Vote dilution: A different kind of election tampering

First published 5/9/24

“One person, one vote” is a core constitutional principle and citizen’s right. While it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it’s logic is implicit in Article I, Section 2 (which governs legislative redistricting), the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the cornerstone precept of our Declaration of Independence: “government by the consent of the governed.”

In the 1960s, a series of landmark Supreme Court cases finally established objective criteria for protecting the “one person, one vote” principle, which included Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), holding that state legislative districts must be reapportioned based on roughly equal population, rather than other factors such as geography or political power.

Then, in the hugely important but largely unnoticed (pre-Trump Court era) case of Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), ultra-leftist Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion that based redistricting on the general population of a district rather than the population of eligible voters. While falsely spun by Ginsburg as a protection of one person-one vote, the ruling had the opposite effect. In one fell swoop, all the millions of illegals that had already flooded the country indirectly received the benefit of “one person one vote” without ever having to become legal citizens. Wherever they congregated (usually in the deep blue cities) they automatically diluted the votes of actual citizens and inflated the power of the Democrats to gain new seats in Congress. And that was before the floodgates were fully opened under Obiden.

Thus, illegal immigration suddenly became a new form of ballot-stuffing by which liberals could “legally” steal elections from conservatives – and (more recently) potentially provide a way for the Dems to get the last laugh on Republicans who are shipping illegals to Dem cities as punishment for supporting open borders (although the post-Plandemic flight of legal voters from Dem jurisdictions probably offsets that).

Allow me to explain how vote dilution serves as a form of ballot stuffing, because I have firsthand experience in how it works in actual practice. As my regular readers know, I ran twice for governor of Massachusetts. The first time was in 2014 as an Independent, and my primary purpose was to break out of the “Saul Alinsky Box” the LGBT-controlled media had locked me in to poison the state jury pool against me in the bogus federal “Crimes Against Humanity” lawsuit, SMUG v. Lively. My strategy worked, while also giving me an unprecedented opportunity to advocate for uncensored Christian conservative viewpoints (such as “abortion is murder”) in the political arena – including both statewide candidate debates on live television!

I had no intention of running again until late 2017 when RINO Charlie Baker (who’d won the governorship in 2014) announced he would use state tax revenue to reimburse Planned Parenthood for any money Congress withheld from them over their fetal body parts harvesting and marketing scandals. I also deduced from a series of political clues that he was in the early stages of being gilded and groomed by the Purple Uniparty to take on Trump in 2020 following a carefully planned landslide election in 2018 (for both Baker and Sen. Elizabeth Warren – who would then become a bipartisan anti-Trump “tag team” in 2020).

I thus chose to primary Baker, which necessitated winning at least 15% of the delegates in the 2018 Republican Convention. That seemed a nearly impossible goal because the Massachusetts GOP had for many years kept all conservatives out of the gubernatorial races by using back-room “blank ballot” stuffing to dilute conservative support to keep it below the 15% threshold. Following the candidate speeches there would be a non-binding public “floor vote,” followed by a secret, binding paper-ballot vote, counted in the back room by party officials. Lastly, there would be an official announcement of the winner.

Whenever a conservative candidate would cross the 15% threshold, the liberal officials in the back room would (allegedly) stuff blank ballots into the pile of “total votes” until the tally of actual votes for the conservative dropped below the 15% threshold. The cheaters were limited only by the “undervote” (the number of delegates who didn’t vote in that race) – each one representing a “blank ballot” that should not ethically be counted. But, since it was a secret vote only the vote counters would know that the blanks had been stuffed in to skew the percentages.

That system of cheating became obvious in the 2010 convention when the floor vote for conservative Christy Mihos obviously far surpassed 15%, but the “official” back-room count fell just short. There was massive outrage, but no remedy. So in the next election when conservative businessman Mark Fisher was similarly cheated, my friend Brian Camenker of MassResistance took a video of the floor vote, which evidence allowed Fisher to sue the state GOP and win a settlement costing the (alleged) cheaters nearly half a million dollars including attorney fees. (Unfortunately, Fisher’s campaign momentum greatly suffered from the uncertainty and delay caused by the need to litigate, and he lost.)

When I challenged Baker in 2018 the party couldn’t run their usual game – getting caught cheating with paper ballots in 2014 forced them to switch to electronic balloting in 2018. They tried to compensate for their loss of control by taking away the secrecy of the vote – literally setting up live camera coverage of the voting screens. They combined that with open intimidation of the delegates who were each individually warned not to vote for Lively. As a backup plan, they tried at the last minute to get me to accept paper balloting (for my race only) by pretending the Wifi needed for electronic voting had failed, but when I threatened to sue they backed off. That attempt angered me so much I gave the most blistering political speech of my career, accusing Baker of “stolen valor” for taking credit for the Trump economy, and won 27.6% of the vote – despite all the arm-twisting thuggery. I went on to win 36.1% of the primary votes, devastating the elites’ anti-Trump “Massachusetts Strategy” with no hope of recovery.

However, there are no hopeful prospects on the horizon for killing the national ballot-stuffing “Blue Cities Strategy” in 2024. What is worse, many of those illegals padding the population for long-term redistricting purposes are also being sneaked onto the voter rolls through various hard-to-police methods. It won’t even matter if they actually follow through and vote just so long as they’re on the rolls, where they can be “harvested” by the professional Dem election fraudsters.

The only real solution in 2024 is a pro-Trump turnout so massive that it surpasses the best efforts of the cheaters to counter it. That assumes the elites don’t choose the “nuclear option” of either assassinating him or suspending the elections due to war, terrorism, plagues or all of the above.

If by some miracle America survives 2024 with Trump back in power, one of the many items on his priority list must be pushing for a reversal of Evenwel v. Abbott to restore the principle of “one person, one vote” for American citizens only.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.