By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Corporate consolidation is leading to widespread newsroom closures, threatening the integrity of a free press. The existing traditional media model is no longer sustainable, necessitating new approaches to funding journalism. HuffPost, like many other outlets, relies on reader support to continue its work.
Read the original article here
The news that 45,000 votes will be discarded in Louisiana, with the governor deeming it “not a big deal,” is frankly astonishing and deeply concerning. These are not just abstract numbers; they represent 45,000 individual voices that will be silenced, 45,000 people who took the time and effort to participate in the democratic process only to have their say effectively nullified. To dismiss such a significant number of votes as inconsequential feels like a direct assault on the very foundation of representation.
It’s hard not to see this as a blatant attempt to manipulate election outcomes, especially when framed by a political party that seems to consistently prioritize its own power over the will of the voters. When rules are changed or interpreted in ways that disproportionately disenfranchise a large segment of the electorate, it smacks of partisan maneuvering rather than legitimate election administration. The implication is that one party’s preferences are being prioritized over the fundamental right to vote for another.
The sentiment that this is “insane levels of election fraud” is a strong, yet understandable, reaction. The idea that votes can simply be tossed aside because a particular party dislikes the rules or perhaps the outcome they might produce is chilling. It conjures images of past attempts to undermine democratic processes, and it fuels the very real fear that the right to vote is under constant threat, especially in the lead-up to crucial elections.
The contrast drawn between the dismissal of these 45,000 votes and the immense outcry over a handful of alleged voter fraud cases is stark and tells a story in itself. When minor irregularities are amplified into national crises, while the outright discarding of thousands of votes is downplayed, it highlights a deeply skewed perception of what constitutes a threat to democracy. It raises serious questions about what is truly considered a “big deal” by those in power.
There’s a palpable frustration with a system that seems to allow such actions to occur with such little apparent consequence. The notion that a governor can, in essence, decide to throw away votes is not just a matter of administrative policy; it feels like a betrayal of the trust placed in elected officials. The argument that this is a result of treating one party with unquestioning deference, while holding others to impossibly high standards, resonates with many who feel disillusioned by the current political climate.
The historical context offered, particularly regarding the elimination of a black representative’s seat in Louisiana shortly after his election, adds a troubling layer to this narrative. It suggests a pattern of suppressing representation, and the discarding of 45,000 votes, which could disproportionately affect minority voters, fits uncomfortably within that historical shadow. The question of how many votes a specific candidate might have wished to “find” elsewhere also looms large, reminding us of the intense political battles that often surround election integrity.
The idea that this is a consequence of treating one party as infallible and unaccountable is a recurring theme. Decades of calls for bipartisanship have, for some, devolved into a situation where one side is perceived to be systematically dismantling democratic norms and institutions, while the other struggles to gain traction or effectively counter these moves. The frustration is evident: the hard work of voters is being undermined by political machinations.
The phrase “Every vote matters” rings hollow when faced with such a situation. It’s not just a number; it’s the voice of an individual being disregarded, and the impact is deeply personal. The call for action, for people to take to the streets, stems from a profound sense of injustice and a feeling that fundamental rights are being eroded. The demand for visibility and remembrance of these events is a plea to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.
The comparison to a hypothetical scenario where Democrats might discard votes, and the expected outrage, further underscores the perceived double standard. The swift condemnation of such an act by Democrats, contrasted with the downplaying of this event by Republicans, highlights a significant partisan divide in how election integrity and voter rights are perceived. The message is clear: this is not acceptable behavior, and the consequences could be severe.
The suggestion that 45,000 voters have had their vote “stolen” is a powerful indictment of the situation. It frames the act not as a minor administrative error, but as a deliberate act of disenfranchisement. The call to “fuck Jeff Landry” and the fervent hope that he might be “discarded” himself reflects the depth of anger and the desire for accountability. This is not just about policy; it’s about perceived moral failing and a threat to the democratic fabric.
The argument that this is voter fraud, and that the governor is committing it, is a direct and forceful accusation. The plea to stop “soft pedaling it” suggests a weariness with euphemisms and a desire for a clear, unvarnished acknowledgment of the gravity of the situation. The idea that Republicans who might try to cast their vote again would be committing fraud also points to the perceived unfairness and the potential for further manipulation.
The critique that this is a symptom of a “shit hole failed state” might be hyperbolic, but it captures the extreme level of disillusionment felt by some. The call for protest votes from Republicans themselves is a plea for internal party reform and a rejection of tactics that disenfranchise voters. The acknowledgement that rights are being lost, attributed to a combination of political figures and institutions, reflects a broad sense of alarm.
The idea that the most effective way to counter this is through overwhelming voter turnout is a common refrain, emphasizing the power of the ballot box when wielded collectively. The encouragement for Democrats to “fight too” acknowledges the need for proactive engagement and a willingness to challenge unfair practices. The framing of this as election fraud that the “pedo party” has been talking about for years adds a layer of partisan animosity and suggests a long-standing concern about such tactics.
The question of why these votes can’t simply be kept if they don’t “matter” is a logical one that exposes the absurdity of discarding them. The suggestion that voters should vote Democrat if they get the chance again highlights the political implications of this disenfranchisement. The assertion that these decisions are being made because “they know they’re in trouble come November” points to a calculated political strategy rather than a neutral administrative process.
The warnings against being scared into inaction are crucial. The “dramatic decisions” and “threats of an ‘election army'” are seen as deliberate attempts to suppress turnout. The repeated mantra to “Vote, vote and vote” is a call to arms, a reminder that the ultimate power lies with the electorate, and that the only way to overcome such challenges is through robust participation. The historical echo of “Remember, Remember the 3rd of November” serves as a potent reminder of the stakes.
The connection to “no taxation without representation” is a powerful historical parallel. If 45,000 people are denied representation, then the principle of taxing them becomes questionable. The stark label of “blatant voter fraud by conservatives” leaves no room for ambiguity. The suggestion of a mass exodus from such states indicates a belief that the situation is dire and that relocation might be the only viable solution for some.
The final sentiments express a deep cynicism about the stated reasons for discarding votes, implying that the real beneficiaries are those who wish to suppress certain demographics, particularly black voters. The lack of faith in the justice system to rectify such wrongs, citing a “compromised, crooked court,” further darkens the outlook. The question of why voters can’t sue and the observation of a notable silence from certain political figures underscore a sense of helplessness and betrayal. The description of this as the “American brand of Freedom Democracy” is a sarcastic indictment of a system that seems to be failing its citizens, leaving them with a shrug in the face of injustice. The comparison to Virginia voters choosing their own interests and being criticized highlights the perceived hypocrisy and the deeply entrenched partisan divides that govern how political actions are judged. The final statement leaves little doubt: if you believed Republicans would play fair, you are part of the problem, suggesting a recognition that the game is rigged and that a different approach is needed.