Who Should Libertarians Vote for in 2020? A Soho Forum Update

8076725_thumbanil

In July, the Soho Forum hosted a three-way debate asking the question “Who should Libertarians Vote For in 2020?” George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin made the case for Joe Biden, chair of the Libertarian Party in Los Angeles Angela McArdle argued for Jo Jorgensen, and attorney and Manhattan Contrarian blogger Francis Menton defended Donald Trump.

A lot has changed since July, and with the election now less than three weeks away, the Soho Forum hosted another event in which those same three libertarians updated their arguments for their preferred candidates.

None of the participants have changed their minds on who to vote for, but they all agree on one thing: The stakes have gotten higher.

Somin blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy and has written Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter and Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

McArdle is the chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles and the author of The Communist Cookbook: Delicious Dining for the Modern Marxist.

Menton blogs at Manhattan Contrarian and is a retired partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the business litigation practice group Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2FFMqAG
via IFTTT

Who Should Libertarians Vote for in 2020? A Soho Forum Update

8076725_thumbanil

In July, the Soho Forum hosted a three-way debate asking the question “Who should Libertarians Vote For in 2020?” George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin made the case for Joe Biden, chair of the Libertarian Party in Los Angeles Angela McArdle argued for Jo Jorgensen, and attorney and Manhattan Contrarian blogger Francis Menton defended Donald Trump.

A lot has changed since July, and with the election now less than three weeks away, the Soho Forum hosted another event in which those same three libertarians updated their arguments for their preferred candidates.

None of the participants have changed their minds on who to vote for, but they all agree on one thing: The stakes have gotten higher.

Somin blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy and has written Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter and Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

McArdle is the chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles and the author of The Communist Cookbook: Delicious Dining for the Modern Marxist.

Menton blogs at Manhattan Contrarian and is a retired partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the business litigation practice group Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2FFMqAG
via IFTTT

EU’s Barnier Saves Brexit Talks With Tweet Affirming Brussels Ready To “Escalate”

EU’s Barnier Saves Brexit Talks With Tweet Affirming Brussels Ready To “Escalate”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/19/2020 – 13:05

Further validating Boris Johnson’s aggressive approach to negotiating with Brussels, it appeared over the weekend that HMGturning its aggressive rhetoric up to ’11’ on Friday (following the conclusion of an unsuccessful EuCo summit) might have succeeded in pushing the EU to soften its negotiating position.

The message was clear: If Brussels isn’t prepared to “escalate” talks – that is, offer concessions on state subsidies and fisheries access, the two biggest obstacles to a comprehensive “Canada-style” deal – then chief negotiator Michel Barnier shouldn’t even bother showing up.

Brussels reiterated that it was committed to sending Barnier and his team to London for another round of talks this week, signaling (according to some analysts) that concessions might be within reach as Wall Street analysts revise down the chances of a tumultuous ‘no deal’ outcome on New Year’s Day.

But since nothing can ever happen smoothly when it comes to late-stage Brexit negotiations, another dustup occurred Monday afternoon, leading to a flurry of conflicting Brexit-related headlines to bombard cable-trading algos, before the issue was apparently settled once again.

Talks teetered on the brink of collapse Monday morning following a call between Barnier and Lord David Frost, BoJo’s top negotiator, where Lord Frost was reportedly left unsatisfied after trying to suss out whether the EU team was truly ready to “intensify” talks.

That led to Michael Gove, one of Johnson’s senior cabinet officials, telling the Commons that negotiations had “effectively ended” since the EU had refused to confirm that it would be willing to “intensify” negotiations by getting into the nitty-gritty of “legal texts”. Gove added that “no deal” is not the government’s preferred outcome, but that it was prepared for an “Australia-style” trade relationship, a byword for ‘no deal’ and falling back on WTO terms. 

But the senior minister was soon forced to eat those words. In a tweet that was clearly timed for maximum impact, the EU’s Barnier tweeted just after Gove delivered his statement that Brussels was in fact ready to “escalate” talks “on all subjects, and based on all legal texts”.

Earlier, BoJo himself added to the pessimistic mood by claiming that the EU had “abandoned the idea of a free trade deal” following last week’s summit.

But the explicitness of Barnier’s tweet shocked some MPs, and Gove affirmed that if Barnier meant what he said, then talks would proceed as planned.

The presumption right now is that the talks will proceed as planned, but start on Tuesday, though reporters are still awaiting some kind of confirmation.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3o71MQc Tyler Durden

Americans Are Moving Where They Want. Will It Be a Win for Choice or Polarization?

westendrf540421

Get outta town! Seriouslyif you started this year as a resident of one of America’s megalopolises, there’s a good chance that you’ve at least considered leaving, whether or not you followed through. In the midst of a pandemic that has closed or restricted access to so many of the things that make otherwise crowded and expensive cities enjoyable while simultaneously normalizing the practice of working from home, people are on the move. Data shows Americans flowing from places where they had to live to places where they want to reside.

This mobility is one of the few upsides of the COVID-19 eraa victory for choice in how and where people settle down. It’s also, however, an acceleration of decades of sorting that has seen us separate into tribes based on living habits and culture. Given that lifestyle correlates so closely with political affiliation, the victory for choice could mean even greater political polarization in the years to come.

Even before the great viral apocalypse of 2020, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York were losing population to other areas, especially in the South and Southwest. But the trend has accelerated and spread during the pandemic.

“Fresh data from LinkedIn’s Economic Graph team shows that smaller metro areas are gaining, some famous big cities are slipping, and hints of de-urbanization can be found across the country,” George Anders wrote for LinkedIn at the end of September. “In the most striking switch, two giant metro areasNew York and the San Francisco Bay Areaaren’t coveted destinations anymore.”

Among the reasons he cited for the urban exodus are that “theaters are closed, nightlife has dwindled and even a walk along prime shopping streets isn’t effortless anymore.”

Anders spoke with the owner of a relocating firm and found that “lower costs and growing acceptance of a work-anywhere attitude in response to pandemic dislocations helped spur that decision.”

Likewise, United Van Lines, one of the country’s leading movers, this month “revealed higher outbound move requests from New York City and San Francisco as compared to nationwide averages” with life changes wrought by the pandemic as a major motivator.

The company cited one customer saying that “the slower pace of life brought on by COVID-19 caused us to re-evaluate what was important to our family.” Another told the company that “given the remote environment and projected vision of remote working condition, our family opted to move out of the city to a beach location with a smaller footprint and less stressful (and) busy community.”

Paula Campbell Roberts, an analyst for the investment firm KKR, believes “rhetoric around the ‘great urban exodus’ is likely overblown,” but only in an absolute sensethat is, she doesn’t see Americans moving back to the farm. Instead, people and businesses are dispersing to a variety of destinations. “COVID has only accelerated the growth of medium-sized cities, as well as exurbs and suburbs near gateway cities. Amid growth in southern and medium-sized cities nationally, the locus of economic activity should disperse among multiple metropolitan nodes beyond gateway cities.”

Too many of these moves are done out of financial desperation as social distancing and lockdown orders choke businesses and kill jobs. Moving back home with your parents because there’s no money for rent isn’t something that most adults want to do.

On the other hand, working remotely has achieved new acceptance among employers and is a major draw for job-seekers. That means an explosion in possibilities for people in work that can be done remotely, who are increasingly able take jobs that are physically located in one place while we live in another.

“The places where Americans are moving in the midst of COVID-19 may finally be expressing a more fundamental preference for how they really want to live instead of where they have to stay because of their job location or where their kids go to school,” Peter Lane Taylor noted for ForbesLife. “COVID is accelerating demographic trends that were already in place before the pandemic, especially when it comes to businesses seeking places to expand that are pro-growth, low-tax, politically stable, and stacked with an educated work force in advanced degrees.”

Put another way, the pandemic is speeding-up Americans’ decades-old shift toward places where they feel comfortable and can live the lifestyles that appeal to themwhat the author Bill Bishop calls The Big Sort in his book of that name. And, it turns out, political views correlate closely with lifestyle preferences.

“In what may seem like stereotypes come to life, a new Pew Research Center study on political polarization finds that conservatives would rather live in large houses in small towns and rural areasideally among people of the same religious faithwhile liberals opt for smaller houses and walkable communities in cities, preferably with a mix of different races and ethnicities,” Pew Research reported in 2014.

Once in communities of people with shared hobbies, values, and ideologies, we amplify each other’s identities. “The self-reinforcing dynamics of homophily and influence dramatically amplify even very small elective affinities between lifestyle and ideology, producing a stereotypical world of ‘latte liberals’ and ‘bird-hunting conservatives’ much like the one in which we live,” researchers find.

That gets even more self-fulfilling, since “fully half of consistent conservatives, and 35% of consistent liberals, say it’s important to live in a place where most people share their political views,” according to Pew.

The pandemic-accelerated changes in American life, then, are simultaneously giving us more of what we wantlife where we like, choosing from a menu of remote jobs, and doing what makes us happy among like-minded neighborseven as it puts as at ever-greater odds with those who have different preferences.

The solution to the “problem” created by this explosion of choices seems obvious: Encourage local control so that like-minded people can run things their own way without worrying about the disapproval of people who live and think differently. We can live separately and even scoff at one another without being at each other’s throatsif we can leave each other alone.

But that may be too sensible for modern Americans. Amidst a beneficial, though accidental, bonanza of living options created as a byproduct of the pandemic, we may insist on finding grounds for more conflict rather than a source of shared happiness.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34gLQTL
via IFTTT

White House ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ On Stimulus Deal As Pelosi, Mnuchin Prepare For 3PM Negotiation

White House ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ On Stimulus Deal As Pelosi, Mnuchin Prepare For 3PM Negotiation

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/19/2020 – 12:45

The Trump administration says it’s “cautiously optimistic” that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be willing to reconsider her 48-hour ‘gun-to-the-head‘ ultimatum issued to the White House over the weekend, and come down to the $1.8 trillion proposed by Republicans.

“We’re feeling cautiously optimistic that she may be moving toward where we have set the bar,” White House spokeswoman Alyssa Farah told Fox News on Monday, who added that Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin would discuss the matter at 3 p.m. eastern time on Monday.

According to Politico, Congressional Republicans are worried that Trump and Mnuchin will agree to a $2 trillion-plus deal, while Democrats “are wonder inf the White House even wants a deal…”

Earlier Saturday, President Trump said during a phone interview with Wisconsin TV station WMTJ that he believes he “could quickly convince” Republicans to back a “good” deal.

If you said a trillion-eight, if you said 2 trillion, if you said 2 trillion-two — many numbers — I’m willing to go higher than that,” said Trump, adding “I will take care of that problem in two minutes.”

In other words, Trump really wants to get a deal done.

Unresolved issues include the ‘child tax credit, childcare funding, census policies, unemployment benefits, and funds for states and local funding,’ according to the report.

Politico‘s Jake Sherman writes:

WE ARE STILL SKEPTICAL they will reach a deal by Tuesday, although it’s certainly not impossible. And if they do, that would mean calling the House back this week — Thursday, Friday or, yes, Saturday. The Senate will need at least a week to process this — if they decide to take it up at all. That pushes the schedule up against election week — not to mention that Senate Republicans are not in favor of the outlines of this bill.

It appears the market is also skeptical…

On Sunday, Pelosi gave the White House until Tuesday to come to an agreement – but will congressional GOP accept anything north of $1.8 trillion?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Hd1Ayc Tyler Durden

Americans Are Moving Where They Want. Will It Be a Win for Choice or Polarization?

westendrf540421

Get outta town! Seriouslyif you started this year as a resident of one of America’s megalopolises, there’s a good chance that you’ve at least considered leaving, whether or not you followed through. In the midst of a pandemic that has closed or restricted access to so many of the things that make otherwise crowded and expensive cities enjoyable while simultaneously normalizing the practice of working from home, people are on the move. Data shows Americans flowing from places where they had to live to places where they want to reside.

This mobility is one of the few upsides of the COVID-19 eraa victory for choice in how and where people settle down. It’s also, however, an acceleration of decades of sorting that has seen us separate into tribes based on living habits and culture. Given that lifestyle correlates so closely with political affiliation, the victory for choice could mean even greater political polarization in the years to come.

Even before the great viral apocalypse of 2020, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York were losing population to other areas, especially in the South and Southwest. But the trend has accelerated and spread during the pandemic.

“Fresh data from LinkedIn’s Economic Graph team shows that smaller metro areas are gaining, some famous big cities are slipping, and hints of de-urbanization can be found across the country,” George Anders wrote for LinkedIn at the end of September. “In the most striking switch, two giant metro areasNew York and the San Francisco Bay Areaaren’t coveted destinations anymore.”

Among the reasons he cited for the urban exodus are that “theaters are closed, nightlife has dwindled and even a walk along prime shopping streets isn’t effortless anymore.”

Anders spoke with the owner of a relocating firm and found that “lower costs and growing acceptance of a work-anywhere attitude in response to pandemic dislocations helped spur that decision.”

Likewise, United Van Lines, one of the country’s leading movers, this month “revealed higher outbound move requests from New York City and San Francisco as compared to nationwide averages” with life changes wrought by the pandemic as a major motivator.

The company cited one customer saying that “the slower pace of life brought on by COVID-19 caused us to re-evaluate what was important to our family.” Another told the company that “given the remote environment and projected vision of remote working condition, our family opted to move out of the city to a beach location with a smaller footprint and less stressful (and) busy community.”

Paula Campbell Roberts, an analyst for the investment firm KKR, believes “rhetoric around the ‘great urban exodus’ is likely overblown,” but only in an absolute sensethat is, she doesn’t see Americans moving back to the farm. Instead, people and businesses are dispersing to a variety of destinations. “COVID has only accelerated the growth of medium-sized cities, as well as exurbs and suburbs near gateway cities. Amid growth in southern and medium-sized cities nationally, the locus of economic activity should disperse among multiple metropolitan nodes beyond gateway cities.”

Too many of these moves are done out of financial desperation as social distancing and lockdown orders choke businesses and kill jobs. Moving back home with your parents because there’s no money for rent isn’t something that most adults want to do.

On the other hand, working remotely has achieved new acceptance among employers and is a major draw for job-seekers. That means an explosion in possibilities for people in work that can be done remotely, who are increasingly able take jobs that are physically located in one place while we live in another.

“The places where Americans are moving in the midst of COVID-19 may finally be expressing a more fundamental preference for how they really want to live instead of where they have to stay because of their job location or where their kids go to school,” Peter Lane Taylor noted for ForbesLife. “COVID is accelerating demographic trends that were already in place before the pandemic, especially when it comes to businesses seeking places to expand that are pro-growth, low-tax, politically stable, and stacked with an educated work force in advanced degrees.”

Put another way, the pandemic is speeding-up Americans’ decades-old shift toward places where they feel comfortable and can live the lifestyles that appeal to themwhat the author Bill Bishop calls The Big Sort in his book of that name. And, it turns out, political views correlate closely with lifestyle preferences.

“In what may seem like stereotypes come to life, a new Pew Research Center study on political polarization finds that conservatives would rather live in large houses in small towns and rural areasideally among people of the same religious faithwhile liberals opt for smaller houses and walkable communities in cities, preferably with a mix of different races and ethnicities,” Pew Research reported in 2014.

Once in communities of people with shared hobbies, values, and ideologies, we amplify each other’s identities. “The self-reinforcing dynamics of homophily and influence dramatically amplify even very small elective affinities between lifestyle and ideology, producing a stereotypical world of ‘latte liberals’ and ‘bird-hunting conservatives’ much like the one in which we live,” researchers find.

That gets even more self-fulfilling, since “fully half of consistent conservatives, and 35% of consistent liberals, say it’s important to live in a place where most people share their political views,” according to Pew.

The pandemic-accelerated changes in American life, then, are simultaneously giving us more of what we wantlife where we like, choosing from a menu of remote jobs, and doing what makes us happy among like-minded neighborseven as it puts as at ever-greater odds with those who have different preferences.

The solution to the “problem” created by this explosion of choices seems obvious: Encourage local control so that like-minded people can run things their own way without worrying about the disapproval of people who live and think differently. We can live separately and even scoff at one another without being at each other’s throatsif we can leave each other alone.

But that may be too sensible for modern Americans. Amidst a beneficial, though accidental, bonanza of living options created as a byproduct of the pandemic, we may insist on finding grounds for more conflict rather than a source of shared happiness.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34gLQTL
via IFTTT

Trump Slams “Idiot” Dr. Fauci: “Every Time He Goes On TV It’s A Bomb…But There’s A Bigger Bomb If You Fire Him”

Trump Slams “Idiot” Dr. Fauci: “Every Time He Goes On TV It’s A Bomb…But There’s A Bigger Bomb If You Fire Him”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/19/2020 – 12:26

During a conference call with campaign staff that White House reporters were bizarrely allowed to listen in on, President Trump complained that “there’s a bomb” every time Dr. Anthony Fauci goes on television, which is most days.

This is far from the first time President Trump has complained about the good doctor. But it might be the first time he’s offered some direct commentary on exactly why he won’t fire Dr. Fauci, even as Trump seems to have moved on with a new COVID-19 advisor, Dr. Scott Atlas, who has faced persecution by Big Tech for his views on how to approach COVID-19.

Though he conceded that the good doctor is “a nice guy” who has “been around for 500 years”, Trump said the problem with Dr. Fauci is that every time he goes on TV “there’s a bomb”, yet if you fire him, “there’s an even bigger bomb”.

“People are saying whatever…just leave us alone. People are tired of COVID…People are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong…every time he goes on television there’s always a bomb, but there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him. This guy’s a disaster.”

With less than 3 weeks to go before election day, Trump also asserted that the American people are moving on from COVID-19 as cases rebound, while hospitalizations are also starting to creep higher. However, so far at least, deaths have been mostly subdued.

Confirming that he was speaking mostly off the cuff, Trump added after that if there was a reporter on the call (he didn’t seem to realize that multiple WH reporters were apparently listening) they could report it “just how I said it.”

“If there’s a reporter on you can have it just the way I said it, I couldn’t care less,” Trump said.

According to the NYT, Trump’s campaign manager had organized the call to discuss strategy, before Trump pivoted to Dr. Fauci, an issue that was clearly on his mind following the doctor’scriticisms of Trump’s campaign ads last week.

The NYT also brought up an interview with Dr. Fauci on ’60 Minutes’ last night where the doctor refuted Trump’s claims that the end of the outbreak is just around the corner.

Trump also reportedly called an NYT article claiming Trump was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with some of his aides – which followed Trump hinting that he might not bring back AG Bill Barr if elected for a second term due to his inability to charge any of the FBI officials involved with Operation Crossfire Hurricane despite the mountain of evidence suggesting some skulduggery was afoot as the FBI tried to put together an “insurance policy” to protect the nation from Trump.

“I love Mark Meadows,” Trump reportedly said (the NYT report focused on frictions between the president and his chief of staff).

Finally, Trump also told staff that the Wall Street Journal – which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns and controls the New York Post, the paper the published the string of damning reports about Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling abroad – is working on “an important story”.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34caZ1N Tyler Durden

New Data Analysis Finds 353 Counties With 1.8 Million More Registered Voters Than Residents

New Data Analysis Finds 353 Counties With 1.8 Million More Registered Voters Than Residents

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/19/2020 – 12:10

Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times,

A total of 353 counties in 29 U.S. states have 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens, according to an analysis by Judicial Watch.

In addition, eight states, including Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, were found to have statewide registered voter totals that exceeded 100 percent of eligible voters, according to the nonprofit government watchdog.

Judicial Watch compared the registration data available for 37 states with the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recently available American Community Survey (ACS) numbers for the period 2014–2018 on a county-by-county basis.

This new study shows 1.8 million excess, or ‘ghost’ voters, in 353 counties across 29 states,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement announcing the study Oct. 16.

“This data highlights the recklessness of mailing blindly ballots and ballot applications to voter registration lists. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.”

The nonprofit said its study “is necessarily limited to 37 states that post regular updates to their registration data. Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded ‘inactive voters’ from their data.”

“Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots.”

In a similar study last year by Judicial Watch, 372 counties were found to have more registered voters than those eligible to vote. The ACS data in that analysis covered the period 2013–2017.

States are required under a federal law approved in 1993 to make all reasonable efforts to maintain updated voter registration rolls, but enforcement of the statute was almost nonexistent until recent years when Judicial Watch began suing individual states.

Earlier this month, for example, Judicial Watch sued Colorado seeking to force it to clean up its registration rolls. At least 42 of Colorado’s 60 counties have more registered voters than eligible citizens, according to the latest Judicial Watch analysis. Denver County’s registered voter total equals 103 percent.

The nonprofit sued Illinois in federal court in September seeking to obtain registration data the state has refused to make available, a violation of the 1993 law.

The Supreme Court in 2018 upheld a Judicial Watch settlement with Ohio in which that state agreed to a cleanup program of the registration rolls.

A settlement last year of a Judicial Watch suit against California resulted in Los Angeles County officials agreeing to actions that could result in the removal of 1.5 million inactive voters.

The results of the Judicial Watch analysis come as the nation nears the end of the 2020 campaign, which has been marked by massive efforts by Democratic state and local officials, encouraged by colleagues in Congress, to use mail-in ballots as widely as possible.

The mail-in ballots are claimed to be required to accommodate voters concerned about being in large crowds and thereby being potentially exposed to the CCP virus, also known as the novel coronavirus.

A national lockdown of the economy and restrictions on movement of the populace that began in March remains in place to greater or lesser degrees seven months later, with the strictest restrictions generally being found in Democratic states.

There have been multiple news reports in recent weeks of thousands of mail-in ballots being trashed, along with accusations in several cases that the destroyed or trashed documents were by voters intending to support Republican candidates.

Some of the reports have also included absentee ballots, but there’s less controversy about them because states have long experience in dealing with such voting.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly predicted that the widespread use of mail-in ballots will encourage voting fraud, potentially delaying by days or even weeks a clear determination of whether he or Democratic rival former Vice President Joe Biden, will occupy the Oval Office in 2021.

“There is fraud; they found them in creeks, they found them with the name Trump in a wastepaper basket,” Trump declared during his first nationally televised debate with Biden.

“This will be a fraud like you have never seen.”

In one case, Stefan Neimann, a German journalist living in the District of Columbia, reported receiving three blank mail-in ballots, including one to an individual known to be deceased.

“The chaos that Trump lamented with the delivery of mail voting papers is here. I am not allowed to vote here,” Niemann wrote in a tweet, according to a translation.

“But three ballots came to my Washington address: for the previous tenant who moved five years ago, the landlady living in Puerto Rico, and her deceased husband,” he said.

Biden insisted during the debate, however, that there is “no evidence” of fraudulent mail-in voting.

At least 25 million people have already voted in the 2020 election, thanks to numerous states beginning to allow ballots to be cast prior to Nov. 3, with Florida having an estimated 1.6 million. At the same point in the 2016 election, fewer than 2 million voters had cast ballots.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HgZbCH Tyler Durden

New York’s Botched Ballot Mailing, Primary Debacle Rattle Voter Confidence

New York’s Botched Ballot Mailing, Primary Debacle Rattle Voter Confidence

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/19/2020 – 11:50

Confidence in the November election has further eroded after approximately 100,000 New York ballots were sent out with the wrong names – which voters can’t sign, according to Bloomberg.

Problems plagued New York City’s June 23 primary, and weeks later Board of Elections staff members were still tallying ballots. (Photo: Victor J. Blue via NYT)

“It doesn’t give you confidence this is going to be the only mistake,” said former Democratic congressional candidate Suraj Patel, who conceded defeat following a contentious primary in which he struggled to get more mailed votes counted. “For Nov. 3, we’re urging every single person to vote early and in person. It shouldn’t be like this,” he added.

According to Patel, there were 11,000 invalidated ballots, “affecting one in five mail-in voters in the district,” according to the report.

In response to the botched mailing and reports of late-arriving ballots and missing postmarks during the primary, New York has relaxed procedures for vote-by-mail, which millions of residents are taking advantage of while conservatives led by President Trump have suggested the voting method enables fraud.

The changes may not be enough to meet the deluge, said Blair Horner, executive director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit public education organization. The state expects upwards of 5 million absentee ballots, five times the number cast during the primary and 12 times the number in the 2016 general election.

The primary not only brought to light problems with the state’s “highly technical” election process, but underscored the need for resources, Horner said, adding that counting absentee ballots is labor and time intensive. –Bloomberg

“Whether the state has adequate resources for elections, I believe is going to be the big issue as to whether New York’s elections are run in a progressive way, or turn out to be a dumpster fire,” said Blair Horner.

At present, New York ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 3 will be counted if received by Nov. 10, while the city has added staff and added an online portal to apply for a ballot in order to reduce the backlog.

President Trump, meanwhile, highlighted New York’s September mailing glitch between Patel and Democratic Rep. Carpolyn Maloney, in which Patel didn’t concede until late August – saying “They have no idea what happened” during the Sept. 29 presidential debate.

In response to the controversy over the primary, Maloney told Bloomberg that “every single valid ballot” was counted, “and any suggestions to the contrary are simply designed to undermine faith in our election process. I am fully confident every valid ballot will be counted in our November election as well.”

During the primary, New York City election workers couldn’t respond quickly enough to the slew of requests for mail-in ballots, said Douglas Kellner, a co-chair of the state Board of Elections and a Democrat. “Unfortunately, there were many thousands of voters who did not get their ballots in time because the system was so overwhelmed,” he said.

The bottom line is that yes, it’s a very difficult situation, but we are striving to rise to the challenge,” Kellner said.

The time given to implement all the changes has been “insufficient, frankly,” said Peter S. Kosinski, the state election board’s Republican co-chair.

Am I going to say this is going to be error free? No,” Kosinski said, adding that there’s going to be a learning curve for boards and voters alike.

“This is not a New York-centric issue as I see it,” Kosinski said. “I think it’s going on all over the country and hopefully we’ll get through this and the election will be conducted properly.” –Bloomberg

“Any time you’re changing systems, there’s a level of adaptation,” said Benjamin Hovland – Chairman of the US Election Assistance Commission. “There can be learning curves, or challenges, to deal with.”

Translation: prepare for a shitshow… but you already knew that.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31iGWTZ Tyler Durden

The First Law of a Plan B

In the summer of 1687, after years of study and reflection, the legendary English scientist Isaac Newton published one of the most important works in the history of the world.

He called it Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and the insights Newton wrote about shaped the very world we live in today.

Literally *nothing* in modern engineering, from iPhones to skyscrapers, would exist today without Newton and his three-volume treatise.

Among the many game-changing concepts he discussed were his now famous Laws of Motion.

Newton’s first law of motion, for example, is often summarized as something like “an object at rest stays at rest, unless acted upon by an external force.”

Makes sense. A rock isn’t going anywhere unless someone picks it up and throws it.

And this is true not only of objects in our universe, but of human behavior as well.

Human beings are creatures of habit; our species resists change and succumbs to the inertia of our lives. When at rest, we tend to stay at rest.

Think about it: do you ever wonder why so many people are in unhealthy, destructive relationships? Or why they remain in jobs that they hate working for bosses they despise?

It’s because of inertia.

We know deep down when we need to make a change. And often we know what we need to do. But inertia is the reason why we don’t do what’s necessary to improve our lives.

There are countless different forms of inertia.

For example, life gets in the way, and we procrastinate. We put things off and just never get around to taking action. This is a type of inertia.

Or, our ‘normalcy bias’ makes us believe that, no matter how much chaos we see before our very eyes, everything will get better soon… so we don’t take any action.

Or, we recognize that taking action might create conflict. And since most people prefer to avoid conflict, we take the easier road, follow the crowd, and abdicate our decision-making to other people.

Or, we have a great fear of the unknown. And we’d rather suffer a known danger than accept the risk of an uncertain outcome.

Or (especially these days), more and more people are being taught to think of themselves as helpless victims who have no control over the direction of their lives. We’re rewarded for coming up with excuses rather than for taking action.

Each of these is a form of inertia, and there are many more. But they each lead to the same place: inaction.

The funny thing about inertia, though, is that it is simultaneously one of the costliest aspects of our lives, yet one of the easiest to overcome.

Inertia holds us back. It prevents us from achieving what we really want from life.

But overcoming inertia is simply a choice. There’s no special skill… no privilege required.

Anyone from any circumstance or background has the ability to choose: today I’m going to start taking action. I’ll educate myself and gather every tool or resource available to me to improve my life.

Again, this is merely a choice… and only requires summoning the willpower to follow through on that choice.

No one needs to move mountains to get started. It only takes a few baby steps.

For example, I’ve long been talking about the need to set up a Plan B. This is something that makes sense. In light of everything that’s happened in the world lately, it’s only rational to have a Plan B.

Deep down I think most folks recognize this is completely sensible.

But then inertia takes over. For whatever the reason, days, weeks, and then months go by… and we still haven’t started.

This is not uncommon. But it’s easy to fix.

Remember– baby steps. Any time you find that you need to overcome inertia, ask yourself, “What’s the most important thing I can do right now to get moving in the right direction?”

It’s a great question to ask about your business, your relationships, and your life in general… as well as with your Plan B.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/37k8VGX
via IFTTT