To be fair this is a reasonable request. Already parts of the process allow for "challengers" from parties to observe. He just thinks there's a gap missing and an additional part of the process should be covered.
He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he has no suspicion of wrongdoing and simply wants to be able to observe.
The only thing is that I wish he had done so earlier, say a year and a half ago. Then there would have been enough time then to fix this and get things approved without needing to stop anyone from early voting as the injunction he requests requires.
Second, the two party system currently means only these who have a realistic chance of winning. So there's no alternative except to waste a protest vote.
Granted, some specific decisions like the EC could have gone better. But overall, the US is a democracy - specifically a representative democracy.
In fact, to say otherwise is a major GOP talking point. For example (from the Atlantic article),
Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.” It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic.
Of course the counter example is a theocratic republic. A living example? The Islamic Republic of Iran.
But while the President of Iran is the head of government there, he's second to the divinely appointed supreme leader, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SupremeLeaderofIran (in practice the SL appoints members to a Guardians Council, who vet approve members of the Assembly of Experts, who reappoint the SL - a bunch of silly layers for the SL to basically elect himself) - so this is a republic where folks technically have their representatives but the power lies elsewhere.
Exactly. The most common rebuttal I've heard to this is that the word "democracy" doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution. However, other ideas like "freedom of religion" and "separation of powers" also do not appear as exact quotes in the Constitution.
Instead, the concept embodied by these phrases do exist and are written into the very fabric of the Constitution.
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”
Also, back in the founders era, they would have understood democracy to mean what we today consider direct democracy. They thought that was too messy (to have every citizen vote on every new law etc) which is why went with a slightly different model. So they went with representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Even the Electoral College technically fits with this definition - we use the statewide popular vote (direct voting) to pick our representatives, the electors, who will represent us in the vote for the US President and VP. (Except for the two states that do it by district and split their EC votes, but in that case it's the district wide popular vote that picks the representative.)
The problem here is that it seems some coercive measures were used (e.g. being threatened with unaffordable hotel bills) which probably got at least some workers to canvas for a candidate whom they didn't support. (It also explains why some felt compelled to cheat, though in this instance I wasn't really feeling bad about it either way.)
Ultimately this is what we want though - CItizens United (2010) meant big money was able to get into play. So it's good when that big money for MAGA instead ends up wasted like this - less money for the other side to competently defeat Harris.
I had no idea about this but it makes perfect sense. Especially if it done in the days before the internet was common (like 80s or earlier) - then probably would have been a cumbersome and delay-filled process to verify you actually got registered.
Thank you for your service on correcting misinformation!
One thing to remember is that the bar for the SC to explain themselves is low. It's probably much higher in the court of public opinion than it is in .. you know, actual courts. (Since the lower courts have to follow their words and not the other way around.) When they do speak, there's very little that can stop them.
They could have said something like, "We find that the mere option of same-day voting registration being available is enough to satisfy the intent of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and thus the 90-day rule should be treated as not being violated."
That would have opened the doors for Republican States to purge their rolls the same way as Virginia has, while enacting same-day voting registration on paper (thus providing the option) - but combined with ridiculous ID rules that make it next to impossible to actually do so.
Or worse, they could have said "We find that a non citizen voting is in fact unconstitutional, and for that reason we overturn this part of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act - the 90 day rule may no longer be enforced."
It's still very and deeply ironic that he's obsessed with finding crimes involving voting/voters (such as voter fraud) in the present day while he's committing crimes involving voting/voters today (that whole Penn lottery thing).
Ah, this makes sense. Good to hear that folks were successfully pushing back and getting the vote out! I'll keep my fingers crossed for a repeat of the successes this time.
Oh, agreed. Should have a way to punish someone for trying (e.g. attempted murder charges because the police stopped the murder and saved the intended victim). But even then, one still has to be able to prove it, and the level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - is as high as it is for good reason.
Now, if the accused had encountered police detectives at that polling station instead of real election workers, I imagine it would have gone like this:
(Police detective posing as a poll worker prepares an otherwise blank but non-obviously spoiled ballot.)
"Ok sir, here's your ballot."
Choice A: "Thanks, here's the ballot, yay I just voted." "Sir, you're under arrest."
Choice B: "Um... actually I already voted." "Yes we know sir, I see it right here, but we were just testing you." "No, hey, wait, I was trying to test you." "..."
It's not a reasonable expectation to ask actual election workers - poll working volunteers - to do anything like the above, though.
Bitcoin Whitepaper Is 16 amid Fresh Satoshi Nakamoto Hoax The identity of Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery unsolved. Updated Oct 31, 2024 at 12:59 PM
London Satoshi reveal unsurprisingly fails to convince anyone of his identity amid fraud charges Stephen Mollah's attempt to prove he's Satoshi Nakamoto falls flat in London.
How disappointing. I remember reading about something similar in 2016 (though I think that was less about legal framework and more of a boots-on-the-ground attempt to discourage voters).
Oddly, not so much in 2020 - perhaps with COVID restrictions, it was impractical to use the same tried-and-true techniques to suppression voters?
Folks in Virginia, please don't be discouraged. Get out and vote! Remember what the governor said:
Youngkin said voters who believe they were improperly removed from the rolls can still vote in the election because Virginia has same-day registration. “And so there is the ultimate, ultimate safeguard in Virginia, no one is being precluded from voting, and therefore, I encourage every single citizen go vote,” Youngkin told reporters.
In the other bit of "less bad" news, it seems like the Supreme Court didn't explain the reason for the decision, so that means it doesn't directly on its own set any legal precedents for the future if I'm understanding correctly.
Defense attorney Matthew L. Pack contended that Bell would not have gone through with voting more than once in the same election — a felony punishable by one to five years in prison — if poll workers had actually handed him a ballot.
But he never got the chance to demonstrate that because
As it happened, the workers quickly discovered that he had already voted and turned him away.
Speaking neutrally, it's good that we have a system in place that requires a high level of evidence - such as regarding intent - before finding someone guilty. I'd just hope that it equally protects folks regardless of if they are blue or red.
This is awful. At the same time, it's not at all surprising that they had to resort to these sort of tactics in order to get anyone to canvas for them.
Came here to say exactly this. Of course Musk knew this would happen - that's why he tried so hard to get out of buying Twitter back in late 2022 before he realized it was a lost cause.
To be fair this is a reasonable request. Already parts of the process allow for "challengers" from parties to observe. He just thinks there's a gap missing and an additional part of the process should be covered.
I don't know the candidate at all, but from the referenced St Louse Post Dispatch ( https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/early-voting-to-continue-thursday-in-st-charles-county-official-says-despite-court-order/article676c7a2c-971b-11ef-bab2-436acacb7089.html / https://archive.is/Mo5WA ) it sounds like he's actually quite reasonable. After all,
The only thing is that I wish he had done so earlier, say a year and a half ago. Then there would have been enough time then to fix this and get things approved without needing to stop anyone from early voting as the injunction he requests requires.