Readers!
 

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


State legislatures proposing repeals of 2020 election revisions that made fraud easy

I’ll believe it when I see it: The state legislatures of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania — all strongly controlled by Republicans — are now considering numerous proposals to repeal the many improvised revisions to state election laws that made fraud easy and contributed to the widespread belief of many that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by the Democrats.

Significant legislative attempts are underway in multiple U.S. states, including key battleground states, to roll back major changes in voting rules and regulations to various pre-2020 status quo antes. The efforts come after an historically chaotic election process that has left millions of Americans doubtful of election fairness, security, transparency and accountability.

Changes to election rules — some of them enacted prior to 2020 and others put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic last year — have included expansive mail-in voting, expanded early voting, relaxation of verification rules, and extensions to ballot receipt deadlines.

Those rules likely contributed to a record 158,000,000-plus votes cast in the 2020 election. But the relaxation of various voting requirements has also led to significant distrust in the election system: Nearly 40% of voters believe that U.S. elections are beset by fraud, while a similar number claim that such concerns haven’t been properly vetted by public authorities.

As far as I am concerned, until these changes are actually imposed and enforced, stories like this are nothing more than another example of Republican Party failure theater: lots of big talk that means nothing.

And if you sense a bit of contempt for these Republicans, you are not mistaken. I have watched them stand by impotently for decades as the the principles of freedom and individual rights that this country stands for were trampled upon and nullified, step-by-step by the corrupt and power-hungry Democratic Party. Why should I hold any respect for them?

Pioneer cover

From the press release: From the moment he is handed a possibility of making the first alien contact, Saunders Maxwell decides he will do it, even if doing so takes him through hell and back.

 
Unfortunately, that is exactly where that journey takes him.

 
The vision that Zimmerman paints of vibrant human colonies on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and beyond, indomitably fighting the harsh lifeless environment of space to build new societies, captures perfectly the emerging space race we see today.

 
He also captures in Pioneer the heart of the human spirit, willing to push forward no matter the odds, no matter the cost. It is that spirit that will make the exploration of the heavens possible, forever, into the never-ending future.

 
Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at amazon, Barnes & Noble, all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.

18 comments

  • Skunk Bucket

    It would be nice if we could get rid of the mail-in only voting scheme we’ve suffered with for years here in Colorado, but since we’re now officially a blue state with no state-wide elected Republicans, what do you suppose the chances of that are?

    With mail-in ballots, I’ve many chances to vote for family members who couldn’t or wouldn’t vote themselves, but being a Republican and a patriot, I haven’t done that. You’d have to be a fool to think that others haven’t though. I would happily show my photo ID, vote in person, and dip my finger in blue ink if we could make elections secure again.

  • Mitch S.

    The Republicans lost this war when they allowed the changes (such as mail=in voting) in the first place.
    Now the mainstream media has “established” that the election was the cleanest ever, anyone who questions the election is a dangerous “insurrectionist” and anyone looking to return the election system to it’s pre-2020 form is really seeking to disenfranchise millions of underprivileged and minority voters.
    The Dems now control election outcomes, all Repub pols can do is beg the Dems to let them keep their jobs.

    I posted the following in a different thread but it really fits here (from State-sponsored media):

    https://www.npr.org/2021/02/28/970877930/why-republicans-are-moving-to-fix-elections-that-werent-broken

  • MDN

    Ironically in CA the the democrats are now feverishly working to STRICTLY enforce signature verification in an effort to avoid the gubernatorial recall of Gavin Newsome. The hypocrisy is blatant but as Bob has noted many times they have no shame. It sucks, but we on the conservative side need to tirelessly work to point this out to the voting public because the mainstream media never will.

  • David K

    Let’s be real here, both the red team and the blue team just care about power. Some individuals may care about specific policies but that is unrelated to the game.

    To quote the late great Terry Pratchett “It was strictly one man one vote. He was the man and he had the vote.”

  • David K noted “Let’s be real here, both the red team and the blue team just care about power. Some individuals may care about specific policies but that is unrelated to the game.”

    Absolutely true. But given history, I’d rather deal with the Red team.

  • WILLIAM FRANCIS

    This is all bs. The only chance for a “free and honest” election is only vote in person and provide proof of legal citizenship.

    Anything else will not work.

  • — …until these changes are actually imposed and enforced… —

    Therein lies the rub, doesn’t it? Let’s imagine that these reforms succeed legislatively. The Left will probably purchase a few judges at the appropriate time, thus garnering rulings that will set aside the reforms or delay their implementation. Regardless of the quality of the opinions or any relevant Constitutional issues, the election authorities — now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left — will simply follow the “authority” they prefer.

    There is no longer any enforceable law when it comes to elections in these United States.

  • Deoxy

    “David K noted “Let’s be real here, both the red team and the blue team just care about power. Some individuals may care about specific policies but that is unrelated to the game.”

    Absolutely true. But given history, I’d rather deal with the Red team.”

    In the choice between a punch in the face and getting run over by a car, I’ll choose the punch in the face. EVERY. DANG. TIME.

    The choices both suck, but choosing between them is ridiculously easy.

  • Steve Richter

    it is ballot harvesting that has to be addressed and banned. Operatives paid by the party approach individual voters and get them to vote. This is highly coercive. But very effective. An upstart candidate, running against the party favorite, has a slim chance of winning as the very expensive but effective ballot gathering ground game favors the party.

  • Cotour

    Related:

    In NYC there is now something “NEW”, called, “Instant Runoff Elections”, a progressive “Improvement” in elections.

    “Voters are to choose their top 5 candidates, if a candidate receives more than 50 percent of the first choice votes, then they automatically win. HOWEVER, if there is no such candidate then the candidate that has the the least number of first choice votes is eliminated. Afterward, the voters who listed the eliminated candidate as their first choice will now have there second choice candidate as the one who will receive their vote. This process will repeat itself until there are two candidates left, where the winner will be the one who has the majority of the votes.”

    Stay tuned on this chaos, which I assume is designed to only empower the left in some way, shape or form.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    Ref: “….which I assume is designed to only empower the left in some way, shape or form.”

    Absolutely! Your instincts on this one, are totally correct.

    “In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem, or Arrow’s paradox is an Impossibility theorem stating that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked order voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a pre-specified set of criteria.

    –>These pre-specified criteria are called “unrestricted domain,” “non-dictatorship,” “Pareto efficiency,” and “independence of irrelevant alternatives.”

    The theorem is named after economist Kenneth Arrow, who demonstrated the theorem in his doctoral thesis and popularized it in his 1951 book; “Social Choice and Individual Values.” [The original paper was titled “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare”.]

    In short, the theorem states that no rank-order voting system can be designed that always satisfies these three “fairness” criteria:
    1) If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
    2) If every voter’s preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group’s preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters’ preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
    3) There is no “dictator”: no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group’s preference.

    —-The voting paradox is an example of irrational results that can result from majority-rule voting.

    ——————————————————————

    “Impossibility & Social Choice”
    Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem & Voting
    [Intro to Political Economy, Lecture 15]
    Michael Munger at Duke University 2016
    https://youtu.be/J0aI8H8nWyk
    56:54

    Lecture Overview:
    1. Three stages of social choice:
    — Deciding how to decide how to decide (forming a group identity)
    — Deciding how to decide (choosing a constitution, and rules)
    — Deciding (normal choices, using fixed rules)
    2. Access rules (introducing a bill, Writ of Certiorari, moved and seconded, etc) require less than a majority.
    3. Decision rules usually (but not always) require a majority
    4. Changing the rules requires a supermajority
    5. Constituting a group requires unanimous consent, or (what amounts to the same thing) a means of exiting. Forced entry into membership is actually a restriction on exit.
    6. Arrow’s Theorem
    ——————————————————

    In brief:
    “Whatever the preferences of the voters actually are, the rules can determine the outcome.”

  • wayne

    Voting is non-transitive, and voting is subject to cycling.
    Majority Rule in pair-wise comparisons, does NOT lead to a single outcome.
    “Majority Rules,” is actually “Rock, Paper, Scissors.”
    ————————————————————————
    Consider the following example:
    Suppose that, faced with a decision about the future of a firm, the president of the company decides to let her three top administrators vote on the following options:
    A) increase the number of employees and hire more monitors (supervisors),
    B) maintain the current size of the supervisors and employees, or
    C) cut back on supervisors and reduce the number of employees.

    -The Vice President of finance (VP1) prefers A to B and B to C.
    -The Vice President of hiring and firing (VP2) doesn’t want to rock the boat. She prefers keeping the current size of the firm (option B) to either of the others, although she prefers C to A.
    -The 3rd in command does believe in changes and doesn’t really care if it means decreases or increases in things. He prefers C to A and A to B.

    –>When the three vote on A vs B, they vote in favor of A-to increase the company size because VP1 and the 3rd in command outvote VP2.
    –>Voting on B and C gives B a victory over C.
    –>But then they all vote on A vs C.

    Here a problem arises because C wins.

    But if A beats B, and B beats C, how can C beat A?
    The results seem to be a bit inconsistent?!?
    ->That is the Voting Paradox.

  • Cotour

    Bill DeBlasio, Marxist, doing the best work of his life.

    And I am certain he sees himself as becoming the governor next.

    I heard someone propose an interesting theory about why Andrew Cuomo is being dragged out as a sexual harasser at this time. And that would be because the nursing home death issue is much bigger. In the end the sexual misconduct is investigated and goes away as the nursing home issue is fluffed over. Stay tuned on that.

    In the end however, I think Andrews aspirations of being president are over. But what of DeBlasio and his future in a state that is having a Leftist nervous break down?

    Thanks for the info, Wayne. I assumed that the extra layer of confusion is focused on empowering further the Left. Democrats, leftists can NEVER be honest or forthright about what they say, think and do, lies, lies, lies is their only strategy. If not and them siphoning funds constantly from the government and their leverage within government via unions and such then most would never pay any attention to them.

    (And when you think about it for a few seconds this “NEW” election system it probably empowers the least qualified and competent candidates in the end.)

  • wayne

    C–
    “DeBlasio,’ that would be Warren Wilhelm Jr.
    ———
    Sorry to dump all the math word-problem-esque stuff as an explanation, bottom line is:
    “The Rules determine the outcome of an Election.”
    If the lefties support any changes, it’s because it benefits them.

    pivoting –
    Let us all not forget, the 17th Amendment fundamentally changed the relationship between the States and the Federal government. Senators were historically (and by specification) appointed by their respective State Legislature’s and had to answer to their State. The 17th Amendment was sold to the people as being more ‘democratic,’ by directly electing Senators.

  • Sam L.

    I call the GOP the “Go Along To Get Along With the DEM s” Party. I trust them NOT. NO WAY! Not NOW, Not EVER.

  • Edward

    Deoxy wrote: “In the choice between a punch in the face and getting run over by a car, I’ll choose the punch in the face. EVERY. DANG. TIME. The choices both suck, but choosing between them is ridiculously easy.

    Easy it may be, but when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still elect evil.

    Steve Richter wrote: “it is ballot harvesting that has to be addressed and banned.

    In person voting is not necessarily safe, either. If the poll watchers cannot get close enough to verify that votes are being counted correctly, then how do we know that they are? When numbers suddenly switch from one candidate to the other, it is certain that fraud just took place. When those counting the ballots send away the watchers and continue to count, it is also certain that fraud took place. We have those watchers because it does not matter who votes but matters who counts. This is vitally important.

    We even had certification of votes from precincts in which more votes were counted than people registered to vote. Explain how that is not fraud. We can only wonder why more than 60% of voters believe that U.S. elections were not beset by fraud.

  • pzatchok

    Between the 15 Amendment and the voting rights act of 1965 whats to stop congress from determining who can vote in ANY election?

    What gives the states the right to allow illegals to vote on local and state elections? This directly reduces the vote of the citizen.

    And why can’t the federal government step in and stop this?

  • khp54

    Maybe my detector sensitivity is turned up too high, but I’m detecting way more than just a “bit of contempt” here (and rightly so.)

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *