At first,
you need to ask yourself this question: Can the United States have a free and
fair election this year? And if it does, will voters actually believe it was
fair?
It is known
that there is no way the Republican candidate, any Republican candidate,
probably, would win in Massachusetts. Same thing in Utah, which is winner take
all. There's no way a Democratic candidate will win in Utah. Which means that
no Republican or Democrat will care about Utah or Massachusetts or New York or
Kentucky or any state.
And what
that means is that people who decide America are the swing states. So in the
next election, it's going to be Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
Nevada, Arizona are the key swing states, maybe New Hampshire, maybe North
Carolina.
The rest of
the country is irrelevant. And what that means is presidential campaigns, in
some sense, don't really care about the rest of the country. And so the
swingers actually decide the presidency.
In 1960, in
Hawaii, Nixon was declared the winner originally, and he was certified as the
winner. And then the Democrats noticed an error in the tabulation of the vote,
so they asked for a recount. The recount couldn't be completed until after the
electors voted. But the Nixon and Kennedy electors both gathered on Elector Day
and cast their votes. The Kennedy electors were the first so called fake
electors in our tradition. And when the recount was completed at the end of
December, the recount went for Kennedy. And so the governor certified for
Kennedy, and they sent the certification in and the certification for Kennedy
was eventually counted.
If that same
scenario happened under the Electoral Count Act of 2022, it would be Nixon's
votes that would be counted. Because first of all, it's not clear any electors
going to sit and vote. Any Kennedy elector in the story would sit and vote
because of the prosecution against the so-called fake electors. But even if
they did, under the electoral count reform act, the only way to object is if
you can say that the electors were not properly certified, but at the time they
were certified, they were properly certified. It was the result the governor
was acting under.
Read more: 5 Reasons Why Trump Won't Win in November
let's stick
with Wisconsin, Republican majority. But there's a democratic governor. Doesn't
the governor get involved with having to sign a law that would basically say,
the electors have to vote this way or that way? Or is the governor out of the
picture? Will there be enough time for the court to get involved and resolve it
before the electors vote? and we know that the Supreme Court would say, you
can't change the result after the election.
In the last
election, Trump tried to prove voter fraud: Voter ID proponents and other
conservative political groups long struggled to produce hard evidence of mass
voter fraud. But his group was using a call center to track down people who
moved or were otherwise nominally inactive voters, asking them to confirm if
they cast a ballot in order to detect possible identity theft. He said he is
also cross-referencing databases to find voters that may have cast ballots in
the wrong place, voted twice, or were deceased. But they failed to prove all of
that (Will we see that in 2024 U.S. presidential election again?)
Too much
money in politics, which we know is one of the things that you've been
concerned about for decades. Citizens United, the anti-democratic nature of the
electoral college, which we talked about. Partisan gerrymandering. In a sense,
you could almost be led to conclude, no wonder people can be made to believe
that an election was fixed or stolen.
Read more: 6 reasons why Kamala Harris is the worst choice for the presidential nomination
At last, people need confidence that the result actually reflects the will of all of America, not just swing state America, and that we have politicians who care mainly about us as opposed to mainly about their funders of their super expensive campaigns.