of people voting twice
At least 36 batches of mail-in ballots from the November election were double counted in Fulton County. That's a total of more than 4000 votes.
Fabricated tally sheets and much more.
Yes, there was fraud in the 2020 election and there is proof of fraud in the 2020 election. This is just two states.
Exactly, I was going to mention GA but I am not as researched on what occurred there. I am however certain of what happened in PA, without such changes, in particular the time they allotted themselves to come up with those extra million "mail-in ballots" that they needed to give the win to Biden, Trump would have won the State.
I am not arguing the matter, it is fact.
Now you can choose to believe all those ballots that came in after the election were legit, or not. Its not worth debating, but it should be noted that without the changes that were made for the 2020 election, Trump would have won PA by over three quarters of a million votes.
What exactly do you expect?
Do you think a system as complex and powerful as the American Government and its elections are going to be turned on its ear by some low level court judge?
Evidence Shows Widespread Fraud Took Place in 2020
It is widely recognized that especially in their coverage of matters related to Donald Trump, the mainstream media long ago abandoned any pretense of impartiality. It is nevertheless remarkable that the media have not investigated even the more plausible-looking of the allegations of vote fraud. It did not take me long to realize that the charges were far more serious and credible than the American public had been told. In fact, this memorandum reviews the election with special reference to the allegations of fraud. I had barely begun looking into them when I noticed that, very shortly after the election, European experts on American elections, some of whom also had advanced expertise in statistics, had published articles or given interviews in which they claimed to have seen clear evidence that the election was “rigged”! In Sweden of all places, an expert on American elections published a series of articles showing that Biden’s win in the swing states simply could not be explained without assuming major fraud.
First of all, the historical record indicates that when a sitting president increases his vote totals relative to his original election, he is reelected. President Trump did increase his vote, not by hundreds of thousands of votes, but by over 10 million (not counting votes of which his supporters claim that he was robbed). Trump’s support among Hispanics, a group often described as hostile to him, expanded to 32 percent, even more among Hispanic men. His support among blacks increased this year by 50 percent.
Another basic fact: certain American states almost always go with the winner. Florida and Ohio are at the top of that list, partly because they reflect the demographic composition of the U.S. as a whole. If you add Iowa, you can predict with high confidence that the winner of those three states will also be the winner of the presidential election. Trump not only carried these states, he won them very comfortably, Ohio and Iowa by about 8 percent, Florida by over 3 percent.
You might have thought that for Biden to win the election, he would have had to equal or surpass Hillary Clinton’s vote percentages around the country. But in general, the opposite was the case. He underperformed in the bigger cities, Democratic strongholds that are crucial to Democratic victories in presidential and other elections.
After official vote counting had been suspended, tabulations of votes took place that have astounded statisticians and computer experts. These experts have not been able to explain them except as a result of fraud. The issue here was electronic “ballot stuffing.” Votes recorded showed a uniform pattern in several states, such as giving a set percentage of votes to Biden and Trump. Some batches of electronically recorded votes were all or virtually all for Biden.
There were also various “glitches,” explained as “human errors,” some of which were electronically “corrected.” People familiar with election fraud in foreign countries have pointed to the sudden suspension of vote counting and “glitches” as characteristic of computer-generated fraud. The voting machines used in the battleground states have been shown to be rather easily manipulated, e.g., by inserting algorithms to continuously shift votes from one candidate to another. It is surely relevant that in this election, the aggregated election data were connected to the internet and even to servers abroad. That there are methods for manipulating elections through electronic voting is well known to experts, not least in the intelligence field.
The signs of manipulation abound, and recorded vote anomalies are said to be so glaring as to be statistically inexplicable except as the result of fraud. In Pennsylvania, one big batch of some 550,000 votes is reported to have been 99.4 percent for Biden, a figure that is beyond preposterous even if you assume it to consist solely of votes from Democratic strongholds. There were similar reports elsewhere, as in Fulton County, Georgia.
This startlingly lopsided addition of votes occurred after the departure of poll watchers. Another example of statistically inexplicable tabulation is that a series of precisely equal amounts of votes went to the same candidate. Although Trump did very well in the rest of the country, improving on his 2016 performance, none of these anomalous batches of votes worked in his favor. Experts who have compared the Dominion voting machines in the battleground states to machines of a different kind in other states have asserted that, on average, the Dominion machines routinely shifted 2 to 3 percent of the votes from Trump to Biden.
Data scientists and statisticians claim that in many places, Trump votes just disappeared, or batches were switched from the Trump column to the Biden column. In DeKalb County, Georgia, one batch of over 12,000 votes was switched to Biden.
People technically proficient in these matters have speculated that some of the most easily detectable anomalies are due to fraudsters having become desperate upon noticing an even stronger Trump vote than they had expected. To make up for this development, they had to improvise. They took risks, became careless, and could not easily hide the traces of their actions.
What emerges, then, is not merely a picture of local scofflaws stuffing ballots the old-fashioned way and ignoring legal requirements, but of organized manipulation on a large scale.
I have long been a close student of of why people believe what they believe.
The majority of people do not want to question, they want to be fed the answer and accept it, they don't want to make waves, they don't want to risk being ostracized from their group. Only rather unusual individuals, persons with a active conscience and strong character, are likely to resist the ever-present inclination to accept what is a daily barrage of Mass Media programming and propaganda.
Those who flatly dismiss the charges of voter fraud in the 2020 election are not the open-minded observers that they might imagine themselves to be.
Consciously or subconsciously, they are anti-Trump partisans or reflexively partisan Democrats, unless, like most people, they are merely timid souls fearing the consequences of offending others.
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone, but for those people who are 'devoted' to their party, or their cause, there is little difference between them and any other type of fanatic, almost without exception, they are willing to look the other way, while also villainizing and justifying what is done to the opposition.
"Another basic fact: certain American states almost always go with the winner."
Florida and Ohio have often gone with the winner, but ... so what? Political patterns hold, until they dont. We used to say ‘As Maine goes, so goes the nation’ until the 1936 election, when Maine voted Republican and only Vermont joined it. And we stopped saying that.
Mr. Trump added: "No candidate has ever won both Florida and Ohio and lost. I won them both, by a lot!" He tweeted Dec. 9.
He did win Florida and Ohio on Nov. 3, but he flunked on his claim about history. In 1960 Republican Richard Nixon won both Florida and Ohio but lost the election to Democrat John F. Kennedy.
The fact that any state has chosen the winner in the past isn’t a guarantee of repeating that in the future.
"organized manipulation on a large scale."
By whom? Who organized this alleged manipulation across multiple states? The italicized portion of your post uses "They" quite frequently to apparently describe these bad actors who committed The alleged fraud. Who are they? You obviously realize this would be a massive undertaking in terms of scale to change the results of an election. So much so that it would logically follow There would be quite a lot of opportunity to uncover it. Yet, we have nothing.
I'm by no means " devoted" to any party but more so to reason and logic. The italicized portion of your post has no foundation in credible proof. It is accusation upon accusation that has been debunked over and over. Can I ask the source?
Dec. 5, 2020
Statement of the International Investigative Commission for Truth in Elections Commissioners:
1) Marino Elsevyf (Dominican Republic): Attorney-at-law; member of the 1995 Martin Luther King International Tribunal.
2) Simón Levy (Mexico): Doctor of Law from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM); former Under-Secretary of Tourism of Mexico.
3) David Meiswinkle (United States): Attorney-at-law in the state of New Jersey.
4) Juan Francisco Soto (Argentina): Constitutional attorney; legal counsel to Yacyretá Binational Entity (Paraguayan-Argentinian Yacyretá Dam).
1. William Binney
2. Harley Schlanger
3. Col. Richard Black
4. Sen. Mario Scavello
5. Bennie Smith
6. Leah Hoopes
On Saturday, November 28, 2020, a virtual meeting was held on Zoom with a group of attorneys and legal experts who served as Commissioners in order to hear testimonies of six witnesses to alleged election ballot fraud concerning the recent U.S. elections, held on November 3, 2020, which included a record number of mail-in ballots sent before the election began.
Witnesses presented testimony regarding the different problems and incidents that they were aware of that occurred in the recent general election, as well as their insights into those problems.
In summary: The witnesses recounted a host of what they understood to be violations of election law and of equal protection under the law concerning the fundamental right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.
From their observations, they believe the election law was violated and that the massive violations could have been the result of an organized and orchestrated plan to violate election law, especially in swing states, and to unfairly and illegally alter the outcome of the election, including but not limited to the following examples:
1) The Smartmatic and Dominion companies were reported to be owners of voting machines and software that were used to alter the vote and direct that vote in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate, according to testimony presented to the Commission. Testimony was given concerning fraudulent voting results involved with the use of these particular machines in Venezuela and the Philippines, and that the Commissioners were informed that these vote tallying machines were banned from use in elections by such countries as Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Great Britain. Electronic fraud was alleged particularly in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin.
2) William Binney, the former technical director of the National Security Agency, testified about the security problems involving the vote tallying machines, and spoke about the evident inconsistency, in one case, of having 100,000 votes in Philadelphia which were stated to have been counted at 3:00 a.m., all for Joe Biden. Binney asserted that he believes that this anomaly cannot possibly be explained without recognizing the strong possibility of the existence of fraud.
3) Bennie Smith, a voting machine expert, testified that algorithm programs were used in voting machines which cause the fractioning of the vote in favor of Democratic party candidates, thereby violating the principle of “one person, one vote.”
4) Former Virginia State Senator Colonel Richard Black, USA (ret.) stated that the circumstances surrounding the U.S. elections and the planned protests that accompanied the elections were similar to the Arab Spring protests, and government changes in the Far East and Eastern Europe.
He also highlighted the arson of St. John’s Church, a few feet from the White House, the undermining of Presidential authority, and the media’s praise for the turbulence and insurrection.
He also noted articles published in Defense One magazine, where retired officers practically called for a coup against President Trump and his removal from the Presidency if he did not accept the current election result.
Col. Black emphasized that, in his experience as a former state senator, the vast majority of voters who indicate their preference in the category of President, go on to fill out their choices for the various other categories on the ballot. Therefore, the unusually large number of ballots that were filled out only for the office of President, but which left the other lines empty, seemed implausible. This indicated to him the existence of massive fraud, which made a Democrat the winner for President, but which made Republicans victorious throughout the rest of the ticket, including the election of congressmen, senators and state and local officials.
5) Harley Schlanger, a spokesman for the Schiller Institute, testified about the reported electrical blackouts in the early morning hours of the elections, which affected the voting machines. He also referred to reports of improper linking of voting machines to the internet, as well as ballots cast with missing signatures and without verification of the same. He highlighted the developments in Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona, where narrow margins of victory for Biden were reported.
He further spoke about the close business and political connections between Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, the Chairman of Smartmatic’s parent company SGO, and the billionaire financier of the Arab Spring, George Soros. He also stressed further the fingerprints of Wall Street, the City of London and the “Deep State” as players in this election.
The significance of so-called “glitches” was also discussed, and that “glitches” were actually indications of vote fraud opportunities in the software, as were the existence of backdoor access to the machines.
6) Leah Hoopes, a Republican Committeewoman and poll worker in Pennsylvania, testified that starting at 7:00 a.m. on election day, many polling centers had no Republican observers present. She observed that many voting machines did not provide receipts to voters, after they cast their ballots, exercising their right to vote. She said that she had seen between 50,000 and 70,000 unopened ballots without a chain of custody. She also stated that she felt intimidated and very angry about the inability to exercise the right to vote. She stated that, as an observer, she was kept 20 feet or more away, and could not even see, and therefore was unable to challenge the ballots from where she was located. She stated that scanners were not working and that votes were being counted for two-and-a-half days in a back room without observers present to see how the ballots were being handled.
7) Pennsylvania state Senator Mario Scavello testified that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had no problems with their previous voting machines, but that the state’s governor nevertheless decertified the voting machines this year and forced the adoption of new, problematic voting machines on Pennsylvanian voters. He said that those machines are a suspected source of fraudulent voting. This 2020 general election is the first time the new voting machines were used.
8) Mexican citizen Daniel Marmolejo, a journalist, in the course of asking a question of the witnesses, spoke about the importance of scanners in creating a voting record and the vulnerability of electronic voting. He made a reference to the electoral crisis in Mexico in the 2006 elections, which involved fraud against Andrés Manuel López Obrador, currently the President of Mexico.
The Commission of attorneys and legal experts had the opportunity to question each witness concerning their testimony. The legal battle that is currently being waged in the courts of swing states was taken into consideration by the witnesses, and they expressed serious concerns over violations of election rights law, and questioned whether the Federal Election Commission would investigate fraud.
Finally, all the participants and the members of the Commission stated their appreciation of the Schiller Institute’s efforts in organizing this hearing on the 2020 electoral crisis in the United States.
The Commission heard testimony from six credible witnesses and concludes from that testimony the following:
1) The U.S. Presidential elections held on November 3, 2020, appear to have had serious irregularities, especially in key swing states, which raise legitimate legal and civil questions regarding the violation of both Federal and state election laws.
2) The Commission recommends that evidence of voter fraud must be specified in each state, whose validity must be determined in part through forensic tests, audits of voting machines, expert testimony, eyewitness accounts, and examination and cross examination of witnesses in the courts.
3) There must be a determination by the courts as to whether the alleged fraudulent votes which apparently occurred were so significant and appreciable, that they could have altered and impacted the results of the election sufficiently to make that election null and void in those states where the manipulation or alteration of the vote occurred.
4) The competent committees should be called into session in each of the state legislatures where there were reports of serious irregularities. Votes cannot be validated where there is a “reasonable doubt” that they may have been fraudulent. Furthermore, it is a Constitutional responsibility (cf. Constitution of the United States, 1787) that falls to each of the states, to arbitrate with all means at their disposal in order to protect votes cast according to the will of the voter.
5) There must be a federal criminal investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy to undermine the Presidential election of 2020, not only by domestic and internal interests who may have been involved, but also by the possible connection to foreign agents and or countries that would trespass on the sovereignty and freedoms of the United States and its citizens.
https://www.galvnews.com/opinion/guest_ … 3245e.html
https://newsrescue.com/time-admits-2020 … a-victory/
https://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinion … 1d913.html
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/election … -mark-weir
I'm not saying it matters, the results will never be changed, the storyline is never going to change, those who openly question the results will be labeled as crackpots and conspiracy theorists, or Trump fanatics, and be summarily dismissed... regardless of who they may be or what position they hold.
So even if you believe the election was corrupt, fraudulent, and had less honesty in its results than a Russian election it doesn't matter... the only thing you do by espousing that opinion is put a bullseye on yourself for ridicule, or retaliation.
Republican senators represent 144,725,500 voters while
Democratic senators represent 186,274,500 voters.
To that I say "So?" You're missing some key points.
1. Not all Democrats voters vote the same way and not all Republicans voters vote the same way. So, the numbers of the population of each party are meaningless. There were a number of democrats who voted for President Donald Trump.
2. Politicians are elected representatives. This means they have to worry about reelection. Their job is to represent the interest of their Constituents. They know if they don't, they will lose their job.
3. Manchin from WV and Sinema from AZ know that by taking the stand that they have on these issues; they are more likely to be reelected. That is the reason they are taking these stands. As politicians, this is the ONLY reason they take their positions on the issues.
4. I think this shows not the power of the Republican party but the power of conservatism in our country. This transcends political parties. Liberalism is just not as popular as liberals would want you to believe.
I worked with a Senator years ago and I can tell you, they are contacted regularly by various groups as well as voters, state and local politicians and more. They regularly take polls to find out the position of their constituents on different issues. This is done by all Senators and Congressmen because they want to be reelected.
So, you see, the system works. The will of the people it spoken through their elected representatives.
I don't think this issue is multifaceted at all. Consider this as, (I hope), a piece of common agreement: that the Senate was created to be the `reason' of the people's voice and the House was created to be the `emotional' voice of the people—all of its varied segments, (hence the larger number), and all of its wants and desires, (the zeal and emotion of the voice).
If that is agreeable, then I think your use of numbers of constituents as a comparative focus is off-mark. The force of the numbers can't be the sole consideration of a reasoned representation. Neither now, nor in the future.
It seems you are a pure democracy advocate. Your perspective seems to be one of the majority rules in any instance—period. That isn't what we are or were intended to be. And that's as I think it should be.
Again, you indicate the possibility of a "turbocharged minority rule, implying that a minority will control the country.
But that minority cannot pass any legislation. It cannot change any laws it doesn't like. It thus does not have control at all...except to veto new legislation that it does not like.
To a point I do not find this objectionable, and that point includes the 60% ruling. Again, if 40% of the people do not support new legislation it cannot be very good and should be discarded or modified to something that is acceptable to all.
One of the bigger problems that we are seeing is a refusal to cooperate and compromise; everyone demands what they want and only what they want. Compromise is foreign to our political scene today, with the possible exception of compromise today in order to expand to what we really want tomorrow.
The way the Senate operates is an exercise in forcing compromise, wherein that majority does not have total control over anything and everything.
In theory, the filibuster should expand the representativeness of government. By Manchin's and Sinema's lights, requiring 60 votes encourages senators to work across the aisle, bring more voices to the table, and honor the views of the most Americans possible.
It requires mutual commitment - a minority willing to work with the majority. If the minority can simply hold the majority hostage, representative government is subverted, not served. Elected officials only hold power for a limited time. Sacrificing the will of the many to that of the few in this brief period defeats the point of holding elections.
If Manchin and Sinema want to protect minority rights without surrendering to minority rule, the purpose behind delays must matter. Time spent building a broader consensus is not the same as time spent merely obstructing. This is where unconditional allegiance to the filibuster falls short.
Republican senators have relentlessly attacked the bill, offering no meaningful alternative or narrower proposal. Democratic senators, meanwhile, heard input from Republican and Democratic officials throughout the country and prepared responsive changes. Yet, when many of those amendments came to a vote in committee, Republicans rejected them too. Why? Because Republicans didn't want to improve or narrow the bill; they wanted to kill it.
In response, Manchin pivoted to another bill. Predictably, Republicans shot that down too. Why compromise when you can insist on your own terms?
The filibuster isn't facilitating cooperation - it's enabling minoritarian capture. Whatever merits it might've had when used on rare occasions (and its racist history shows "compromise" isn't always noble), the modern filibuster is now used so frequently it undermines the very goal that Manchin and Sinema hold dear: consensus-building.
I don't know, maybe it's time to bring the talking filibuster back.
Yes, Mr Trump. It's time to put the filibuster to rest.
"President Trump went after Senate Republicans in a series of tweets Saturday morning, calling for an end to the filibuster."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-call … ike-fools/
"President Donald Trump had a simple message for Senate Republicans during a meeting at the White House on Tuesday: Kill the filibuster now, before Chuck Schumer and the Democrats do."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/ … ter-677151
"If Republican Senate doesn't get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, which the Dems would do, they are just wasting time!" Trump tweeted Wednesday".
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … filibuster
"The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy. Dems would do it, no doubt!" Trump tweeted."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … filibuster
"President Trump tweeted Saturday that the Republicans in the Senate "look like fools" and should do away with the filibuster"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 522465001/
Or has he flip-flopped on these views??
by Sharlee 20 months ago
The GOP Held Strong Using The First Filibuster To Stop The Democrats Cold In Their Tracks May 28, 2021 --- "Senate Republicans on Friday halted an effort to form a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack, marking the first successful legislative filibuster...
by Sharlee 8 months ago
Liberal pundits and celebrities tweeted against Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on Wednesday, after saying he’d vote against his party’s abortion bill.The moderate Democrat told reporters he would oppose The Women’s Health Protection Act when it came to a procedural vote, saying it doesn’t codify Roe,...
by PrettyPanther 23 months ago
House lawmakers Wednesday gave final approval to President Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, sending the legislation to his desk for his signature. The White House says Biden plans to sign it on Friday."This legislation is about giving the backbone of this nation — the...
by Credence2 2 years ago
Yes, it is a Salon article, but it reflects my opinion 100 percent. At this juncture, the Republicans and the Right are to get NOTHING. No peace in our time.https://www.salon.com/2021/01/22/mcconn … ull-swing/1. Barack Obama had hardly taken his oath of office on January 20th 2009, before...
by savvydating 4 months ago
Did you find it inspirational?
by Credence2 19 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|