USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[grarpamp]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ink_used_in_India_Elections.jpg
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_counting

Here we see Democrats electioneering more avenues
to support their own fraudulent entrenchment, just like Biden-Dems
importing million of "migrants / false-asylums" over US South border
for sole purpose of buying their vote for Dems by giving citizenship.

Recall that cypherpunks already created many fully transparent auditable
noncorruptible nonfraudable digital and paper voting systems.
And that with even old India system of biomarking ink, not even any stupid
Govt ID databases power or registering is needed to prevent multiple voting.
And that democracy and voting is a fraud because voting your will of
force over other free peoples who did nothing to you... is a crime.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/17/why_hr1_threatens_election_integrity_145416.html

Why HR1 Threatens Election Integrity

Much ink has been spilled warning of the ramifications should
Democrats pass their election “reform” package, HR1 -- and for good
reason, given how the bill would upend our nation’s electoral system.

Democrats claim HR1 is aimed at maximizing voter participation and
ending corruption in our election systems, but the truth is that the
legislation would do neither. Instead, it will only serve to open up
our states’ elections to fraud and public mistrust at a time when we
need to bolster voter confidence.

Let’s look at just a few of the many areas where HR1 would nationalize
elections and cancel out state integrity and confidence-building
measures.

First, the measure voids dozens of longstanding state voting
procedures, many of which are relatively non-controversial and serve
to give voters confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our
elections process. HR1 would invalidate photo ID requirements -- such
as those in Indiana -- that the Supreme Court have found
constitutional and important confidence builders. These laws are
popular with large majorities of Americans, and despite critics’
fearmongering they have not negatively impacted voter participation.

HR1 would also force states to allow ballot harvesting, a practice
where third parties, usually political operatives, collect and return
marked mail ballots. Laws restricting harvesting, which are also
popular, deter fraud because they preserve a marked-ballot chain of
custody and prevent coercion and undue influence on the elderly and
other voters. Yet Democrats want to override these laws and normalize
harvesting.

Just last week we saw additional criminal charges against candidates
in an all-mail city council election in Paterson, N.J., for vote fraud
related to harvesting and tampering with ballots. The fraud was so
pervasive that a local judge voided the election and ordered a new
one. There was also the infamous congressional race in North Carolina
in 2018, when the election had to be thrown out because of fraud
initiated through ballot harvesting. The good news is that ballot
harvesting bans help prevent and detect these exact types of crimes.
But if Congress nationalizes ballot harvesting through HR1, these
stories may go from being cautionary tales to the new norm.

To date, the Republican National Committee has been successful in
beating the Democrats in court challenges to harvesting bans and has
been vocal about the need for bans. And they are not inherently
partisan since many states, both blue and red, either prohibit
harvesting or severely restrict it. Now, after losing in the courts,
Democrats seek to impose the practice from Washington, D.C., with the
arrogant belief that they know better than state legislatures about
the election integrity measures their states require.

HR1 will also further restrict states from cleaning up their voter
rolls. Under current federal law, a state must stop programs that
remove ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days before a
federal election. This blackout period already significantly limits a
state’s ability to remove voters who may have moved away,  died, or
are otherwise ineligible to vote because it applies to periods before
both primaries and general elections. The Democrats propose expanding
that blackout period for many programs to six months before any
federal election. Not only will this prevent states from cleaning up
their rolls in a federal election year, it will expand that period for
many states into the off years.

Voter roll maintenance not only enhances election integrity by
ensuring only eligible voters can cast ballots, it also promotes
access by ensuring voters are properly registered when they do go to
vote, thus preventing lines and provisional ballots that may not
count. No wonder both parties have historically agreed on the
importance of voter registration list upkeep. HR1’s restrictions make
Democrats’ intentions clear: They have abandoned any pretense that
they still care about this issue that was once welcomed as reasonable
and routine.

Cynics say that Republicans oppose this legislation because we want to
restrict people from voting. This could not be further from the truth.
The reality is that we want all eligible voters to be able to vote and
vote easily — but voters must also have confidence that our elections
systems have safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy. Previous
federal election legislation such as the NVRA and HAVA made some
attempt to balance the interests of voter integrity and access. But
HR1 eliminates any pretense altogether by invaliding states’
reasonable ID requirements, mandating ballot harvesting, and enacting
obstacles to critical voter roll maintenance.

The American people do not want a Washington takeover of their
elections at the hands of congressional Democrats. They want election
transparency and confidence in their future elections restored. These
motives are exactly what the RNC will continue to fight for, both in
the lead-up to the critical midterms and ahead of all elections to
come.