By Matt Underwood The idea that “we should take over the voting” is a deeply unsettling prospect, one that suggests a fundamental disregard for democratic processes. When this sentiment is expressed, particularly by prominent political figures, it raises serious questions about the future of electoral systems and the very foundation of representative government. The core of this concern lies in the notion that rather than participating in and trusting established electoral procedures, there’s a desire to exert direct, and potentially coercive, control over how votes are cast and counted.
This isn’t just a casual remark; it appears to represent a mindset where the outcome of an election is predetermined or, at the very least, guaranteed through means that bypass the will of the electorate. The implication is that if the expected or desired results are not achieved through standard democratic means, then those means should be circumvented. This line of thinking can be seen as a progression, starting from mild suggestions of questioning election integrity, escalating to the outright dismissal of the need for elections, and finally arriving at the desire to seize control.
The historical context of elections is that they are run by individual states. This decentralized approach is designed precisely to prevent the kind of centralized takeover that such statements might imply. The states are meant to be the custodians of the electoral process, ensuring fairness and accessibility for all citizens. The argument that “states run their own elections” is a crucial safeguard, and any attempt to override this system would fundamentally alter the balance of power and the integrity of the democratic experiment.
When figures begin to suggest that elections themselves are no longer necessary or desirable, it signals a dangerous shift. The progression from “maybe we shouldn’t have an election” to “actually a lot of people are saying we shouldn’t have an election” and then to the stark declaration of “we shouldn’t have an election” reflects a deliberate erosion of democratic norms. This kind of rhetoric can be particularly dangerous because it can normalize the idea of dismissing elections altogether, making it seem like a plausible or even desirable option for those who feel disenfranchised or are committed to a particular agenda, regardless of popular support.
Furthermore, the notion of “taking over the voting” can be interpreted as a desire to manipulate the system to ensure a specific outcome, rather than to allow the democratic process to unfold naturally. When past election results are continuously contested, even in instances where the candidate may have won other states, it suggests an inability to accept defeat and a persistent attempt to re-litigate outcomes. This can be perceived as a form of “toddler behavior,” an inability to accept reality when it doesn’t align with one’s desires.
The phrase “I won that election by so much, everybody knows it” despite evidence to the contrary, and the subsequent desire to examine ballots through court orders, can be seen as a thinly veiled admission of intent to fabricate evidence or find discrepancies that can be amplified to justify a desired narrative. This creates a situation where the pursuit of alleged fraud becomes a pretext for exerting control, rather than a genuine effort to address proven irregularities.
This kind of talk is not just about winning or losing; it’s about the fundamental principles of governance. When an oath to the constitution is potentially violated by advocating for the subversion of democratic elections, it begs the question of accountability. In a functioning system, such statements could be considered impeachable offenses. The inaction by legislative bodies in the face of such rhetoric can foster a sense of impunity and embolden further challenges to democratic norms.
The idea of “dictatorship versus democracy” is often invoked in such discussions, and for good reason. The push to “take over voting” leans heavily towards an authoritarian model, where power is concentrated and decisions are made without broad consent. This is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy, which rely on the consent of the governed, exercised through free and fair elections. The potential consequences of such a shift could be severe, leading to widespread unrest and a breakdown of civil society, potentially even to the point of civil war.
The historical parallels drawn to other countries that employ manipulative electoral practices, such as Russia, highlight the dangers of such approaches. The suggestion that electronic voting systems could be manipulated to ensure consistent victories for a particular leader is a stark warning. The alleged attempts to gain access to voting machines and software are presented as a strategy to set up future elections for partisan advantage, rather than ensuring their integrity.
The notion that “if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy” is a chilling prediction. It suggests that ideology can become so entrenched that it overrides fundamental democratic principles. When this happens, the focus shifts from persuasion and public service to the acquisition and maintenance of power through any means necessary. This is where the calls for direct control over voting become particularly alarming.
Ultimately, the sentiment that “we should take over the voting” is a profound threat to democracy. It signifies a desire to circumvent the will of the people and to impose control, rather than to serve and be accountable to them. The ongoing discussions around this idea highlight the urgent need to safeguard electoral integrity and to actively defend democratic principles against those who would seek to undermine them. The very fabric of a free society depends on the integrity of its electoral processes, and any deviation from this path carries grave consequences.