Yes, Athenian citizens valued their power to VOTE for anything and everything=====they would not stand around going to polls KNOWING the US elections are rigged and fraudulent---they would be DANCING IN THE STREETS protesting for the return of that voting POWER.
'Regular Athenian citizens had the power to vote for anything and everything, and were fiercely proud of their democratic ways. No citizen was above the law'
Below is a sad state of US journalism-----THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR sounds RELIGIOUS but was always a far-right wing global banking 1% freemasonry media outlet----this is why today's headline has TRUMP as a champion for fixing our US fraudulent elections ---after TRUMP was installed by GOP/DNC general election fraud.
'When American elections were rigged: How did the US stop electoral fraud?
Electoral experts dismiss Donald Trump's claims of a rigged election. But elections in the United States weren't always as fair as they are now'.
When our global 99% of citizens see the word CHRISTIAN they assume it is a religious organization and not global banking 1% myth-making and propaganda.
Here we have far-right wing global banking 1% media outlet WIRED. So, WIRED is selling that all this US election fraud is centered on rich citizens getting to VOTE and everyone else being tied to rigged voting machines. Well, as we shout all the time, MARYLAND'S MONTGOMERY COUNTY may have opened elections to NON-CITIZENS to make them feel they have the right to VOTE-----but MARYLAND'S elections have been RIGGED for global banking 1% for a long time. So, those new to US 99% of citizens living in MONTGOMERY COUNTY being told they can vote----ARE NOT REALLY VOTING.
Global banking 1% media outlet WIRED addressing the US election problems everyone knows---yet they are PRETENDING our merely rich are actually VOTING-----it's just everyone else having rigged elections.
Sorry, merely rich---you are NOT VOTING in US elections!
Despite Donald Trump’s recent claims, it’s pretty impossible to rig an election via voter fraud. To have any impact, you’d need a labyrinthine network of local election officials to collude against a candidate and then bamboozle the bipartisan poll watchers tasked with keeping them honest.
But just because Trump’s fever dream of an election day conspiracy is highly (did we mention highly?) unlikely, doesn’t mean that American elections are always—if ever—fair and equitable.
Consider this: In 2012, black voters waited in line twice as long as white voters to cast a ballot. In key swing states like Florida, the largest polling place delays occurred in districts with larger minority populations. Districts with more Spanish speakers also experienced longer lines. And research shows that in 2012, somewhere between 500,000 and 700,000 eligible voters decided not to vote because of problems at their polling places, including wait times.
“It has an economic cost,” says Charles Stewart, a professor of political science at MIT and one of the leading researchers on voting lines and voting technologies, who estimates that some $1 billion in productivity was lost in 2012 due to people waiting in lines. “But whatever the cost is, it lands disproportionately more on some people than others, and that’s unfair.”
So in a way, you could say elections have been rigged all along—just not in the way Trump envisions it and certainly not against the people who are most likely to vote for him this November.
The question is: Why does this kind of rigged system exist? Though much has been made about voter identification laws and the way they undermine the promise of the Voting Rights Act, there’s another insidious problem plaguing American elections, and that is the fact that the machines on which we vote are old and growing older, they’re allocated unevenly, and election officials lack both the funding and the data they need to update them.
A Systemic Imbalance
In his 2012 victory speech, President Obama famously pledged to “fix” the long lines that wound around polling places for hours in states like Florida. Since then researchers and election officials alike have begun probing the root cause of this issue.
Now, one of the leading theories behind why some voters wait minutes to vote and others wait hours is a basic imbalance in the number of voting machines available to different demographics of voters. One comprehensive 2014 study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that in Florida, Maryland, and South Carolina—three states that experienced the longest delays in 2012—districts that had more minority voters also had fewer voting machines per registered voter, and therefore, longer wait times.
Baltimore County, for instance, where 24 percent of the electorate was black in 2012, experienced some of the latest poll closings in Maryland on Election Day. More than 90 percent of its counties also failed to meet Maryland’s mandated minimum for voting machines per registered voter. But that failure wasn’t equally shared across Baltimore County. According to the Brennan Center’s report, only precincts with a higher percentage of black voting age citizens had long delays.
“We were really focused on identifying the issue and showing there was a systemic problem,” says Christopher Famighetti, a voting rights researcher and one of the authors of the study. Famighetti and his team stopped short of prescribing a reason for that imbalance, which would have required analyzing how each district allocated resources.
But Stewart says it’s not a huge leap to say that this gap is just another example of government providing services to black and white communities differently.
OH, REALLY???? IT SEEMS US 99% WE THE WHITE CITIZENS WOULD DISAGREE DURING CLINTON/BUSH ELECTION RIGGING AND FRAUDS.
“In a neighborhood that has long lines chronically, they probably have parks that are poorly maintained. They probably have schools that are crowded. They probably have slow police response times,” says Stewart. “On average, African American communities and communities of color just don’t get the public services that white communities do.”
What imperils this already vulnerable system even more, however, is the fact that so many of the country’s voting machines and electronic check-in tools are a decade or more old. That means not only are they becoming obsolete, but often, they’re so slow and clunky that they gum up the works.
The last time the federal government invested substantially in new voting technology was after the catastrophic screw up of the 2000 election. The Help America Vote Act, which passed in 2002, sent a $2 billion cash infusion into the states, enabling them to invest in new voting technology to avoid any more hanging chad debacles in the future. More than a decade later, many districts are still using those same replacement machines. As WIRED has written about at length, computers that old pose not just a problem for efficient voting, but also a huge security risk.
THIS IS INDEED WHEN OUR US BALLOTS GONE DIGITAL BECAME SYSTEMICALLY FRAUDULENT---DURING BUSH ERA 2002 CALLING IT------HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT.
“The machines we’re using are computers,” says Famighetti, who also wrote a 2015 report on the country’s aging voting technology. “We don’t expect our laptops to last a decade.”
That study found that this year 43 states will use machines at least 10 years old. The states are aware that’s a problem, too, but in most cases, they lack funding to do anything about it. Of the 31 states who said they want to purchase new voting machines in the next five years, some 22 of them didn’t know where they’d get the money.
What’s more alarming—though not at all surprising—is that the districts that do have the money to invest in new voting technology often have richer citizens. In Virginia, for instance, the Brennan Center found that the median income of the 16 jurisdictions that had recently replaced their equipment was $69,800. In the rest, it was $50,100.
“This has the potential to create a two-tiered voting system,” Famighetti warns.
The older these machines get, the more likely they may be to have irregularities and calibration errors. That’s problematic on its own, it can be even more dangerous when voters are prone to believe the election is rigged. Every error can be used as a data point to prove the deck is stacked against the voter.
In early voting, some such reports are already popping up on social media. In Texas, for instance, voters in several counties reported having their votes “flipped” at the last minute. Some media outlets, including conservative commentator Sean Hannity’s website ran with the story. But election officials in those districts maintain that any issues have been the result of human error dealing with less than intuitive machines.
Famighetti predicts these types of stories could proliferate in the future. “The sort of irregularities that we see in elections, and may be more likely to see due to aging out equipment, will be viewed through this lens,” he says, “and that can undermine the public confidence in the election as a result.”
Where’s the Data?
Researchers have only just begun to look into these problems in earnest. Most of the research we've had in the past about wait times is based on imprecise data, cobbled together from county-level reports about what time polls actually close, compared with what time they were supposed to close. It’s a rough approximation, that still probably misses a lot of the precincts where lines pile up in the morning. And even that can’t account for what exactly caused the slowdown. Was it a lack of voting machines? Poll workers? Language barriers? Voter ID laws? Ballot length? Or something as simple as the fact that the polling place was physically smaller than others?
“If the question is what data’s available? The answer is: not very much,” says Michael Herron, a professor of government and quantitative social science at Dartmouth University.
But in recent years, as social media posts about wait times and outsized lines turn into front page headlines, Herron says, that’s starting to change. The onslaught of media attention is forcing election officials to at least acknowledge the problem. Meanwhile, in 2014, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration answered President Obama’s election night call with a list of recommendations about how districts could speed up the voting process, including collecting more data on election night operations.
Since 2008, Stewart has been conducting a national poll called the Survey of the Performance of American Elections, which includes information on voting experience from 200 voters per state. It has now become the basis of other election administration research like the studies conducted by the Brennan Center.
This year, however, Stewart, Herron, and about two dozen other university faculty members across the country are going even farther, deploying their own students to about 1,000 precincts to collect data on how long it takes voters to get from point A to point B, among other things. Herron and other Dartmouth researchers are also working on an app called PollTracker that voters could use to self-report their experiences at the polls.
None of this is easy. Voting is by definition supposed to be a private thing, and voters get mighty anxious about people poking around their precincts. Some states ban that kind of loitering altogether in hopes of eliminating the potential for voter intimidation. But before we start giving into fearmongering about the election being rigged, the country needs a lot more information on the parts of the electoral system that already are.
Here is MARYLAND'S ploy in fooling our new to US 99% of immigrant citizens into thinking THEY HAVE A VOTING VOICE. Montgomery County is a rich county as a bedroom community to global corporations circling Washington DC. Yet, those living in Montgomery County are mostly MERELY RICH----they certainly have no VOTING POWER---in MARYLAND global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS reign supreme----they are the only one's with VOTING RIGHTS in Maryland.
US FEDERAL election laws do not allow NON-CITIZENS to VOTE as American Thinker knows ---Maryland State Constitution leaves open the NON-CITIZEN vote. It is because Maryland has no politicians recognizing US FEDERAL LAW that this non-citizen voting stance is taken.
"'Voting is a right, but it is also a privilege,' Provost said. 'There are standards for voting. It is no mistake that the 14th Amendment gave citizenship and the 15th Amendment gave the right to vote. I would urge the council to look elsewhere to integrate our non-citizens.'"
American Thinker is yet another global banking 1% FAKE media outlet ---it does not educate as to the gorilla-in-room 99% issue on VOTING RIGHTS----the designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES is what global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols use as a reason to ignore US SOVEREIGN VOTING RIGHTS.
Remember, Maryland being a raging far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' state will pass any law pretending to be socially progressive, then not enforce it.
August 2, 2017
Maryland city to allow non-citizens to vote...again
By Robert Knight
If you want to know where the progressive left wants to take U.S. elections, a trip through Maryland's Washington, D.C.-area suburban counties is instructive.
MARYLAND ONLY HAS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS---NO REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES.
The City of College Park in Prince George's County is on the verge of becoming the ninth city in Maryland to allow non-citizens – including illegal aliens – to vote in municipal elections.
In a revealing 20-minute video of a June 7 council meeting, city officials discussed how best to get rid of the citizenship requirement so that virtually anyone of legal age living in the city can vote. A council vote is slated for August 8.
One councilwoman noted that in the hippie community of Takoma Park (modifier added), where 16-year-olds can vote, "they do not ask and do not care if the resident is in their city legally or not," a policy she indicated should be adopted by College Park.
One lone College Park council member opined that immigration status should be a factor and that the council could serve all residents without letting unqualified residents vote.
Because elections loom in November, the council discussed creating a separate deadline for citizens and non-citizens to register before the election. Citizens must register 28 days ahead of an election. But non-citizens can register up to 14 days before the election if the city charter amendment is approved.
When someone asked whether legal residents who missed the 28-day mark could have a grace period up to 14 days, the idea was quickly dismissed. Welcome to the new America, where actual citizens are intentionally disadvantaged.
The eight other Maryland cities that already allow non-citizens to vote include Hyattsville, which is also in Prince George's County and is a "sanctuary city," and Mount Rainier, also in Prince George's, which amended its charter in January. The others are Takoma Park, Barnesville, Glen Echo, Garrett Park, Martin's Additions, and Somerset, all of which are in tony Montgomery County.
The radical nature of this voting scheme reflects the progressive view that borders are merely artificial inconveniences and that citizenship is a leftover concept from slave-holding days that should give way to global consciousness.
Apparently, no documentation will be needed at all for non-citizens, green card holders, undocumented fence-jumpers, or over-stays on visas. The council did informally agree to "retain the other qualifications" that Maryland law stipulates, barring felons and mentally incapacitated people – presumably Republicans.
At the July 11 council meeting, along with immigrants' rights groups promoting the policy, some residents voiced opposition, including U.S. Army veteran Larry Provost.
According to the Diamondback, the University of Maryland newspaper, "Provost stood firmly opposed to the amendment. He said he and his wife try to teach their child, whom they adopted from overseas, about what it means to be a citizen.
"'Voting is a right, but it is also a privilege,' Provost said. 'There are standards for voting. It is no mistake that the 14th Amendment gave citizenship and the 15th Amendment gave the right to vote. I would urge the council to look elsewhere to integrate our non-citizens.'"
Here is a voice of reason that should be heeded.
Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union.
CITYLAB is a far-right wing global banking 1% media outlet pretending that MARRIED TO THE US FED Raskin has anything left social progressive up his sleeve. NON-CITIZEN VOTING says global banking 5% players having only the talent of LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING-----is about giving our new to US 99% of citizens more RIGHTS----to vote in RIGGED AND FRAUDULENT elections is empowering for them says RASKINS.
'In a 1993 paper in the Penn Law Review, Jamie Raskin, who was an American University law professor at the time (and one of the pioneers of non-citizens voting rights in Takoma Park), explained the history of what he called “alien suffrage”':
ALIEN SUFFRAGE----OH, REALLY???????? AS IN EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS?
Tanvi Misra would not be writing for CITYLAB media if she was not a far-right wing global banking 1% freemason/Greek player.
The Long, Strange History of Non-Citizen VotingNov 7, 2016
Proponents say that letting recent immigrants vote in local elections is as American as apple pie. Can this isolated practice overcome political pushback and become more widespread?
It’s extremely unlikely that non-citizens will be voting in the presidential election on November 8, despite recent (and thoroughly debunked) claims to that effect by Donald Trump. And any evidence suggesting they have done so in the past is pretty weak. But here’s the thing: Non-citizens do vote in local elections, and that’s been a norm through U.S. history—not an anomaly.
It might sound outlandish and vaguely un-American, but that’s because at the moment, the practice is not very common. Six towns in Montgomery County, Maryland, including the uber-progressive D.C. suburb of Takoma Park, allow non-citizens—documented and undocumented—to vote in municipal elections. And the city of Chicago allows them to weigh in on school parent advisory boards. That’s about it.
Proponents of non-citizen voting argue that the practice benefits not just immigrants but their communities.
Other cities have tried to follow suit. San Francisco has a proposal on the November 8 ballot that would allow non-citizen residents to help pick school board members. Some New York City Council members have been trying for years to pass legislation that lets non-naturalized immigrants have a say in municipal elections. (The city’s non-citizen residents were actually allowed to vote in school board elections up until 2002.) Some towns in Massachusetts have passed resolutions allowing permanent legal aliens to vote, but those were ultimately thwarted by the state legislature.
Opponents often argue that the practice could discourage immigrants from seeking citizenship. In a 2014 editorial, the L.A. Times weighed in on these lines: “If non-citizens can vote in local elections without becoming citizens, doesn't that give them one fewer reason to seek naturalization?”
YOU DON'T SAY! DISCOURAGES IMMIGRANTS FROM US CITIZENSHIP-----YOU BETCHA THAT IS THE GOAL.
Proponents of non-citizen voting often argue the opposite, saying that the practice encourages civic participation, speeds the path to citizenship, and benefits not just immigrants but their communities. “[It] focuses on what we all have in common—our collective visions for better cities, better local government, sustainable local institutions, and community life,” says Kathleen Coll, a political anthropologist at University of San Francisco, who has studied these movement and supports them in SF. “It’s a very much in the spirit of the movements for the ‘right to the city.’”
DOESN'T SILICON VALLEY CALIFORNIA HAVE SOME OF THE MOST RIGGED AND CORRUPT US ELECTIONS AND EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY ? INDEED---UNIV OF CA AS A SOURCE FOR CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS AND ADVICE?
The life and death of “alien suffrage”
Once you go further back through American history, you’ll find a lot more non-citizen voting: Around 40 states have extended voting rights for non-citizens at various points. "It's not been inevitable or natural that voting has been tied to citizenship," says Ronald Hayduk, a professor of political science at Queens College, City University of New York, and author of Democracy for All: Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the U.S.
In the earliest days, of course, America was chock-full of voting immigrants, fresh off the boat. During the Colonial Era, all white men with property were allowed to vote, and that continued after the American Revolution. In Pennsylvania, an eligible male needed only to have lived in the state for two years before he could vote. In a 1993 paper in the Penn Law Review, Jamie Raskin, who was an American University law professor at the time (and one of the pioneers of non-citizens voting rights in Takoma Park), explained the history of what he called “alien suffrage”:
It is crucial to see that the early spirit of political openness toward aliens was perfectly compatible with the exclusionary definition of "the American people as Christian white men of property." To exclude aliens from voting would have given rise to the dangerous inference that U.S. citizenship was the decisive criterion for suffrage at a time when the majority of U.S. citizens, including almost all women and substantial percentages of men without property, were categorically excluded from the franchise.
The practice had its ups and down in the 18th century, but voting among immigrants was common at state, federal, and regional elections, and it was extremely popular at the local level. Suspicion towards foreigners spiked during the War of 1812, and in the lead-up to the Civil War, several states tweaked the criteria for voter eligibility or abolished non-citizen voting outright. The South codified its ban in the Confederate Constitution 1861, mainly because immigrants tended not to support slavery. But the practice returned after the Civil War and during Reconstruction, and in the 1860s and 1870s, immigrant voting was at its peak, as an incentive to lure foreign labor westward.
“I think that the symbolic value was achieved. I don’t know if the instrumental value of it has been realized.”
All that changed between 1880 and 1920, when the flow of migrants escaping political instability and famine in Eastern Europe swelled. These were poor people with darker skin and different religious beliefs; many spoke unfamiliar languages and concentrated in cities, where they started political movements that threatened the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties leveraged the simmering racism and rising xenophobia accompanying World War I to clamp down—state by state—on non-citizen voting rights. Other voting right restrictions were also put in place at the same time, Hayduk notes in a 2015 article for Journal of International Migration and Integration:
In fact, noncitizen voting was abolished at the same time that other restrictive measures were also enacted by elites, including literacy tests, poll taxes, felony disenfranchisement laws, and restrictive residency and voter registration requirements—all of which combined to disenfranchise millions of voters.
A year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 passed, and reconfigured the demography of America. The act sought to correct the blatantly racist immigration policies passed in the earlier part of the century that limited immigration from East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The overhaul of these policies opened the door for immigrants—and also for the reintroduction of local non-citizen voting in the coming decades.
Despite optimism, non-citizen suffrage remains distant
Proponents of immigrant voting believe that allowing non-citizens to vote is a question of equity. The citizenship process can take decades, and that’s if you have documents to begin with. Meanwhile, immigrants live in U.S. cities and towns, send their kids to school, pay state and federal income and property taxes, and contribute to the local economy—all without being really able to participate in decision-making. “We’re not visitors,” says Manuel Castro, executive director of New Immigrant Community Empowerment (NICE) in New York City, an organization that promotes the civic and social empowerment of immigrant workers. An immigrant himself, Castro has been at the heart of previous pushes for non-citizen voting. “When you’re here, you’re part of this community that’s ever-changing and ever-evolving.”
Letting recent immigrants vote wouldn’t just be a gesture of inclusiveness: It improves civic engagement and is closer to the idea of universal suffrage, advocates like Hayduk have argued. But that has not yet been reflected in the turnout among in Takoma Park’s non-citizen voters, which fluctuates depending on the election, but is overall not that high. “There are a variety of reasons, among them: we need to be doing better outreach,” Jessie Carpenter, the city clerk, writes via email. “Our elections are often not of interest because voters do not see what impact these elections have on their lives; many immigrants live in apartments and our turnout from multifamily dwellings is not good.”
That said, all the arguments against this practice—that it would be a security issue, that it would be a lure for undocumented immigrants—were also overblown. “It’s been working fine in the sense that the parade of horribles that were suggested at the time never came to pass,” says Raskin, who pushed for the rule back in 1992. (Raskin is now running for Congress). “I think that the symbolic value was achieved. I don’t know if the instrumental value of it has been realized.”
Some experts predict that non-citizen voting will remain restricted to small liberal enclaves and immigrant hubs, if in fact, they’re able to surmount the obstinate political resistance to the movement at all. Others are cautiously hopeful, waiting to see what happens after November 8 to decide how and whether to proceed with this push to provide a modicum of democratic representation to what has become one of America’s most-vilified groups. "On the one hand, you have this intense anti-immigrant language that’s very fearful,” Castro says. “On the other hand, you have this feeling of wanting to be a part of something—something significant.”
The VOTING RIGHTS ACT from 1965 would have been that landmark civil rights for our US black citizens if the people in this photo hadn't decided back in early 1900s THE BOULE said ----no voting rights for you to over 90% of black citizens. Our US cities have the most rigged and fraudulent elections since this VOTING RIGHTS ACT----keeping elections ALL IN THE FAMILY.
We fought for civil rights for 99% of US black citizens and we got the ALPHA/OMEGA/EPSILON/PHI global banking 5% Greek players corrupting all that for our US 99% of black citizens. So, Maryland with its global banking 5% WHITE players killing our 99% of white citizens' vote----partnered in doing the same for our 99% of black citizens with the black BOULE.
WONDER WHAT ALL THOSE ALPHAS WILL DO WHEN GMO HUMANS REPLACE THEM MAKING ALPHAS---BETA FISH-----VERY SMALL IN THE SCHEME OF SOCIAL DARWINISM.
Our US 99% of citizen voters have had more VOTING POWER then our US 99% of black citizens because of this global banking 5% freemason/Greek player capture of US city/county elections. CLINTON/BUSH brought that rigging and fraud to our 99% of white citizens as well.
BETA fish gobbled very easily by SHARKS while fighting to death one another. Future is grim for those 5% freemason/Greeks players.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
- Selma to Montgomery March
- Literacy Tests
- Voting Rights Act Signed into Law
- Voter Turnout Rises in the South
Selma to Montgomery March
Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency in November 1963 upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In the presidential race of 1964, Johnson was officially elected in a landslide victory and used this mandate to push for legislation he believed would improve the American way of life, such as stronger voting-rights laws.
After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Nevertheless, in the ensuing decades, various discriminatory practices were used to prevent African Americans, particularly those in the South, from exercising their right to vote.
During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, voting rights activists in the South were subjected to various forms of mistreatment and violence. One event that outraged many Americans occurred on March 7, 1965, when peaceful participants in a Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights were met by Alabama state troopers who attacked them with nightsticks, tear gas and whips after they refused to turn back.
Some protesters were severely beaten and bloodied, and others ran for their lives. The incident was captured on national television.
In the wake of the shocking incident, Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, the president outlined the devious ways in which election officials denied African-American citizens the vote.
Blacks attempting to vote often were told by election officials that they had gotten the date, time or polling place wrong, that they possessed insufficient literacy skills or that they had filled out an application incorrectly. Blacks, whose population suffered a high rate of illiteracy due to centuries of oppression and poverty, often would be forced to take literacy tests, which they sometimes failed.
Johnson also told Congress that voting officials, primarily in Southern states, had been known to force black voters to “recite the entire Constitution or explain the most complex provisions of state laws,” a task most white voters would have been hard-pressed to accomplish. In some cases, even blacks with college degrees were turned away from the polls.
Voting Rights Act Signed into Law
The voting rights bill was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 77-19 vote on May 26, 1965. After debating the bill for more than a month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 333-85 on July 9.
Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965, with Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders present at the ceremony.
The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the non-white population had not registered to vote, and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections.
In 1964, the 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal in federal elections; poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Did you know? In 1965, at the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act, there were six African-American members of the U.S. House of Representatives and no blacks in the U.S. Senate. By 1971, there were 13 members of the House and one black member of the Senate.
Voter Turnout Rises in the South
Although the Voting Rights Act passed, state and local enforcement of the law was weak, and it often was ignored outright, mainly in the South and in areas where the proportion of blacks in the population was high and their vote threatened the political status quo.
Still, the Voting Rights Act gave African-American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout. In Mississippi alone, voter turnout among blacks increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.
Since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has been amended to include such features as the protection of voting rights for non-English speaking American citizens.
We KNEW this was a global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pol BONE in voting rights because in Baltimore City we have over 500,000 citizens who do not vote because Baltimore City elections are known to be totally RIGGED AND FRAUDULENT to decades-old political family machines. So, if a politician or political organization is not FIXING ELECTIONS for our 500,000 citizens black, white, and brown citizens to feel they have VOTING RIGHTS-----are these FELONS really getting the right to vote in Maryland elections? Of course not---they are no doubt being tracked into a global banking 1% freemasonry trap pledging their CITIZENSHIP AWAY.
ALL THESE FREEMASON/GREEK PLEDGES DENY THOSE US CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
This was a FALSE FLAG as Baltimore media loves to do------making it appear left social progressive while Baltimore elections are as rigged and fraudulent as ever.
More than 40,000 recently released Maryland felons will regain the right to vote in time for this year's election.
The legislature on Tuesday narrowly overturned Gov. Larry Hogan's veto of a bill to extend voting rights to felons before they complete probation and parole.
Feb 9, 2016 BALTIMORE SUN
The reversal both dealt a political blow to the Republican governor, who lobbied to prevent the bill from becoming law, and set the stage for an estimated 20,000 former inmates to cast ballots in Baltimore's primary election for mayor and City Council this spring.
The issue drew passionate debate from both sides on the proper message to send former inmates rejoining society.
The bill was the sixth that Hogan vetoed from last year's General Assembly, and the sixth the Democratic-controlled legislature reinstated this year. The House of Delegates voted to override Hogan's veto last month, and on Tuesday, the Senate voted 29-18 to overrule the governor.
The vote, twice delayed in order to muster enough support, followed an expansive debate that touched on resolving racial disparities in the criminal justice system and protecting victims of violent crime. The current system requires felons to complete probation and parole before registering to vote. But proponents argued that the system is confusing, unnecessary and demoralizing to ex-offenders trying to rebuild their lives.
Opponents of the law, which will go into effect March 10, said felons should earn back the right to vote only after completing their sentences.
Minutes after the override vote, convicted felon Marcus Toles of West Baltimore celebrated in the marble hallway outside the Senate chamber.
"I am overwhelmed with joy," said Toles, 27, clutching a Maryland voter registration application. "I can finally have my voice heard after doing my time and trying to be a productive member of society."
Toles said he was released from prison three months ago after serving a five-year sentence for a felony drug conviction. He is on parole until November, which under current law would make him ineligible to vote for the city's next mayor or the next president. Now that he can vote in the April 26 primary and Nov. 8 general, Toles said, he's "going to vote in every election I can."
"We've done our time, you take our taxes," Toles said of felons. "It's hard enough we get every door slammed in our faces. We paid our debt to society. We're out here striving not to go back, and you want to take our right to vote? I think our voices should be heard."
When Hogan vetoed the law last spring, he said it improperly restored rights to people who had not yet paid their debt to society. Since last month, he waged an aggressive social media campaign urging his supporters to lobby lawmakers to side with him and his "common sense" veto.
The governor responded to the vote on his Facebook page Tuesday afternoon, characterizing the override as a consequence of "partisan" politics and an exercise of Democrats' power.
"Only a tiny, radical minority supports this idea. But they did it anyway," Hogan wrote. "They don't seem to care what most Marylanders want. Why did they do it anyway? Because they can."
After the vote, while having lunch at Chick & Ruth's Delly in Annapolis with Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford, Hogan said lawmakers who voted for the override had made a big mistake.
"Some people may have ended their careers," he said. "Basically, they just ignored the will of the people. That's not a good way to keep your job in the Senate. ... Most Marylanders are going to be pretty upset."
Sen. Joanne C. Benson, a Democrat from Prince George's County, said she was hospitalized Monday night after a fall but came to Annapolis on Tuesday to help override the veto. She noted that the vast majority of people affected by the law are, like her, African-American.
"It's unfair," she said. "The whole system is unfair."
Baltimore Sen. Joan Carter Conway sponsored the bill and argued that it was "the right thing to do."
INDEED JOAN CARTER---THE SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD AND RIGGING IS UNFAIR----TO 99% OF BALTIMORE CITIZENS.
In a largely party-line vote, Republicans in the Senate followed Hogan's argument and said felons should be allowed to vote only after they have completed all of the terms of their sentences.
"That poor victim could be laid up in the hospital bed, and you're going off to vote," Republican Sen. Michael J. Hough of Frederick County said. "We need to have an orderly process."
Giving felons access to housing and helping them find jobs are critical to their success, Hough said, and allowing them to regain voting rights sooner gets in the way of a more "holistic" look at helping former offenders.
Baltimore County Republican Sen. Johnny Ray Salling put it simply: "Somebody breaks the law, they lose rights."
Four Democrats from conservative districts joined the Senate's 14 Republicans in voting to uphold the veto: Sens. James Brochin and Katherine Klausmeier of Baltimore County; Ed DeGrange of Anne Arundel County and James N. Mathias Jr. of the Eastern Shore.
The House of Delegates voted 85-56 to override Hogan's veto last month, garnering the minimum amount of support needed to reverse Hogan's action. A three-fifths vote of both chambers of the General Assembly is required to overturn a governor's veto.
Controversy preceded the vote in the Senate, where a newly appointed senator was poised to take a second vote on the override.
Sen. Craig Zucker, a Democrat from Montgomery County, voted in the House last month to overturn the veto. Late last week, he was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Senate, giving proponents of the law the 29th vote they needed in that chamber.
Republicans questioned whether it was legal for Zucker to vote on the same measure twice. An assistant attorney general advised lawmakers it was, and GOP members publicly urged Zucker to recuse himself. He did not.
The vote also brought about an hour of intrigue on the Senate floor when one lawmaker left his seat during the final vote. The override initially failed, 28-18, but under Senate rules a vote can be reconsidered. The override passed the second time around.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, a Calvert County Democrat, said the country has a long history of slowly expanding the right to vote — to people who aren't landowners, to minorities, and to women.
MIKE MILLER OF COURSE HAVING CONTROLLED MARYLAND SENATE THROUGHOUT THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC GLOBAL BANKING FRAUDS AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
"It's been a challenge for people to earn the right to vote, and to take it away, it really has to be something that is unforgiven, heinous," Miller said. "What this means here is that people who have returned to society, repaid their debt to society, they're back in society, we want to reincorporate them into society. … We want them to be able to hold their head high, and that's what this is all about."
The Maryland Board of Elections requires eligible voters to register by April 5 to get their names on the rolls in time to cast a ballot in the primary. Advocates hope the roughly 20,000 newly eligible voters in Baltimore change the tenor of the mayoral campaign.
Democratic mayoral candidate Catherine E. Pugh, the Senate majority leader, praised the law, saying it would allow people to vote "once you've paid your debt to society."
Jane Henderson, executive director of Communities United, said her group has been working with people in Baltimore's public housing complexes, "where every other person has a felony conviction."
"Issues facing returning citizens do not get their due from any politician because they are not considered part of the electorate and so many of them don't vote even once they get their voting rights restored," she said.
Henderson said Tuesday's vote will launch a new marathon for her. Once the law takes effect next month, "we have a month to register as many people as we can."
This headline is indeed why global banking 1% are having to extend VOTING RIGHTS to more and more population groups often unaware the power to vote does not lay in simply going to VOTER BOOTH.
Indeed, these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA almost 80% of US VOTERS both right wing and left wing have left the election process because we all know it is rigged and fraudulent. Simply CASTING A VOTE means nothing for VOTER RIGHTS when these US elections have global banking 1% deciding before elections take place.
CORPORATE CASH has nothing to do with US free and fair elections. A candidate does not need campaign MONEY to win elections---they need HONEST ELECTIONS
IT IS MYTH-MAKING THAT CORPORATE MONEY IS ENDING OUR US DEMOCRATIC ELECTION PROCESS---IT IS THE SAME LOCAL AND STATE ELECTION FRAUD.
So, US elections MOVING FORWARD will have more if not only our global 99% labor pool voting because they may not know or care these elections are predetermined.
Remember, we have no polling corporations that are not FAKE DATA today-----progressive change here is far-right wing global banking 1% making the rich extremely richer------you know, all that TEDDY ROOSEVELT RIGHT WING stuff----not the REAL left social progressive FDR stuff
'Source: Progressive Change Institute, 2014'
Most Americans don’t vote in elections. Here’s why
The rise of the donor class and the influx of corporate cash have caused many voters to lose faith in politics
July 27, 2015 2:00AM ET
by Sean McElwee @SeanMcElwee
New U.S. Census data released on July 19 confirm what we already knew about American elections: Voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest in the developed world. Only 42 percent of Americans voted in the 2014 midterm elections, the lowest level of voter turnout since 1978. And midterm voters tend to be older, whiter and richer than the general population. The aggregate number is important but turnout among different groups is even more crucial.
Politicians are more accountable and responsive to wealthy voters, not just because rich people vote in elections, but because they are also more likely to donate to campaigns or work on them to get their candidates elected. And the effects of the gap in voter turnout are far-reaching because, for many Americans, elections are one of the only ways in which they can participate in democracy.
Boosting voter participation
Gaps in voter turnout exacerbate the United States’ already unequal political system. Its uniquely difficult electoral system is responsible for much of the low voter participation. This includes the practice of filling key offices during midterm or off-cycle elections, the odd Electoral College, a majoritarian rather than proportional system and the voter registration barrier, which leaves the responsibility for voter registration to citizens. (In most countries, the government conducts voter education and registration.) It doesn’t help that one of the two main political parties views reducing voter turnout as a key to its electoral success. Furthermore, the fact that the United States disenfranchises its many felons contributes to the low turnout.
To illustrate why the turnout gap matters, a recent study by political scientist Robert Erikson found that the median voter in 2008 in terms of income was at the 66th percentile for the general population. And as political scientist Michael Barber estimates, fewer than 3 percent of campaign donors, who give more than $200, make less than $50,000 — almost the same as the median household income in the United States. Assuming that politicians respond to the median voter, they are less likely to favor policies of redistribution than they would if they responded to the median citizen.
Families with higher incomes had higher voter turnout in 2014
Income (in thousands of dollars)2014 voter turnout25303135414248535557< $10$10-15$15-20$20-30$30-40$40-50$50-75$75-100$100-150> $1500%100%25%50%75%
Source: Census Bureau, 2015
There is also another, less recognized factor at play. In her 2005 book, “How Policies Make Citizens,” political scientist Andrea Louise Campbell argued that government structures and policies could either facilitate or deter citizen participation in politics. For example, Campbell notes that the establishment of Social Security led to increased civic participation by the elderly (especially the poor), by motivating them to defend and seek the program’s expansion. By contrast, the stigma associated with welfare programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) led to a decrease in voter turnout.
Other studies corroborate Campbell’s findings. A 2010 study on the role of public policies in civic and political engagement found that initiatives such as Head Start, a federal program that provides early childhood education, health, nutrition and other services to low-income children and their families, increase political participation, while welfare and public housing assistance policies reduce it. Similarly, Suzanne Mettler, author of “Soldiers to Citizens,” argues that the GI Bill, which provided many benefits to World War II veterans, boosted their civic participation. Veterans had a positive experience with the program and felt that they were treated with dignity and respect, which lead to greater political participation, not only through voting but also by boosting veterans’ involvement in civic organizations.
Ahead of the 2016 elections, Democrats need to embrace popular progressive policies to convince potential voters that they are indeed different and that they offer real solutions.
As I’ve noted before, voters' affinity to and identification with political parties and their perception of the differences between the two parties also affect turnout. It’s deleterious to voter participation to pretend that there are not substantive differences between Republicans and Democrats. Last year, the Progressive Change Institute, which promotes progressive policy response to political issues, asked 1,500 of the so-called “drop-off” voters, who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 but did not vote in the 2014 midterm election, what policies would motivate them to vote in 2016. As the chart below illustrates, potential voters listed progressive policies such as debt-free college, universal pre-K and a living wage job guarantee.
Progressive policies excite potential voters
Percent agreeing4941393938363222233026272530Definitely VoteMaybeDebt-free collegeCorporate spendingPre-KSocial securityGuaranteed jobsMinimum wageGuaranteed income0%100%25%50%75%
Source: Progressive Change Institute, 2014
In a 2012 USA Today poll, 59 percent of non-voters said they were frustrated by the fact that “nothing ever gets done” in government while 54 percent cited “corruption” and 42 percent pointed to the lack of difference between the two parties. About 37 percent said politics doesn’t make much difference in their lives.
59 percent of non-registered people believe nothing ever gets done
Percent agreeing59544237Nothing ever gets done
Politics is so corrupt
There is no differencebetween Democrats andRepublicansIt doesn't make muchdifference in my life0%20%40%60%80%100%
Source: USA Today, August 2012
These results suggest that the most effective Republican disenfranchisement strategy may not be voter ID laws, but grinding government to a halt. By forcing government shutdowns, Republican leaders and lawmakers have significantly reduced voter participation to historic lows (see chart below). Less than 1 in 5 Americans believe that government works for the benefit of everyone. Furthermore, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, which led to the influx of corporate cash into politics and the rise of the donor class, have together turned more people away from politics.
More Americans believe that the government is run by a few big interests than for the benefit of all people
Few big interestsBenefit of all1964197219801990199820080%100%25%50%75%
Source: ANES, 1964-2012
But we can’t blame only conservatives for the low voter turnout. Many Americans forgo voting because they don’t see differences between Democrats and Republicans. “Respondents who perceive a greater difference between the candidates ... are more likely to vote,” political scientists Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler, write in their book, “Who Votes Now?” “Those in the top income quintile see a larger difference between the candidates on ideology than do those in the bottom quintile.” Their findings support claims made in recent cross-national research and a previous study by political scientist David Brockington, in which he argues that when individuals feel ideological affinity to candidates, they are more likely to vote. In addition, “choice-rich environments,” in which parties span a wider ideological range, also boost voter turnout.
Ahead of the 2016 elections, Democrats need to embrace popular progressive policies to convince potential voters that they are indeed different and that they offer real solutions. Americans must also fight back against voter suppression attempts, among other things, by demanding automatic voter registration. Moreover, in order to reduce the power of money in politics and limit the influence of the donor class, lawmakers must work to increase the power of the people through public financing and strict lobbying regulations.
But these steps aren’t enough. Voters must also pressure the candidates to put forward a vision that benefits the middle and lower class. People are far more likely to participate in politics if they feel that government plays an important and beneficial role in their lives. Policies such as debt-free college, universal child-care and pre-K education, a higher minimum wage and living wage job guarantees could increase voter turnout and civic engagement. American democracy is not for sale. The voting booth is a potent force against the power of plutocracy.
'Arabic العربية ... to delay a ruling until Friday on a petition filed by opposition candidate Nelson Chamisa that July's presidential election was rigged'.
All kinds of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' tricks are at play today to make it appear the US is a free DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC -----when it is MOVING FORWARD to being that same third world dictatorship having PRETENDED these several decades to be having OPEN AND FAIR DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS. Ask Jimmy Carter---he KNOWS overseas elections have always been rigged and fraudulent for those global banking players.
'Boosting voter participation
Gaps in voter turnout exacerbate the United States’ already unequal political system'.
We hear nothing from a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE policy stance----in fixing our local elections and ending cronyism in US politics.
Here is the gorilla-in-room problem for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens and our new to US 99% immigrants wanting to be REAL US CITIZENS------most of our global 99% new immigrants are coming from third world nations where all these election frauds and rigging is the only thing they know----they do not know our US elections had and can rebuild a solid foundation in being free, open, and fair.
If our global 99% of citizens come to AMERICA participating in US elections operating as a third world nation----we will not be able to bring our new to US 99% immigrants into an ALL-AMERICAN freedom, liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness-----SHAKE THAT FAKE ELECTION action and work to rebuild our US free and fair elections.
- Court puts off ′rigged′ Zimbabwe election ruling | News | DW ...www.dw.com/en/court-puts-off-rigged-zimbabwe... Arabic العربية ... to delay a ruling until Friday on a petition filed by opposition candidate Nelson Chamisa that July's presidential election was rigged.
- Iraq’s Maliki and Jabouri warn against rigged election ...english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2018/05/12/... Iraqi Vice President and former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was the first to vote in the country’s landmark parliamentary elections at a polling center in Baghdad’s Green Zone on Saturday ...
- Russia communists protest against 'rigged' elections | News ...www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/russia-communist... Russia communists protest against 'rigged' elections. Communist Party alleges governor election results for Primorsky region rigged to ensure victory of pro-Putin candidate.
- Trump says election is rigged | Arab Newswww.arabnews.com/node/998426/world CHARLOTTE: Donald Trump took to Twitter on Saturday morning to go after Hillary Clinton and the media, and to claim again that the presidential race is looking like — in his words — “a ...
- How the Election Is 'Rigged' -- And How it is Not | Breitbartwww.breitbart.com/.../2016/10/16/election-rigged-not Alternatively, declaring an election “rigged” could be a way of motivating supporters to flock to the polls: that is how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mobilized support in 2015, when he warned that foreign-funded organizations were frantically busing Arab voters to the polls. (He later apologized — after he won, of course.)
- Are the Egyptian Elections Fair? | HuffPostwww.huffingtonpost.com/alaa-al-aswany/egypt... The presidential elections that begin this week are very far from being fair elections because the Military Council has set the rules in order to obtain the result that it wants.
- US Election 2016: Donald Trump says voting machines are ...www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3915924/...Donald Trump warned of errors hitting the voting system and called it 'rigged' in an intervention which lays the ground for a challenge to the result - and the possibility he may not concede defeat.
- SWEDEN: Ahead of Sunday’s general election, comes a Muslim ...barenakedislam.com/2018/09/08/sweden-ahead-of-sundays... A threat written partly in Arabic threatening to behead Jimmie Åkesson (below), leader of the anti-Islam ‘Sweden Democrats’ party and his 4-year-old son, has triggered a police investigation, just days before the nation goes to the polls in a general election.
- French Election Fraud? Images Show Ruined & Stolen Le Pen Ballotswww.infowars.com/french-election-fraud-images... An image posted after Sunday’s French presidential election shows ruined Marine Le Pen ballots, as well as another video that shows an Arab man appearing to steal Le Pen ballots from a polling station.
- Zimbabwe court rejects opposition bid to annul election ...www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/zimbabwe-court... Zimbabwe court rejects opposition bid to annul election results . Top court rejects legal challenge by MDC, which alleged the vote was rigged in favour of President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Here we see the FALSE FLAG of an election question regarding our Baltimore public water----of course everyone in this photo are global banking 5% freemason/Greek players and pols having allowed global VEOLA ENVIRONMENT to control our Baltimore City public water these few decades which is why our city water infrastructure was never rebuilt.
It is pitiful when an US election features WATER as a far-right wing global banking FAKE social progressive BONE. So, our Baltimore voters REALLY think they are voting to keep Baltimore public water from privatization?
Baltimore Yes for Question E Voter Guide Call
· Hosted by Baltimore Yes for E
Join the Keep Baltimore's Water Public coalition for an overview call and Q&A session on Question E, a charter amendment on the ballot to keep Baltimore’s water public so that it’s safe and affordable!
Recently, multinational water corporations and Wall Street have been ramping up efforts to take control of our public water system. By passing question E, Baltimore would protect our water system from the most extreme forms of privatization.
RECENTLY? OH, REALLY?????
The speakers will include two top Baltimore union leaders. Glen Middleton who is the Executive Director of AFSCME Maryland Council 67 and President of Maryland Public Employees, Local 44 will join Antoinette Ryan-Johnson who is the President of City Union of Baltimore.
Each of the speakers will share a bit about Question E and why they hope you will vote in favor of this charter amendment. At the end, there will be time to answer any questions.
Register to receive the phone number for the call: https://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/DTC160KH8IIDM2D
By Authority: Keep Baltimore’s Water Public, Antoinette Ryan, Treasurer.
Ending the discussion of VOTER RIGHTS laws ------Russia as that third world nation has always had election rigging and frauds with PUTIN for decades tied to the same ELECTION RIGGING AND FRAUDS as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA here in US. Same election frauds by same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS and QUEENS' players. Yes, global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH have been behind these overseas election frauds for several decades just as they are behind our US election frauds and rigging. When a FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY OF MALTA is tied to rigging US ELECTIONS------that is a perilous attack on our US sovereignty. This is why global banking FAKE NEWS spends so much time making our US election frauds about PUTIN AND RUSSIA.
LET'S STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS OF VOTING AS THE ONLY WAY TOWARDS EMPOWERMENT AS CITIZENS---WHETHER OUR US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens OR OUR NEW TO US 99% IMMIGRANTS!
If we are not shouting to get global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH out of our US elections---we are not FIXING AMERICAN ELECTIONS.
As Vladimir Putin steals the Russian election, our leaders are shamefully silent
Simon Tisdall THE GUARDIAN
Thu 8 Feb 2018 01.00 EST Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018 13.34 EST
If such an obviously rigged poll were being held in Iran or Zimbabwe, there would be screams of outrage from the west
Russia will vote in presidential elections next month that Vladimir Putin is certain to win. Consider that statement for a moment. An election implies a contest. So how can the current president, who has already served three terms and wielded power in the Kremlin continuously since 1999, be assured of victory in advance?
The answer is that Russia’s is an election in name only. In truth it is a sham and a smokescreen, designed to confer democratic respectability on to a corrupt oligarchy. For Russians accustomed to unaccountable rule from on high, this is nothing new. More surprising is the supine acquiescence, bordering on complicity, of western democracies.
Putin will win on 18 March because the system he created, politely known as “managed democracy”, removes all elements of surprise. His most credible challenger, Alexei Navalny (who in any case did not expect to win), has been banned from participation on specious legal grounds. Last month Navalny was arrested while urging an election boycott.
This silence contrasts sharply with oft-stated British concerns about upholding democracy in Africa and elsewhere.
Putin’s control of Russia’s television outlets and other media means political opponents are virtually invisible, unless they are in court on a charge. By contrast, his own public appearances receive fawning blanket coverage.
There are no presidential debates, no unsanctioned opinion polls. Rival candidates do exist, but they resemble sparring partners whose task is to legitimise the process while helping the champ show off his best punches. They include Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a sort of ultra-nationalist Screaming Lord Sutch, and Pavel Grudinin, the Communist party’s candidate, who runs a privatised company called Lenin State Farm
Ksenia Sobchak, a liberal, pro-gay rights former reality TV host, claims to offer an alternative to Putinism. But her wealthy establishment background has prompted the dismissive nickname “Russia’s Paris Hilton”. When Sobchak recently visited Grozny, stronghold of the Chechen warlord and Putin ally Ramzan Kadyrov, police harassed her and gangs of men shouted that she resembled a horse.
Political theatre aside, Putin, projecting strength and continuity, knows he will win by a landslide. The fix is in. No other result is imaginable – or allowable. His main concern, analysts say, is achieving a high turnout and a big victory margin, surpassing the 64% he gained six years ago. He also wants an ostensibly free and fair election to boost his international credibility – and no repeat of the 2012 street protests.
In other words, Putin wants it both ways: a genuine electoral contest and a no-risk, hands-down victory. And so far, he seems to be succeeding.
If this rigged election were being held in Iran or Zimbabwe or Venezuela, screams of tweeted outrage would issue daily from the White House. But Donald Trump is strangely silent. Why? Everybody knows he has a soft spot for the hard man in the Kremlin. There are numerous personal, business and political crossovers. Some are the subject of a federal investigation.
But even by Trump’s standards, the current administration’s behaviour is contemptible. Rather than condemning Navalny’s harsh treatment and Russia’s yawning democratic deficit, Trump last week refused to activate additional sanctions against Putin and his oligarchs that had been agreed by Congress last year. He might just as well have donned a “Vote Vlad” campaign badge.
This latest sign of collusion came despite a recent Senate minority report that furiously decried the global threat posed by Putin’s Russia, and Trump’s “negligent” response.
“For years,” the report said, “Vladimir Putin’s government has engaged in a relentless assault to undermine democracy and the rule of law in Europe and the US. Mr Putin’s Kremlin employs an asymmetric arsenal that includes military invasions, cyber-attacks, disinformation, support for fringe political groups, and the weaponisation of energy resources, organised crime, and corruption.”
It added: “If the US fails to work with urgency to address this complex and growing threat, the regime ... will continue to develop and refine its arsenal to use on democracies around the world, including against US elections in 2018 ... Never before in American history has so clear a threat to national security been so clearly ignored by a US president.”
Trump’s blind eye is not unique. Theresa May lambasted Putin in November for meddling in other people’s elections and referendums. But neither she nor Boris Johnson has raised public objections to Putin stealing his own election. This silence contrasts sharply with oft-stated British concerns about upholding democracy in Africa and elsewhere.
Europe’s leading lights, France and Germany, have not been any more outspoken, although the EU did jib at Navalny’s exclusion. The ban “casts a serious doubt on political pluralism in Russia”, it inoffensively declared.
And perish the thought that western governments might launch the same covert cyber and disinformation operations to influence Russia’s polls that Putin has used against theirs. There is certainly no sign of it. If they are trying, it isn’t working.
Why this shaming diffidence, even deference, towards Putin’s regime? Western ineffectiveness in sticking up for democracy in Moscow is matched by serial weakness over illegal Russian actions in Ukraine, the Balkans and Syria, where war crimes are committed daily under Putin’s imprimatur.
Perhaps western leaders fear instability, and financial and energy supply disruption, should Putin fall. Maybe an enfeebled, divided west has given up on post-Soviet, post-cold war democracy. In Trump’s case, maybe he admires the dictatorial strongman approach and wishes to emulate it. Apologists say we do not understand Russia and Putin. Yet the whole world understands a liar and a cheat.
• Simon Tisdall is a Guardian assistant editor and a columnist on foreign affairs
Here is that global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS 33 degree freemason NOT RELIGIOUS-----pretending to be AMERICAN while working for FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY OF MALTA---indeed rigging overseas elections to assure all those brutal dictators working for global banking 1% remained in office.
CARTER knew better than any US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE when, how, and why our US elections where taken systemically crony-----during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. Carter famously declared US no longer a DEMOCRACY.
Seems Carter thinks HIS VOTE would count-----still pretending to be that compassionate social benefit guy giving far-right wing ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% his seal of approval. LIBERTARIAN MARXISM JIMMY?
HOW FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY OF YOU. THAT DOES MATCH THOSE FIXED OVERSEAS ELECTIONS!
Former US President Jimmy Carter has revealed he voted for insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders over party choice Hillary Clinton in during the Democratic primaries.
The former Democrat politician, who served one term as president between 1977 and 1981, said he backed the populist senator from Vermont who nearly won the party’s nomination despite coming from the far-left and only joining the Democrats 18 months earlier.
In a joint New York Times interview with his wife Rosalynn, he explained how he had always been set apart from other former Democrat presidents – saying he had the best relationship with Republican George HW Bush and that he is willing to work with Donald Trump on North Korea.
JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY------FAR-LEFT? REALLY!
Mr Carter said he would like to form a productive partnership with Mr Trump over North Korea as he is nervous about “unpredictable” Kim Jong-un and “afraid” of the consequences of a tit-for-tat war of words between Mr Trump and Pyongyang.
He said: “I’m afraid, too, of a situation,” he said. “I don’t know what they’ll do. Because they want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong-un. He’s never, so far as I know, been to China.
“And they have no relationship. Kim Jong-il did go to China and was very close to them.”
In 1994, Mr Carter flew to Pyongyang to negotiate a deal with the country over its nuclear weapons programme with then-leader and regime founder Kim Il-sung against then-President Bill Clinton’s wishes.
At the time he was pictured hugging Kim, who died later that year, and called the trip “a good omen” but the country flouted the terms of the deal less than four years later.
But now he warns that the stakes even higher.
He said: “I think he’s now got advanced nuclear weaponry that can destroy the Korean Peninsula and Japan, and some of our outlying territories in the Pacific, maybe even our mainland”.
Mr Carter said that if Mr Trump called on him to go to the country negotiate a new deal he would do so.
The 93-year-old, who recovered from brain cancer less than two years ago, declined to criticise Mr Trump too severely despite the former reality star previously describing him as one of the worst presidents in history.
When asked whether Mr Trump was souring the country’s international reputation, he said he “might be escalating it” but thinks the problem precedes the president as it is part of the US’s wider decline in influence on the world’s stage.
“The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward”, he explained.
Instead the Democrat, who became the only US President in history to win a Nobel Peace Prize for his work out of office in 2002, reserves much of his criticise for Barack Obama.
He said every member of his family voted for Mr Obama in 2008 but criticised his record on foreign affairs.
Mr Carter said Mr Obama “refused” to talk about North Korea more and criticised his decision to join in with the bombing of Yemen.
He also revealed he and his wife disagree on the role Russia played in the election.
Ms Carter said the Kremlin “obviously” interfered with the election due to the “drip, drip, drip” of negative stories about Ms Clinton whereas Mr Carter said there is “no evidence” that what the Russians did had any effect on how people voted.
He also dismissed concerns about the Trump White House’s seemingly close relationship with Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, saying his non-profit organisation – the Carter Center – frequently dealt with Moscow on Syria.
'The last time the federal government invested substantially in new voting technology was after the catastrophic screw up of the 2000 election. The Help America Vote Act, which passed in 2002, sent a $2 billion cash infusion into the states, enabling them to invest in new voting technology to avoid any more hanging chad debacles in the future. More than a decade later, many districts are still using those same replacement machines. As WIRED has written about at length, computers that old pose not just a problem for efficient voting, but also a huge security risk'.
THIS IS INDEED WHEN OUR US BALLOTS GONE DIGITAL BECAME SYSTEMICALLY FRAUDULENT---DURING BUSH ERA 2002 CALLING IT------HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT.
So, the US has never had perfect elections---some US regions more fraudulent than others----but this HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT during BUSH ERA was when electronic ballot boxes assured rigged elections----this ACT was used to fund all US states with these electronic ballot boxes OF COURSE before the second BUSH term election.
About U.S. EAC
Help America Vote Act
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress to make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process. HAVA addresses improvements to voting systems and voter access that were identified following the 2000 election. Read the Help America Vote Act of 2002Download PDF(opens in new tab)
HAVA creates new mandatory minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration. The law provides funding to help states meet these new standards, replace voting systems and improve election administration. HAVA also established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist the states regarding HAVA compliance and to distribute HAVA funds to the states. EAC is also charged with creating voting system guidelines and operating the federal government's first voting system certification program. EAC is also responsible for maintaining the National Voter Registration form, conducting research, and administering a national clearinghouse on elections that includes shared practices, information for voters and other resources to improve elections. HAVA requires that the states implement the following new programs and procedures:
- Provisional Voting
- Voting Information
- Updated and Upgraded Voting Equipment
- Statewide Voter Registration Databases
- Voter Identification Procedures
- Administrative Complaint Procedures
The U.S. Congress first created a National Clearinghouse for Information on the Administration of Elections within the General Accounting Office (GAO), under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
Congress established this office in an effort to combat a specific problem: the country's election administrators were not easily exchanging information on election practices and procedures that would enable them to more efficiently administer elections.
In 1975, this function was transferred to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. The Act, as revised, specifically calls upon the Commission to serve as "a national clearinghouse for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections." The FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration (the Clearinghouse) was established to serve that function. The office was also known as the FEC Office of Election Administration (OEA).
The Clearinghouse organized its activities into six program areas: research; information; public speaking; election legislation; voting system standards; and voting accessibility. The first four program areas are the result of the original Congressional mandate. The Clearinghouse assumed the latter two programs as a result of further specific Congressional action in 1980 and 1984, respectively. With the enactment of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Clearinghouse was charged with (1) developing and maintaining a national mail voter registration form; and (2) submitting a biennial survey report to Congress on the impact of NVRA and changes in voter registration statistics.
Help America Vote Act
HAVA was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002 to make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process. HAVA addresses improvements to voting systems and voter access that were identified following the 2000 election. HAVA mandates that EAC test and certify voting equipment, maintain the National Voter Registration form and administer a national clearinghouse on elections that includes shared practices, information for voters and other resources to improve elections. Section 803 of HAVA transferred the functions of the FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration to an Election Assistance Commission (EAC). HAVA describes the clearinghouse role of EAC.
EAC Clearinghouse Provisions
Section 202 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) describes the duties of the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). HAVA states that the Commission shall serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections. EAC shall establish and maintain a clearinghouse of information available to the public on:
- Voluntary guidance adopted by EAC regarding the following HAVA mandates: voting system standards, provisional voting and voting information requirements, computerized statewide voter registration list requirements and requirements for voters who register by mail.
- Information on the experiences of State and local governments in implementing the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and in operating voting systems in general.
- Information relating to the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software.
- Information and training on the management of HAVA payments and grants.
- The Help America Vote College Program.
- EAC’s responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) which includes the development and maintenance of the national voter registration form and biennial reports to Congress on the impact of NVRA on the administration of federal elections.
- Studies regarding election administration issues and other activities to promote the effective administration of Federal elections.
- Compilation of federal and state laws and procedures regarding election administration and voting.