Ever wonder why liberals will oppose any attempts at reducing voter fraud, while they claim to champion Democracy and the interests of the American people? It’s for the same reason they want felons to vote – because it disproportionately benefits them.
Yes, there are a few cases where voter fraud has benefited Republicans, but they’re minuscule in comparison to how often it benefits Democrats. It’s not Republicans opposing voter ID.
That’s not the only way that Democrats manipulate the vote – they also suppress it. Five Thirty Eight explains that Democrats commonly decide to schedule local elections at inconvenient times for those of us that actually have jobs, and as a result “scheduling local elections at odd times appears to be a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping turnout low, which gives more influence to groups like teachers unions that have a direct stake in the election’s outcome. But before getting into the details of off-cycle elections, consider the parties’ basic positions on issues of voter participation.”
Now, to secure a Hillary victory, Obama’s DHS is looking to expand its control.
The federal government may be taking over the election process, in an attempt that started before the recent hacks of state election boards and has since been spurred on by the threat.
The Washington Examiner reported that the Department of Homeland Security is considering taking control of elections by declaring them “critical infrastructure.”
This declaration would afford the department a level of control over election security that is akin to the control they already have over Wall Street and the electric power grid.
The federal government never wastes a good crisis to gain more power, and this is no exception. Officials are already talking about speeding up the process in the wake of election cyber attacks:
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said, “We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid.”
“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” Johnson said at a media conference held this month by the Christian Science Monitor.
That’s a bit of an “interesting” take on what qualifies as infrastructure, to say the least.
A federal takeover of elections presents an enormous challenge and one big roadblock: it’s unconstitutional. Of course, that’s actually a small matter for the Obama administration, which views the constitution as something to be gotten around, not followed. Perhaps a serious of executive orders are in our future?
Even if they could justify such a takeover of the election process, logistically speaking, the bureaucratic nightmare of guarding and regulating not just the 9,000 electoral jurisdictions, but also the more than 300,000 precincts – any one of which could be a gateway for hackers – is almost certainly physically impossible. As we’re learning from the Russians, the Democrats aren’t exactly the best at preventing themselves from being hacked.