Progressive States Network: Distorting the Electoral Process?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

In my first post on the Progressive States Network, I went over their Board of Directors, and showed that they are a far-left, if not quasi-Marxist organization.  In coordination with John, owner of The Current, who wrote about the National Popular Vote, I’m going to address some of the PSN’s election initiatives.

First up, is Vote by Mail.  Here are some details from their own website:

Vote by Mail: Vote by Mail is now an option in five states (California, Colorado, Montana, Hawaii, and New Jersey) and has been increasingly popular with voters. California and Colorado have seen the greatest usage with almost a third of California voters voting by mail in November 2008, and an astounding 71% of Colorado voters doing so. Key arguments in favor include:

  • Vote by Mail Helps Increase Turnout: For many voters going to the polling place on election day is difficult, either for work or family reasons. Vote by Mail is the obvious, low-cost solution for giving such voters the flexibility they need to participate in our elections. Allowing voters the option to vote by mail for every election gives them a flexible path to the ballot box, without which they might not participate.
  • Vote by Mail Gives Voters a Choice: In the 21st century, we have the ability to give all voters a choice in how they cast their ballots. There are many voters who can make it to the polls, but who prefer to vote by mail either for convenience or because they like having time to fill out their ballots in the comfort of their home. However, under current practice in some states the mail ballot option requires voters to have one of a few narrow reasons (an “excuse”) for not voting at the polls; and in all but five states, voters must reapply for a mail ballot every election.
  • Vote by Mail Reduces Election Day Chaos and Costs: Vote by mail also helps make sure that no one is prevented from voting on election day by long lines. Colorado residents reaped this benefit in the last presidential election with a smooth election that contrasted sharply with the previous election without vote by mail. In that election some Denver voters waited in lines that lasted half a day or more.

They put a very nice wrapper around this idea.  It does sound very nice, doesn’t it?  However, as I have looked at the PSN, it became obvious that one has to look at what they DON’T say.  In this scenario, they discuss nothing of preventing fraud, or how the integrity of the vote will be maintained.

For example, we know that the organizations formerly know as ACORN, and similar groups, sign up thousands of fake voters with every registration drive.  This is still happening, as it recently was recently exposed in Houston.  If there are fake registrations, might there be fake mail in ballots with return addresses being vacant lots, or places that are not residences?  Now, a supporter of this will probably say that these can be checked.  However, this is the same Cloward-Piven that was ACORN’s voter registration fraud.  The idea is to overwhelm the system with false registrations, making it impossible to verify them all.  With untold thousands of ballots being cast by mail, there could be no possibly way to verify all of them.  I think that the results are predictable.  In my opinion, this is a means to facilitate fraud.

The PSN also supports the National Popular Vote:

National Popular Vote: NPV garners the support of greater than two-thirds of voters in the 30+ states where it has been polled. The bill has now passed in five states (MarylandNew JerseyHawaii, Illinois and, most recently, Washington) with a total of 61 electoral votes, almost a quarter of the total needed for NPV to go into effect. Voters typically support NPV at about 75%, including healthy majorities of Republican voters. Polls in individual states show consistent support as well, with voters supporting it in a range from 68% to 81%. The following messages help address some of the myths and misunderstandings about the consequences of NPV:

  • The Winner Should Win: Emphasize the primary reasons why NPV has such broad support – because every vote should count equally, and the candidate with the most votes should win the election. These are the principles that we respect for our local, state and congressional elections and they should hold for the Presidential election as well.
  • Making Every State a Battleground State Will Increase Turnout: Average turnout in the 15 most competitive Presidential states was 6% higher than in the rest of the states for the 2008 general election, so NPV will help expand turnout.
  • NPV is a Civil Rights Issue: Civil rights has drifted out of the national dialogue as the battlegrounds have shifted away from states with high percentages of minority voters. For example, just 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos live in the twelve closest battleground states from 2004. NPV assures that all groups and their issues get equal attention. This is why the NAACP and African-American and Latino legislator organizations support NPV.
  • NPV Helps Small and Rural States: Despite myths otherwise, by leveling the playing field, NPV forces candidates to concentrate on all constituencies, states and populations, rather than disproportionately spending time in a few larger winner-take-all mega-states. In addition, because 12 of the 13 small states are spectators, they actually constitute the most ignored groups of states.
  • NPV Avoids Disputed Close Presidential Elections: Because a very close result is more likely among a smaller group of voters, the possibility of a Florida 2000 style electoral meltdown is much less likely under NPV. Put another way, because the margin of victory nationwide is much larger than it is in individual states, NPV elections are less susceptible to problems than essentially 50 state races.

This issue has been much discussed over the last couple months.  So I will not cover the objections to this.  Steve, at America’s Watchtower, Kristen, at Kristen’s Mishmash, and John from the Current, have all expertly covered this topic.  My analysis will take a different direction.

Again, my take deals with what the PSN does not say.  The NPV moves us, as a nation,  closer to a Democracy.  While I know that many would think that is a wonderful development, it is clearly not.  The PSN fails (deliberately) to recognize that the United States is a Constitutional Republic.  While there are components of Democracy to our system of government, there are built in protections against mob rule.  There are checks and balances built into all of our systems.  For background, consider this from Thomas Jefferson:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

There is truth to this statement.  If we went purely by popular vote, there might be still slave states.  We might have never had civil rights legislation of any kind.  Popular rule is mob rule.

For even more, let’s take a look at this from Alexander Tyler.

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” (Emphasis added)

Let’s take a look at this idea a bit more closely.  Do we not have 50% of the population that pays no federal income tax?  Does a segment of that 50% receive the Earned Income Tax Credit…for income that was NOT earned?  How many of that 50% owe their housing, medical care, food, and other essentials to the government?  Out of that segment, how many will vote against their own benefits?  Or, will they vote for the “progressive” that promises them even more?

Then, take a look at the move to make more and more people dependent on government benefits? Using unemployment expansion, ObamaCare, and other programs, the current administration seeks to make more and more of the population dependent on the government for their basic needs.  This has the effect of turning more and more Americans into dependent classes, and therefore, permanent “progressive” voters.

If you want proof, how many times have the Democrats said one, if not all, of the following at election time?

  • The Republicans are going to take your Social Security!
  • The Republicans are going to take your Medicare!
  • The Republicans are going to take your Schools!
  • The Republicans are going to starve the children!
  • The Republicans are going to freeze the elderly!
  • The Republicans are going to make granny eat Alpo to afford her medication!
  • The Republicans want the poor to die.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

It’s a work right now.  And by bringing us closer to a Democracy, they know they can enslave enough of the population to achieve insurmountable levels of power.

Again, it’s all about what they haven’t said.

Another initiative that the PSN supports is National Voter Compliance Act:

National Voter Registration Act Compliance: NVRA compliance has been re-implemented by public assistance agencies in five states (North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri). The messages to expand these successes include:

  • NVRA Compliance Increases Registration: The reward has been substantial, and in some cases dramatic, increases in voter registrations obtained. Missouri has obtained the most impressive turn-around, with a 2600% increase in registrations collected from public assistance agencies after reforms were implemented.
  • NVRA Compliance Assures Equal Opportunities to Register: The National Voter Registration Act was enacted with the understanding that opportunities to register to vote must be equally available to all. But racial and socio-economic gaps in the electorate will persist so long as public assistance agencies fail to offer voter registration to their low-income clients. Such individuals, who are less likely to own a motor vehicle, must have a chance to register to vote at public assistance offices as others do at departments of motor vehicles.
  • NVRA Compliance Addresses Racial and Economic Disparities in Registration: Recent U.S. Census data confirms the racial, ethnic and class bias of the electorate: 73.5 percent of non-Hispanic whites were registered to vote in 2008, as compared to 69.7 percent of blacks, 59.4 percent of Latinos, and 55.9 percent of Asian Americans. Only 65 percent of adult citizens in households making less than $25,000 a year were registered to vote in 2008, as compared to 85 percent of those in households making $100,000. Effective voter registration programs at public assistance agencies are powerful tools for reducing these disparities and bringing more voices into the democratic process.

Again, the presentation is quite nicely worded, but the key is in what they DO NOT say. As I discussed in my recent post on voter fraud, AG Holder has decided to not enforce the part of Motor Voter that dictates that voter rolls be purged of dead or ineligible voters.  The PSN does not mention this either.  Then again, even if they did, Holder’s inaction might well be replicated at the state level as well.  In my opinion, again, this could be a means to facilitate fraud, as there is no apparent means to provide oversight to the voter registration and verification process.

Also missing is the checks for actual citizenship in the PSN’s description.  In many states, illegal aliens are receiving welfare benefits.  If they are signing up for benefits, are they also being registered to vote?  Again, with the systems for monitoring voter registration in most areas being deficient at best, who is to say that there aren’t illegal immigrants voting?  Again, the PSN doesn’t seem to care for the integrity of the election, they simply want to register as many people as possible.

They should want to do that, as I have repeatedly mentioned, the breakdown for political demographics is as follows:

Liberal-20%

Moderate-40%

Conservative-40%

The “progressives” cannot count on the Moderates, they switch from time to time, and they’re currently trending to the right.  With these numbers, it is impossible for them to maintain any kind of majority over time.  As we’ve seen with the current administration and Congress, once their agenda becomes clear, and the results of their actions come to pass, the electorate recognizes the stench, and votes accordingly.  By (potentially) creating fake voters out of thin air, they might be able to make some gains to avoid a rout, or create a victory.

Now, let’s add one other fly into this ointment.  In the post on voter fraud, I mentioned the Soros funded Secretary of State project.  No, I’m not talking about Hillary Clinton’s current job.  The Secretary of State, at the state level, is charged with certifying elections.  Soros, and his minions, are intent on making sure that as many of them as possible are “progressives.”

Considering that several people on the PSN Board come from other Soros-funded organizations, might they be coordinating?  Let’s consider that for a moment…

Imagine this hypothetical situation based on what I’ve discussed.  In my scenario, there are tens of thousands of fake voters, illegal immigrants, and otherwise ineligible voters mailing in ballots.  There is no way to check them all, as the system is overwhelmed (Cloward-Piven).  Also, there has been no effort to remove fake, dead, or ineligible voters from the rolls.  Massive fraud changes the result of the vote.  Then, the “progressive” Secretary of State will certify that election no matter what is exposed, and the “progressive” candidate wins.

As for this topic, the PSN seems to be able to create a very pretty picture of their intent. However, if you look at what they aren’t saying, and what is, or could be done, a different picture emerges.  At every stage of the process, we MUST realize that “progressives,” like any other totalitarian form; will always misrepresent themselves to achieve their long term control agendas.  The ends justify the means, and they are very free and loose with the means.  Just as reminder; remember how ObamaCare was going to reduce costs?  Remember how the porkulus was going to create all these jobs, and keep unemployment below 8%?  Remember how there were no taxes in ObamaCare?  Remember how ObamaCare wasn’t going to fund abortions?  I could write a book on all of the lies, all told to advance an agenda that they knew we wouldn’t like.

In other words, if a “progressive” tells you that “fish live in the sea,” you might want to check, just to make sure.

Share
  • Another solid post Matt. The more we peel back the layers of this onion, the more it burns our eyes. They wrap everything up in this very pretty package and sell it as promoting democracy. However we were never meant to be a democracy; democracies fail. Once again excellent work my friend.

    • Thanks John. The onion analogy is quite appropriate.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Progressive States Network: Distorting the Electoral Process? | Conservative Hideout 2.0 -- Topsy.com()

  • Pingback: repubclic.com()

  • The PSN does paint a pretty picture of their agenda. After all, who doesn’t want a good voter turnout? Who among us doesn’t believe that all eligible voters shouldn’t be allowed to cast their votes? The problems arise when you even mention making sure those voters are actually eligible to vote. According to progressives, that is equal to hampering the vote and God forbid that happens. They want as many registered voters as they can possibly get, no matter if they are eligible or not. That’s not very hard to figure out.

    Great research and great post, Matt.

    • This is one of the more “transparent” aspects of “progressives.” They just don’t understand how easy it is to see through.

      An educated and informed public should vote, and they would see the need to do so. However, those same client populations that vote for “progressives” are terrible uneducated, just as the “progressives” want them. Sing up a ton of people that have no idea about their country, make them dependent on the government, and throw in some fraud for good measure. Just another wrinkle in the overall agenda.

  • Thanks for the link Matt and great post! It seems to me that the mail in vote idea is ripe for major fraud and is a horrible idea. There will never be any way to verify the legitimacy of the votes, and that is exactly what they want.
    As far as the national popular vote movement goes, you hit the nail on the heard, we are headed towards democracy and contrary to what many people think, this is not a good thing. The founders feared democracy almost as much as they feared monarchy. They felt democracy was a different form of tyranny.
    Great job exposing this organization, keep up the good work!

  • Doomed

    Your 40/40/20 breakdown is disconcerting given the fact that the Progressives all…everyone…claim to be moderate.

    This is why I continue to find a divide within the Democratic party and the years of trash talking Liberal was actually a mistake.

    It was not liberals we needed to be trash talking. It was progressives. They were the ones that were wanting all these public works programs, freebies and handouts.

    The true liberals in the Democratic party were standing idly by trying to ensure personal freedoms and working for a living.

    Because seriously when you look at a classical liberal you will find them every bit as capitalist oriented as any Conservative.

    So today we are seeing the Democratic party being over run by the progressive movement with even more force then it threw at them in 1976-1977 under Jimmy Carter.

    I rather suspect the party will wither under this latest and more powerful assault and as a result you will see the ranks of the GOP swell once again as it did under Reagan.

    Progressives are actually running the risk of making the Democrats irrelevant. Not the GOP. So we must keep the spotlight on them. Turn on the heat and encourage the Democrats to split with their own party.

    This is why I continue to point out that Liberals are not so bad. Because all these years its actually been progressives we were angry with………not liberals.

    This is a very good chance to bring conservative and fiscal liberals on board with the GOP and take back America.

    • Doomed, you’re throwing me off a bit here. I think we’re using different definitions.

      When I say liberal, I’m not talking Classic Liberalism, which I think is analogous to modern day Libertarianism, and to a significant extent, to Conservatives. I do tend to use the terms, liberal and progressive interchangeably, and I don’t see there being real differences between the two.

      I also have not met a Democrat that is a a Classic Liberal. That doesn’t exclude the possibility, but I do think that if there are any, they are a dying breed.

      When I was looking at polling on the Moderates, they are all over the place-hardly a monolithic group. a large chunk of moderates distrust either party, which is probably wise. After that, it descends into a mess of different stances and philosophies. The one thing that I do know is that Moderates are trending towards voting for the GOP. You aren’t going to find too many progressives doing that.

  • Mob tyranny is probably worse that Monarchy, in the respect that at least a monarchy is organized and structured. Mob rule is messy, unpredictable, and often violent. Just look at labor unions.

    Thanks for the comment.

  • Good point Matt!

  • Matt, labor unions are the best example of mob rule as a result of dissolving the electoral college. Look how Europe is very much a volatile area when it comes to unions. Why? They often protest with vandalism and violence.

    • Jason, I have it admit that what you just said has been on my mind a lot lately.

      As much as I hate violence, I’m glad that we have the second amendment.

  • Matt, you’ve done some super research on this subject.
    There is SO MUCH bad and awful stuff happening with these progressives, I really get headaches reading about how they are trying to hijack the elections and all the FRAUD! I have a sick feeling in my gut that they are going to do something to disrupt the elections. I pray to God I’m wrong.