By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Election Assistance Commission, established to assist states with election administration and provide consultation on voting procedures, has seen its two Democratic commissioners terminated immediately. This significant overhaul follows a recent Supreme Court decision, *Trump v. Slaughter*, which granted the president increased authority over independent agencies. The ruling overturned a long-standing precedent that had protected agency staff from arbitrary presidential dismissals.
Read the original article here
The recent actions surrounding the Election Commission, particularly the perceived “gutting” of its entire structure months before crucial midterm elections, have ignited a firestorm of concern and commentary. It feels as though a deliberate move is being made to undermine the very foundations of our electoral process, with many believing the intent is to manipulate the upcoming midterms, whatever the cost. This, for some, is a clear indication of a systematic effort to dismantle democratic institutions and sow chaos.
There’s a palpable sense of irony and frustration among those observing the situation, particularly directed at Republicans who continue to champion election integrity and fair elections. The contradiction, in the eyes of many, is stark and serves to highlight a perceived hypocrisy. The actions taken are seen by some as so egregious that they question how anyone can reconcile them with the principles of a free and fair electoral system.
The departure of key figures or the dismantling of structures within election bodies before such a significant electoral event has naturally led to speculation about motivations. Some draw parallels to past behaviors, suggesting that if someone is inclined to cheat in less consequential arenas, like sports, then election interference is a predictable, albeit alarming, escalation. This perspective views the current situation as a continuation of a pattern of behavior aimed at manipulating outcomes.
A significant concern voiced is the lasting damage inflicted upon democratic institutions. It’s argued that before a certain political figure entered the national arena, discussions about widespread election integrity or fraud were not as prevalent. The narrative that has emerged, and the subsequent emphasis on these issues, is seen as a poisoning of a system previously built on the premise of fair competition and the opportunity for future participation.
In response to these perceived threats, there’s a strong call to action to ensure voter participation. The emphasis is on the power of the ballot box, with the argument that if voting didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be such a concerted effort to subvert it. This perspective underscores the importance of civic engagement as a bulwark against perceived attempts to disenfranchise or manipulate the electorate.
The legal and institutional avenues for addressing such actions are also under scrutiny. Questions arise about the role of the Supreme Court and whether certain actions constitute a “coup” or an affront to democracy. The sentiment is that these developments are actively working against the Constitution, pushing an agenda that is undemocratic and un-American.
Interestingly, some believe that this move, while seen as a “dickhead move” by some, might not be the democracy-ending catastrophe it appears to be. The argument is made that states ultimately run their own elections, and while disruption is likely, its impact might be more localized, potentially affecting areas with newer voting technology or rural regions. This perspective suggests that the federal “gutting” might be more symbolic than practically debilitating for the entire election process.
However, the notion that this is merely an annoyance is strongly contested by others. They see it as a direct attempt by those who fear losing the midterms to manipulate the system and prevent unfavorable outcomes. The focus remains on the motive – doing “anything to prevent a midterm loss” – and the perceived intent to strip away voting rights, particularly for those who oppose fascism. Complacency is seen as a dangerous response, with a renewed urgency to vote against what is perceived as an encroaching authoritarianism.
The extent of presidential power is also a significant point of contention. The idea that a president should possess such authority over election bodies, especially in a manner that can be perceived as manipulative, is met with strong opposition. The question of “why would Biden do this?” when framed as a hypothetical, serves to highlight the perceived inappropriateness of such actions, even if the current context points elsewhere.
The presence of figures like Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, with statements alluding to a “second American Revolution,” is viewed by some as an open admission of a radical agenda. This, coupled with the actions surrounding the Election Commission, fuels the belief that a conscious and overt effort is underway to advance a fascist agenda.
The strategic thinking behind these moves is also a subject of debate. Some believe that the actions are not sophisticated, stemming from a place of desperation or inability to strategize effectively. Others, however, see a clear and deliberate plan to interfere with elections, with the intention of rigging the results. This interpretation views the actions as overtly transparent attempts to manipulate outcomes.
A counter-narrative suggests that the focus on this particular “storyline” is a deliberate attempt to instill fear. This perspective argues that the commission in question has limited power, as states are the primary entities responsible for running federal elections. The argument here is that the narrative of federal interference is being amplified, potentially distracting from other issues or motives.
However, the evidence presented, including reports of former GOP election officials purchasing voting machines, the DOJ ending investigations into foreign election influence, and GOP members being charged with vote machine tampering, is used to support the claim that election interference is not a new or unfounded fear. The alleged use of stolen information to purge voter rolls is also cited as concrete examples of efforts to manipulate elections.
The ultimate goal, according to this viewpoint, is to ensure that election results are not accepted if they are unfavorable. The fear is that newly appointed officials within election bodies could be leveraged to support claims of fraud, even in cases of clear Democratic victories. This sets the stage for widespread election interference at the federal level, with the expectation of significant and lasting disruption.
The idea that “cheaters gotta cheat” is a prevalent sentiment. This perspective holds that if one cannot win on policy, decency, or leadership, the only recourse is to cheat. This is seen as a defining characteristic of the MAGA movement, the right wing, and religious zealots, who are perceived as acting in direct opposition to the values they claim to espouse.
The perceived lack of surprise among some at these developments highlights a growing cynicism. The question of the “end game” – whether it involves simply ignoring votes and lying about results – reflects a deep concern about the future of democratic processes. Some speculate that these actions are a reflection of Trump’s personal frustrations, perhaps stemming from recent political setbacks or even perceived threats, with a desire to torpedo the midterms and retreat to a life of leisure.
The practice of firing individuals perceived to be obstacles or whistleblowers is also seen as a recurring theme. The argument is that when election results are questioned, the response should include an examination of why individuals who would have prevented alleged issues were removed, especially if the person in power had the authority to do so. This points to a need for accountability for mismanagement and perceived sabotage.
Finally, the actions are framed by some as being orchestrated by external forces, likening them to plans devised by figures like Putin. The notion that Republicans now hate fair and free elections is asserted, with a call to stop listening to claims of patriotism from a group perceived as “ghoulish and un-American.” The comparison to segregationists and slave owners underscores a belief that current Republican stances on voting rights represent a historical regression, aligning them with oppressive pasts rather than modern democratic ideals. This sentiment expresses a profound disappointment and disbelief at the perceived historical backsliding.