By Bruce Walker
Leave it to the Blue Wavers and their affiliates to temporarily move the Broward-County clown show to a side ring of the circus. Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell, the first to openly seek the Democrat nomination for the 2020 Presidency, beclowned himself by inserting himself into the CW2 matter while forgetting that heâ€™s an elected Representative. Already known for explicitly advocating gun confiscation, Rep. Swalwell posted that CW2 would come to a quick end through FedGov deploying nuclear weapons. This from a fellow who said heâ€™s running for the job that carries the authority to launch those weapons. Unsurprisingly, many 2A supporters took his comment to mean that heâ€™s hankering to one-up the troops of General Sherman. Swalwellâ€™s Twitter try at being the next Herman Kahn turned his Presidential hopes into â€œElecting the Unelectable.â€?
Senator-Elect Krysten Synema gave a foretaste of her term by flatly breaking an explicit promise not to support Chuck Schumer for Senate Minority Leader. The biggest city of Schumer's State got hit with about six inches of global warming and traffic stoppages aplenty, including one that stalled city council member Vanessa Gibson. Mayor deBlasio blamed the fustercluck on off-the-mark
Reversing a clichÃ©, Inuits in Nunavut made the global-warming poohbas restless. As reported by the Canadian government, those natives are worried about an increased number of polar bears threatening their safety. Since this we-merely-live-here observation flat-out contradicted the Narrative, the flap over this report resembled a Bizarro University in which a team of theoretical physicists got mad at an experimental physicist whose findings embarrassed them. In tandem with the Broward-County mess, the latest global-warming scare was aborted when the authors of a grist-study of ocean temperatures admitted to a mathematical mistake.
As we saw with Climategate, another scandal that was whitewashed by cadres of apologists, those â€œmistakes were madeâ€? overwhelmingly go in one direction. So do those â€œmistakesâ€? in vote-counting. As was made obvious in Broward County, Palm Beach County, the state of Georgia and quite a few other jurisdictions, non-standard countings mean the Republican lead either shrinks or turns into a Democrat lead. Exceptions, like Mia Love squeaking ahead in Utah, are rare. If these counting mistakes were random, theyâ€™d be about fifty-fifty.
Despite that massy tilt in the dice, the Dems show themselves to be true to their new form when they lose and get frustrated. As per the latest iteration of Progressivism, their response to losing is delegitimization. Many were the tweeters who claimed that Democrat candidates for the Senate â€˜wonâ€™ an agglomerated â€˜popular voteâ€™, which makes about as much sense as claiming that Justin Trudeauâ€™s majority government is illegitimate because his Liberals won 39.5% of the popular vote. Professional Dems escalated by using the new-normal means to reverse an election: a lawsuit. They got Obama-appointed judge Mark Walker to order an alteration of Florida law that governs how ballots with mismatched signatures are treated. Unsurprisingly, that alteration narrowed De Santisâ€™ lead and benefited Gillam. Itâ€™s almost as if there were a pattern or two worth recognizing.
As for Broward, its post-election clown show has been pegged by the explainers-that-be as caused by Brenda Snipesâ€™ â€œincompetenceâ€?. Last Saturday, Fox News revealed that recounters were counting the wrong ballots. A Broward recount of Senate votes showing Rick Scott with a slight net gain over Bill Nelson that was submitted late, induced spokespeople for the Scott campaign to charge that the tardiness was deliberate. Election supervisors for two other counties, Hillsborough and (of course) Palm Beach, said that they would not report their recounts because of ballots gone missing.
And in Georgia, Democrat candidate Stacy Abrams, after implicitly admitting that she lost, is demanding a new election. True to proggie form, she and her campaign are relying on the courts to override the election via an unusual theory. Per the latest rationalization, her campaign is attempting to portray upholding the integrity of the vote as â€œvoter suppression.â€? Itâ€™s almost as if there were a connection between those bombastic coordinated â€œevery vote must be countedâ€? missives, those overt attempts to delegitimize Republican wins, and results that donâ€™t add up.
As Abramsâ€™ â€œtails we flip againâ€? ploy hints, there are grounds to suspect that the Dems secretly rationalize those loaded-dice tilts as a purported evener against purported gerrymandering. As par for the new course of retconning history, the Narrative clashes with the real kickstarter of post-modern gerrymandering. Back around 1990 or so, Dems leveraged civil rights into a campaign for so-called â€œmajority minorityâ€? districts. These districts were gerrymandered to ensure that black voters comprised a majority or plurality of the voting base. Some had shapes so bizarre, they were made fun of.
Itâ€™s a historical fact that these districts were openly pushed for by black-studies types. As made very clear by a heavily-cited study published in the December â€˜96 issue of American Political Science Review, â€œMajority-minority voting districts have been advanced as a remedy to the underrepresentation of minority interests in the political process.â€? Lani Guinier, Bill Clintonâ€™s controversial nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, had made a career of advocating different voting schemes to increase the political clout of minorities: one of these schemes was majority-minority districts. This gerrymandering proceeded under the pressure of the 1973 revision of the Voting Rights Act.
Although the then-liberal Supreme Court did affirm the â€˜93 strike-down of a North-Carolina gerrymander containing two majority-minority districts in their decision of Shaw v. Reno, it did uphold a similar redistricting plan that included one majority-minority district and one majority-plurality (47%). In Georgia, two plans that included two majority-minority districts were shot down; a third plan that included three majority-minority districts was okayed. (Miller v. Johnson, 1995)
The actual record implies that the Demsâ€™ yells about â€œgerrymanderingâ€? are underpinned by accusing the Pubbies of doing what they themselves do or have done. At the very least, it shows why Democrats are heedless about the unintended consequences of their policies. If those policies backfire, it creates yet another pretext to complain and put pressure on authorities. If the coin comes up heads, they win. If it comes up tails, they win another tub-thump. So why should they care if their wish-list policies succeed or fail?
Moreover, the now-underground history of post-modern gerrymandering puts a real question mark on their sanctimony about â€œvoter suppression.â€? The Dems have a long, long history of indulging in voter fraud. Even the Adios, America trick of importing a new and pliable electorate has roots in the 19th century. Back before the days of George Washington Plunkitt, who had a habit of calling his allies â€œIrishâ€? and his reform-Republican opponents â€œAmericans,â€? it was Democrat practice to get new-off-the-boat Irishmen registered to vote without such niceties as citizenship getting in the way. Vote fraud was so rife, slang terms arose to describe the tricks and variants. In 1946, a cycle of vote fraud in McMinn County, Tennessee came to a head when it collided with returning WW2 veterans who pushed a mixed-party reform slate of candidates to oppose County-Sheriff Mansfieldâ€™s machine Democrats. Thusly, the tinder was set for the Battle of Athens. As many will remember, the Daley Machine of Chicago arguably modified the results of the Illinois 1960 Presidential election vote so as the throw the White House to John F. Kennedy.
Again, we see a pattern â€“ a pattern that implies the laws against voter fraud should remain and be enforced, if not strengthened. Ever since the Voting Rights Act imposed federal court supervision over southern States, voter â€˜suppressionâ€™ has predominantly been vote-fraud suppression. Assuming that the saw about â€œRepublican gerrymanderingâ€? has any truth at all to it, itâ€™s an effect of the good new McConnell Rule. How much of this so-called gerrymandering is due to the backfire effects of the above-discussed racial gerrymandering?
Given that the sonorous cries of â€œvoter suppressionâ€? are compromised, given that there seems to be more than â€œincompetenceâ€? in Florida and perhaps other States, the question arises: what to do about it? One option being floated is to federalize the whole federal-vote infrastructure, which would push further in the direction that the Voting Rights Act has gone. This option is questionable on Constitutional as well as Conservative grounds. It would further whittle away federalism and push the United States farther in the direction of a unitary government overseen by an imperial Presidency. Donald Trump wonâ€™t be President forever, and the anger over his hard-fought victory raises the risk of a post-Trump revenge Presidency. Even if that risk doesnâ€™t come to be, greater centralization correlates with greater polarization. As the CW2 scenario implies, too-great polarization causes real turmoil.
A better alternative, even if it requires sustained effort to implement, is to take a leaf from President Trumpâ€™s policy on illegal immigration. Namely, a hybrid of strengthening, or trying to strengthen, the laws against voter fraud while demanding vigorous enforcement of the integrity-of-the-vote laws already in force. As seen in the â€˜60s-â€™70 rise in violent crime being reversed in the â€˜80s and â€˜90s, enforce-the-law works if itâ€™s applied with a backbone. True, the Dems will squawk while shamelessly moving the goal posts when vote fraud is dredged up. (Have you noticed that they switched from saying â€œthe claim of vote fraud is a conspiracy theoryâ€? to â€œthe claim of widespread vote fraud is a conspiracy theoryâ€??) The progs still rely on emotional manipulation as a weapon, which becomes a weak point when they go full SJW and ordinary folks get fed up. Once you see them as disingenuous and untrustworthy, their scoldings and moralizing lose their power.
Last Friday, Breitbart published an interview with Government Accountability Institute research director Eric Eggers, in which he said that Florida Democrats asking voters â€œto submit absentee ballots after Election Day is a â€˜smoking gunâ€™ and could possibly lead to a racketeering investigation.â€? This is the way to go. Although there is an important difference between an allegation and a conviction, and one between an allegation and an investigation, pursuing investigations in these circumstances will show that the law is no longer snoozing. To his credit, Marco Rubio has jumped on board. Like Lindsay Graham, Sen. Rubio has de-rubbered his spine.
The enforcement option is more protracted than the â€œfederalizeâ€? option, but enforce-and-strengthen is in harmony with federalism. Moreover, as shown by the protracted battle against violent crime which succeeded until reversed, itâ€™s the approach that will work. In the end, grit prevails over gimmicks.
Daniel M. Ryan, as Nxtblg, is spinning his wheels at Steemit.