By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a broad attack on voting rights, the candidate advocates for stricter measures including voter ID and proof of citizenship, while largely opposing mail-in ballots, with exceptions for military personnel, the ill, and the disabled. This stance is widely interpreted as a strategic move to bolster Republican prospects in upcoming midterm elections, amidst concerns about widespread mail-in ballot integrity. It is noteworthy that the candidate previously supported mail-in voting when it benefited his own electoral success, and that postal voting is a common practice in numerous countries globally.
Read the original article here
The notion of an election being manipulated isn’t new, but recent pronouncements suggest a more ambitious and chilling plan. The idea that one individual or party could orchestrate a system to secure electoral victories for fifty years is a profound threat to the very foundation of democratic governance. This isn’t just about a single election or even a few; it’s about a sustained effort to undermine the people’s voice and establish an enduring hold on power.
The core of this ominous plot appears to center on distrust and the deliberate sowing of doubt regarding established voting processes. Specifically, mail-in ballots have been repeatedly targeted as inherently “crooked” and not used by other nations, a claim easily debunked by the fact that numerous countries worldwide utilize postal voting safely and effectively, including in the United States itself, with variations by state. The argument that mail-in ballots are difficult to secure is contradicted by the reality that they provide a paper trail, offering a tangible record that can be recounted or audited, unlike potentially vulnerable electronic voting machines.
The rhetoric suggests a deliberate strategy to obstruct democratic participation for those who might not support a particular agenda. This involves creating an environment where questioning the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes the default, thereby justifying the implementation of restrictive measures under the guise of security. When a political party actively seeks to consolidate power and manipulate the electoral process to maintain it indefinitely, it signals a dangerous departure from democratic norms.
The historical parallels are stark. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico maintained power for an astonishing 71 years, beginning with a populist leader and employing a sophisticated mix of corporatism, co-option, electoral fraud, and political repression. While the PRI’s ideological landscape shifted over decades, the underlying mechanism of retaining power through control and manipulation of democratic institutions remains a cautionary tale. The concern is that a similar playbook is being enacted, aiming to make it exceedingly difficult to dislodge a party once it has entrenched itself.
This long-term strategy of power consolidation relies heavily on the narrative of widespread voter fraud, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Studies examining voter fraud over decades in highly contested states have found minimal instances, accounting for a minuscule fraction of total ballots cast. The real challenges to participation are voter apathy and suppression, not rampant fraud. By focusing on an invented crisis, a party can push for policies that disproportionately affect certain demographics, making it harder for them to vote and thus securing an advantage.
The implications of such a plot are immense. If elections are consistently portrayed as rigged and if barriers to voting are continuously erected, the public’s faith in democracy erodes. This can lead to widespread disillusionment and a sense of powerlessness, precisely the outcome desired by those seeking to maintain control. The effectiveness of this strategy lies in its ability to exploit existing anxieties and divisions, making it difficult for citizens to discern truth from manufactured controversy.
The persistence of these claims, even by individuals who themselves have utilized mail-in voting, highlights the disingenuous nature of the argument. The desire for a swift, predictable election result, akin to a game show, rather than a process that accurately reflects the will of all voters, underscores a fundamental misunderstanding or rejection of democratic principles. The goal is not fair representation but guaranteed victory, regardless of the popular vote.
The impact on the nation’s future is profound. A democracy that is systematically undermined cannot effectively address the needs of its citizens. Instead of focusing on essential issues like healthcare, education, or economic opportunity, the political discourse becomes dominated by manufactured crises and the perpetual defense of a rigged system. This leads to a stagnation of progress and a gradual stripping away of rights and freedoms.
Ultimately, the revealed plot for fifty years of rigged elections is not just a political tactic; it’s an existential threat to the democratic experiment. It demands vigilance, critical thinking, and a robust commitment to safeguarding the integrity of every vote and every election. The ability to hold power accountable relies on the fundamental right to choose one’s leaders freely and fairly, a right that must be protected at all costs.