Tag Archives: Zuckerbucks

Rejecting Ranked-Choice Voting

Posted on by

Ranked-choice voting is the new tool of those attempting to rig elections. Right now ranked-choice voting is used for elections in Maine and Alaska. It provides a way for a candidate that is not really the first choice of anyone to win an election.

Ballotpedia explains how ranked-choice voting works:

How ranked-choice voting works

Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process unfolds as follows for single-winner elections:

    1. Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
    2. If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
    3. If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
    4. All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, and second-preference choices on these ballots are then counted as first-preference.
    5. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the ballots.
    6. The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.

The article includes a chart illustrating the process:

I realize the chart is hard to read, but the bottom line is that the candidate who actually got 22.9 percent of the vote beat the candidate who got 31.3 percent of the vote. It is too easy to skew the results of an election with ranked-choice voting.

On Friday, The Federalist reported:

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed legislation Tuesday prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in elections.

SB 101 stipulates that a “ranked-choice voting or instant runoff voting method shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state.” The bill would not apply to “all votes cast by military and overseas voters by special absentee by mail ballots in accordance with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.”

SB 101 originally passed the Senate in a 29-9 vote in March. An amended version of the bill was passed by the House (73-23) on May 15 and subsequently concurred with by the Senate (29-8) last week.

SB 101 was sponsored by GOP Sen. Blake Miguez, a member of the Louisiana Freedom Caucus. Miguez also sponsored Louisiana’s recently enacted constitutional amendment banning “Zuckbucks.”

The article concludes:

RCV has also produced election results that contradict the desires of voters. Some of these examples include the aforementioned special congressional election in Alaska and a 2018 Maine congressional contest. The Democrat candidates won both races despite Republican candidates receiving more votes in the first round of voting.

SB 101’s implementation makes Louisiana the 10th state to prohibit the use of RCV in its elections. Other states to prohibit the system this year include Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.

Meanwhile, a constitutional amendment proposal prohibiting the use of RCV in Missouri elections will appear on the state’s fall ballot.

This is one step in the direction of making sure our elections reflect the will of the voters.

 

 

America Is Slowly Waking Up

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Postmillennial posted an article about an article on the ballot in Tuesday’s Wisconsin election.

The article reports:

Wisconsin voters have approved a constitutional amendment banning private money for elections. The constitutional amendment passed on Tuesday after it was proposed by Republicans who were fed up with the money funneled into elections by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, dubbed Zuckerbucks.

“Wisconsin has spoken and the message is clear: elections belong to voters, not out-of-state billionaires,” GOP Chairman Brian Schimming said. Joe Biden won Wisconsin in 2020 after $8.8 million went into the state’s largest five cities.

…A second question offered by Republicans amended the state constitution to say that elections could only be administered by actual election officials. Though this was already state law, enshrining it in the constitution firms up the practice against legislative change.
 
President of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty Rick Esenberg said “Voters sent a clear message that they want to keep private money out of election administration,” per ABC.

“Whether you identify with the left or the right, ensuring the fairness and integrity of our elections should be a shared priority,” he said.

In 2020, Wisconsin saw an influx of funds from the Center for Tech and Civil Life, which had in turn received $300 million from Zuckerberg and his wife. The purpose of the leftist group is to fight for voter access. The funds were used to “help election officials buy supplies and run elections at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic before vaccines were available.”

There were a lot of anomalies in battleground states in 2020. There are a lot of things that can be done now to make sure that the 2024 election is fair and that the votes tallied reflect the choice of the voters.

An Important Question That Probably Will Not Be Asked

Posted on by

On June 6th, The Federalist posted the following headline:

Here’s The Single Most Important Question 2024 GOP Presidential Candidates Must Answer

I will admit it was a question I had not considered.

The article reports:

The million-dollar question for 2024 contenders is: How will you win the general election under the present voting system?

The article notes the problems with the present voting system:

Ballot harvesting is becoming an accepted norm. Candidates not only have to earn votes but figure out how to collect as many votes as they possibly can. Are Republicans overnight going to out-harvest their opponents, or figure out some new means to identify and turn out voters otherwise sitting on the sidelines in sufficient numbers to overcome Democrats’ ballot-harvesting superiority?

“Zuckerbucks” continue to loom over our contests as well, despite bans in many states. The left is doing everything it can to steer private money toward public election administration — administration done in conjunction with left-wing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seemingly targeting the Democrat ballots needed to win.

The Biden administration is working to leverage federal agencies to mobilize presumed Democrat voters as well — also potentially in conjunction with the same NGOs — under a March 2021 executive order, “Promoting Access to Voting,” that has remained shrouded in mystery as the bureaucracy stonewalls over inquiries about its implementation. Republicans have started to engage in election administration, but largely in the context of monitoring over execution. What is the plan to combat Democrat control over election machinery?

The article also notes:

Lawfare is also now an integral part of our election system. Republicans have started to devote significantly greater attention and resources to the litigation game, but to catch up to Democrats will require a long-term, sustained effort, backed with real money. And filing suit over election policies and practices after votes have already been cast of course has proven a losing proposition, as demonstrated by courts’ unwillingness to grapple with fundamental issues around the 2020 election largely on technical grounds.

Meanwhile, Democrats have engaged in efforts to ruin the lives of Republican election lawyers — in their own words to “make them toxic in their communities and in their firms” — seeking to kneecap their competition before it ever reaches the courtroom.

This is an important election. If the people who want a one-party America where the Democrats are in control and opposition is silenced win, it is the end of our freedom as we know it. The corruption and manipulation that has occurred in our election process in recent years is going to be hard to combat.