By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the FBI’s seizure of 700 boxes of 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia, President Trump urged Republicans to “nationalize the voting” in at least 15 locations, fueling concerns about potential interference in upcoming elections. Trump suggested the Georgia raid was a precursor to his administration’s plan to exert control over state and local election processes to maintain power, especially as GOP popularity wanes. The article highlights unanswered questions about the Georgia raid, including the timeline and the involvement of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in domestic law enforcement, further pointing to an erosion of democratic norms and increasingly radical tactics by the GOP.
Read the original article here
The notion of a candidate publicly calling for a political party to essentially “take over” the electoral process in numerous locations is a seismic development in American politics, and it’s understandable why this is generating so much discussion. The core idea being expressed is a desire by Donald Trump for Republicans to exert direct control over how voting is managed in at least 15 areas, a call made in the wake of significant events like the FBI’s seizure of ballots and voting records in Fulton County, Georgia. This statement isn’t just a casual remark; it’s presented as a direct proposal for how to approach future elections, indicating a belief that the current system, which is largely decentralized and managed at the state and local levels, needs to be fundamentally altered by one political party.
Trump’s reasoning, as articulated, seems rooted in his persistent, though unsubstantiated, claims of widespread election fraud. He has repeatedly expressed frustration with outcomes in states he believes he won, and the Georgia incident is being framed as evidence of irregularities that necessitate this proposed intervention. The idea is that by “nationalizing the voting” process, Republicans can ensure outcomes that align with their interpretation of the electorate’s will, particularly in areas where he feels his victories were not accurately reflected. He specifically mentioned a desire to address the issue of undocumented immigrants voting, a concern for which there is no significant evidence of widespread impact on election results.
This push for direct party control over election mechanics represents a significant departure from established American democratic norms. The U.S. Constitution places the primary authority for administering elections with the states, leading to a patchwork of regulations and procedures across the country. Trump’s call to “take over the voting” suggests a desire to circumvent these established structures, potentially by influencing certification processes, overseeing ballot counting, or even directly managing polling places. This kind of centralizing influence by a single party raises profound questions about fairness, impartiality, and the very foundation of a representative democracy.
The calls for Republicans to take over voting are not entirely new, but they appear to be escalating in directness and public pronouncement. This comes after various attempts to shape the electoral process, including executive orders aimed at changing how mail-in ballots are handled and proposals to end the use of voting machines. These prior actions, often challenged in courts, suggest a consistent pattern of seeking to exert greater party control over how elections are conducted and their outcomes determined, all while fueling unsubstantiated narratives about election integrity.
The recent events, including the FBI’s involvement in Georgia, have only amplified these concerns. The presence of figures like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a domestic law enforcement operation, and her reported call to Trump putting him on speakerphone with FBI agents, adds another layer of complexity and raises questions about the blurring of lines between intelligence agencies and electoral processes. Such actions, even if explained by those involved, contribute to an atmosphere of distrust and can be perceived as an erosion of democratic norms, especially when they occur in conjunction with calls for increased partisan control over elections.
Furthermore, the underlying sentiment driving these proposals appears to be a growing concern within certain political factions that without more direct control, electoral success will become increasingly difficult. The argument is made that if Republicans cannot secure control of the voting apparatus, they will be unable to win future elections. This perspective suggests a shift from seeking to persuade voters to seeking to control the system that registers and counts their votes, a tactic that many see as a red flag for democratic health.
The lack of evidence supporting widespread non-citizen voting, as demonstrated by audits in states like Georgia, highlights the disconnect between the concerns being raised and the actual electoral landscape. Despite this, the narrative of a compromised system persists, fueling demands for drastic changes. This creates a situation where policy proposals are driven by a perceived problem rather than actual, verifiable issues, leading to potential overreach and the suppression of legitimate voting rights under the guise of protection.
The strategy appears to involve leveraging existing distrust and amplifying it through rhetoric that suggests a stolen election is an ongoing threat. This allows for the implementation of measures that make voting more challenging or susceptible to partisan influence, often presented as necessary safeguards. The goal seems to be consolidating power by making it harder for certain groups to vote and easier for a single party to challenge or alter results, thereby creating a system that is less about the will of the people and more about partisan advantage.
The situation is particularly alarming because it involves a direct challenge to the decentralized nature of U.S. elections, which, while complex, has historically provided a degree of resilience against widespread fraud. The proposed shift towards a more centralized, party-controlled system carries the risk of undermining that resilience and introducing new vulnerabilities. It’s a strategy that many observers believe prioritizes maintaining political power over upholding the foundational principles of democratic fairness and transparency. The ongoing efforts to shape election laws, redraw district maps, and cast doubt on electoral processes all point towards a broader agenda to exert tighter control over the future of elections, and this public call to “take over the voting” is seen by many as the most explicit articulation of that agenda to date.