Vote by Mail - “Safe” Mainly for Democrats - but Fair and Honest?

The recent recall effort to retire Governor Gavin Newsom of California seemingly went up in smoke due to what appears to be a crushing defeat, but was that defeat artificially fortified by election manipulation? On election night on September 14, the mainstream media was quick to proclaim that Newsom survived the recall in stunning fashion, but why so fast? The actual tallies had not been completed for the day of voting. So, the results were based upon all the mailed-in ballots from the previous days--not based upon the people who actually went to the polls to vote in person on election day. And, in one of the most populous counties in California, the in-person voters decided that Gavin Newsom should be recalled.

In at least one county of California, Santa Clara County, if not all of them, the results announced were seemingly blared out too rapidly by the media--even in some cases, while people were still standing in line to cast their ballots. In Santa Clara County, the results of Election Day had not even been fully tabulated from all of the 36 vote centers before a Newsom victory was declared. In fact, calling of the election was based upon what? The results from the in-person voting at the vote centers were not disclosed until after 10 p.m. So, the minority percentage of those who voted in person, and voted to get a new governor, did not seem to matter. All that mattered were the mailed-in ballots, and Newsom, on Monday, signed into law a bill that requires all statewide elections to have by-mail ballots go out to all registered voters. The purposeful illusion that the One Party Oligarchy wants to portray to the public is that the vote-by-mail is the only choice that citizens have. Even intelligent people have been brainwashed into thinking that the state is only allowing people to vote through a mail-in ballot. That is not true. The counties will still provide some form of voting in person, even though it is resisted by the oligarchy. The “vote-by-mail experiment” has proved so wildly successful that it would be seemingly self-defeating if they were to promote elections to obtain legitimate results. The so-called convenience factor proves to be quite true--it is very convenient for the ruling oligarchy to retain their power with the illusion of genuine or legitimate voting procedures. The element that has been retained to provide the appearance of legitimacy is the “old” method of actually voting in person. Those who were fortunate to vote in person have the satisfaction that they cast their ballot and it was tabulated at the vote center where they voted. In Santa Clara County, citizens could verify that the machines had counted their vote accurately, if they so requested to witness it. Of course, though it was possible to verify their votes on the machines, not many even knew that it could be done--one of the best kept secrets of the county workers at the polling locations. Others had to leave it up to the old fashioned concept of trust.

---

Yet, the vote-by-mail procedures were open to several gaps in the procedural methods that leave trust “in the dust.” The one method that is most open to suspicion in the mail-in fiasco is that voters had their options expanded (for convenience of course) to simply download a ballot from any computer, and fill the ballot out, and mail it back in the mail. The “Remote Access Voting” process allowed for anyone to download the ballot and a special envelope from any computer and send it back in the specially printed envelope by mail. Of course, what most voters did not know is that all of those “homemade” or self-created ballots needed to be re-made or “duplicated” by hand by an employee of the respective county where ballots are processed. Every single one of those ballots had to be duplicated onto a proper ballot, which entailed the county worker interpreting the indication or intent of the voter onto a newly created official ballot. So, the weight of integrity rests upon the “intent” of the county election workers. The irony of the new California law is that the original version of the law was created for handicapped voters, specifically blind voters, who were concerned that their genuine intent in voting would not be actuated as they cast their ballots. Now anyone can blindly cast a self-made ballot, but the question still remains as to whether the original intent of the voter would be unchanged by human hands. Of course, this was just a more recent addition to the election laws in the state that made the effort to vote more “safe” in the time of COVID, and more convenient to the voter, but most convenient of all to the ruling oligarchy. The official vote-by-mail ballots that are authorized by the state, in statewide elections, are to be established according to specifications. One of those specifications has to do with the quality of the paper that the official ballots are printed on. One of the problems in some counties in California is that the paper was of a cheaper quality as counties had attempted to save on printing costs. This caused problems of the sharpie pens to bleed through some of the ballots and ruin the ballot, which in such cases the ballots had to be re-made or duplicated as well, leaving it to the interpretation of the county worker whose task it was to remake the ballot. The question remains: In whose image (political party) was the ballot re-made - the one who cast the ballot, or the one who re-made it?

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

American citizens have a right to question, have the obligation to question, the legitimacy of the so-called elections

Of course, this was most convenient of all to the ruling oligarchy. There is great truth to the old adage attributed to Joseph Stalin that "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." This may not be what Stalin actually said, but the sentiment is confirmed in The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary by Boris Bazhanov, which was published in 2002. In the book, Stalin retorted about a vote in the Central Committee of the Communist Party that: “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.” Reflecting on how Hillary Clinton won her Party’s nomination over the Bernie Sander’s challenge, it could be considered a quite appropriate or truly relevant comparison for our time. In reality, the voting rights of the general population would be considered differently than how a particular political party, whether the Communists or the Democrats (which appear more and more like Communists every day), would settle internal rivalries for their preferred leadership. But, when such procedures bleed out into the general public, and the voters are disenfranchised by those who count the votes, that undermines the rights of the people to honestly consent to those governors they supposedly choose. If reasonable doubt exists regarding whether the elections are fair and honest, American citizens have a right to question, have the obligation to question, the legitimacy of the so-called elections (even re-call elections). If citizens’ votes are being manipulated in any way, and if their voting rights are being suppressed, this is a human rights violation in the extreme. It conjures up memories of the Civil Rights Movement and the fight waged by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and all of those denied their voting rights because of Democrat legislation allowing manipulation of elections and voter suppression in the Solid South not so long ago. Stalin only voiced the concept perfected in successful practice by an American political party long before Communism existed. History repeats!