Why aren’t secure voting and borders important to Democrats?

February 17, 2025

It is safe to say that nearly everyone believes that elections at all levels are critically important. After all, that activity chooses the people who serve us by operating our towns, counties, states and nation. And in America, we are blessed with the right and privilege of being able to select those people.

Elections therefore should be thoughtfully and efficiently organized, with some level of convenience, and highly secured by rules that protect the election process and results. That way, the candidates that the voters choose actually win the elections.

It is also safe to say that there is some degree of illegal activity in most every election, although sometimes very small.

With this in mind, in 2025, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. The aim of this legislation is to make elections more secure.

The original SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, but the revised SAVE America Act also increases the security of elections, requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Voter ID is hardly controversial. Gallup and Pew Research Center polls, among others, found that more than 80 percent of American citizens support photo ID to vote.

Yet, some oppose the idea of an ID or a photo ID as necessary to vote, saying that this puts some people in a situation where they will not be able to vote. However, why can anyone who is a citizen of the USA, and therefore eligible to vote, not be able to get the required ID with just a little effort?

As to the complaint of having any ID to vote, here are a few things that you need an ID or photo ID for: get a US Passport, get through a TSA checkpoint, apply for government programs, drive a motor vehicle, pick up prescriptions, buy alcohol, buy a gun, open a bank account, rent or buy a house or car, get married, rent a hotel room, and last, but not least: attend the Democrat National Convention.

So, Democrats believe that it is important to show a photo ID to participate in a convention that nominates the party’s candidate for President, but think it is unfair to require the voters who elect the President to show a photo ID.

Other examples of the apparent confused logic: Democrats want ICE agents to show photo IDs when arresting illegal aliens, but oppose photo IDs to vote.

Recently, Georgia Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff required attendees to present a government-issued photo ID to enter his "Rally for Our Republic," but opposes a photo ID for federal elections.

And, Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, noted on X that House rules require members to insert their identification card before voting on legislation.

“Notable that 213 Democrats just used their congressional photo ID to vote NO on a voter ID bill,” he wrote.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia commented, “The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe.”

Yes, it is possible, perhaps likely, that some American citizens will have problems under these requirements. No system is perfect. The current system stands as a hallmark of imperfection.

A poll by Newsmax/TIPP shows that Americans view illegal immigration negatively. Overall, Americans think illegal immigration impacts the U.S. negatively by a 50 to 21 percent margin, with 39 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents saying it’s a problem.

On the backing of ICE, while 78 percent of Republicans support ICE, only 22 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Independents do.

It is difficult to understand why so many oppose ICE deporting illegal aliens with criminal charges, or who are just in the country illegally, which also is a crime. It has not always been like this.

Comparing recent Presidents on the subject of deportations and the reactions to that, data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security show that Bill Clinton deported 12.5 million with no protests/riots; George W. Bush deported 10.3 million with no protests/riots; Barack Obama deported 5.3 million with no protests/riots; and Donald Trump has deported 1.5 million with 350 protests/riots. 

Wonder why there is this huge difference in presidents doing the same thing for the same reason? Could political considerations, or personal feelings be involved?

Newsmax magazine published a piece in its February edition regarding federal government salaries. “The average salary in a large majority of federal agencies now exceeds $100,000 annually,” the article says.

Open The Books, the watchdog group that promotes transparency throughout the federal government, reported the agencies and departments with the highest average pay, and listed 12, along with the average annual pay and the number of employees.

Leading the pack is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with 721 employees, and an average annual pay of $236,006. The largest number of employees is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with 6,036 employees, and an average annual pay of $173,627. 

And the lowest paid of the group are the Office of Management and Budget, with 811 employees, and the Federal Trade Commission, with 1,302 employee,  both of which have an average annual pay of $164,468.

Biden and Harris win election in the wild and crazy year of 2020

 

Prior to this year only nine incumbent presidents had lost re-election bids. Given that record, a win against an incumbent isn’t really unusual. Donald Trump, President 45, may be the tenth one, and if so, this one is unusual.

Highlighting the list of oddities of the November 3rd election is pollster Patrick Basham. He is the founding director of the Democracy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC and London, UK.

“First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection,” Basham wrote in the American edition of The Spectator. “He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.”

“Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him,” he continued. 

“We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.”

Basham goes on to note that winners in presidential races, particularly if they are challengers, usually have candidates riding their coattails down ballot.

But Biden did not. “The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level,” he explained.

“Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics,” Basham wrote. “The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.”

“Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era,” he wrote. “But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record.” 

So, in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election, the non-polling metrics have never been wrong.

“Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not,” he said. “Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time.”

Basham told Mark Levin on Fox News’ “Life, Liberty and Levin” that such an outcome is "not statistically impossible, but it's statistically implausible."

Quoting from the Spectator article, Basham lists nine peculiarities that lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers.

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions.

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures.

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election.’

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing.

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes.

8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law.

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

It is stunning that these many irregularities — some that are crimes — do not bother so many people. The breaches of federal and state constitutional mandates in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — where state officials, not legislatures, changed voting processes — don’t seem to matter.

Will votes cast illegally be allowed to stand? We may never know how many illegal votes there actually were, or what the totals really were.

The 2020 election demonstrates the strong need for election reform

Whether you voted for Joe Biden or Donald Trump for President of the United States, or whether you believe that Trump was defeated by a more popular candidate or by election errors and dishonesty, you should want sensible and secure election systems in place to assure the results reflect the decision of the American people.

Few things are more deserving of absolute security than elections, especially when we are electing the president. And elections are a prime area for problems, as we have seen this year.

The pandemic of 2020 threw everything into chaos, including the election. Efforts to protect people led to a movement to send unrequested ballots — universal ballots — to every voter in several states, some of which had never done this before. That led to more chaos.

As a result of the craziness of the 2000 Bush v Gore controversy, the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform — known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission, named after former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker — was formed.

The Daily Signal explained that the commission “was created to address voting and election integrity issues raised by the tumultuous 36-day postelection battle of 2000, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that resulted in awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.” 

The commission studied the election processes, and in 2005 released a report with 87 recommendations. The Daily Signal reported on this study and noted that “had Congress and state governments adopted many of the panel’s recommendations, the 2020 post-election mess between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden might have been avoided, said Carter-Baker Commission member Kay C. James, now the president of The Heritage Foundation.”

James said that “simple protections against fraud, like voter ID and updated voter registration lists, make perfect sense if we truly believe that every vote must count. Election officials should take another look at the commission’s recommendations and make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect the integrity of our elections.”

While several state legislatures did respond to the commission’s recommendations, Congress was reportedly unenthusiastic about them.

The Commission offered seven recommendations that are relevant to the 2020 election. They include:

* Voter ID - “To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005. The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. 

“This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an [Election Assistance Commission]-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.”

* Mail-in and Absentee Voting Risks - “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. State and local jurisdictions should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service, or other legitimate shipper, or election officials. The practice in some states of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”

* Election Observers for Integrity - In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, Republicans have complained that qualified election observers have been prohibited from watching the counting. The Carter-Baker Commission report stressed the need for election observers to maintain the integrity of the ballots. 

“All legitimate domestic and international election observers should be granted unrestricted access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the electoral process, and respect the secrecy of the ballot,” the 2005 report said. 

* Reliable Voting Machines - Voting machines have also been a significant issue in 2020, particularly in Michigan, as one county there flipped from Biden to Trump after a hand recount showed the machine count to be inaccurate. 

The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that machines print out paper receipts for voters to verify their vote was accurately counted. “States should adopt unambiguous procedures to reconcile any disparity between the electronic ballot tally and the paper ballot tally,” the 2005 report says. “The Commission strongly recommends that states determine well in advance of elections which will be the ballot of record.”

* Media Calling Elections - “News organizations should voluntarily refrain from projecting any presidential election results in any state until all of the polls have closed in the 48 contiguous states,” the report states. “News organizations should voluntarily agree to delay the release of any exit-poll data until the election has been decided.”

The other two recommendations were to avoid duplicate registration across state lines, and to prosecute voter fraud. Both, particularly the latter, should be required.

The Carter-Baker recommendations are sensible ones. It’s too bad that Congress and more states did not have the good judgement to implement some or all of them.

Today, the country is paying a high price for their failure to do so.

The amount of money in elections these days is a serious problem

Every election year certain problems present themselves. One minor problem is increased emailing. Many of us have more than one email account, thus the problem is magnified. 

There are lots of campaign emails, most seeking political support, some selling campaign materials. The ones asking for contributions pose a different type of problem.

We are often asked to contribute to candidates from all over the country, not just in our state of residence. Some of these candidates may be known to us and liked, and we may want to support them. Others may be unknown, but we disapprove of their opponents and would like to support them.

But why should anyone — literally any person in the country — be able to contribute to any political candidates that they want to? We can only vote for candidates running for offices representing our state and localities and the presidency, so why can we give money to any candidate that asks for it?

There may be some sensible reasons for being able to contribute to candidates for whom you can’t vote, but not many. Perhaps a relative is running for office, or you have some connection to the area in which the candidate is running, like a business connection or owning property there.

And then there is the situation of political action committees (PACs). From Ballotpedia.com: “Political action committees (PACs) are political committees established and administered by corporations, labor unions, membership organizations or trade associations. The general definition is a group that spends money on elections, but is not run by a party or individual candidate. However, PACs can donate money to parties or candidates they support.

“There are two types of political action committees, separate segregated funds and nonconnected PACs. Separate segregated funds are either established or administered by corporations, labor unions, member organizations, or trade associations. They can only raise funds from individuals associated with the connected groups. Conversely, nonconnected PACs are not connected to any of those groups and may solicit funds from the public. Nonconnected PACs are financially independent and pay for themselves via the contributions they raise. Separate segregated funds are funded by the organization they are associated with. 

“In addition, PACs can be broken down into multi-candidate and non-multi-candidate categories.”

And then there is the super PAC, which Ballotpedia also defines: “A super PAC is a political committee that can solicit and spend unlimited sums of money. A super PAC cannot contribute directly to a politician or political party, but it can spend independently to campaign for or against political figures. These committees are also called independent expenditure-only committees. A super PAC is not legally considered a political action committee (PAC) and as such is regulated under separate rules.” 

PACs and super PACs dredge millions or billions of dollars in contributions from people across the country during an election, and pour those dollars into contributions for and against candidates, political and legislative agendas of their choosing. The additional political contributions and political ads they fund makes running for high profile political offices far more expensive than it needs to be, and ought to be.

According to the reference site thoughtco.com, “In a typical election cycle, political action committees raise more than $2 billion and spend nearly $500 million. There are more than 6,000 political action committees, according to the Federal Election Commission.” At least some of the remaining $1.5 billion goes to staff and expenses. PACs are quite the business.

The Campaign Finance Institute reports that the cost of winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018 was $2,092,822, and a U.S. Senate seat cost $14,863,228. 

The projected cost of all Congressional Races and the Presidential Race for 2020 is $10,838,227,655, according to OpenSecrets.org. That total is divided almost equally between all Congressional Races and the Presidential Race at more than $5 billion each.

By comparison, the 2000 election cycle totaled $3,082,340 for both Congressional Races and the Presidential Race. In six Presidential Election Cycles over twenty years, the total costs have more than tripled.

Opinions vary on whether PACs are good or bad. They receive praise for providing a way for people to combine their money and make their voices heard, but also a way for some to make larger donations, which can create the question of exactly who those elected actually work for.

Another evaluation says that these large contributions come from unknown sources, which were described as “forces of darkness” and “forces of light.”

Proponents of super PACs say they provide additional aspects of freedom of speech, whereas opponents list negative advertising as a major factor produced by super PACs.

It seems that the simpler and more straight forward the election system is, the better, and the easier to manage. You can only vote for candidates in your state and localities, for federal offices representing your state, and for the President and Vice President. Therefore, contributions should have those same limitations.

That would put the decision making where it belongs: in the hands of eligible voters. As things stand now, much control is in the hands of large organizations with specific interests that are not always good for all.

Elections and voting are important and demand effort and honesty

Elections are one of the most important rights and sacred duties of American citizens. Therefore, the nation must do whatever is necessary to assure that elections are free of fraud and abuse. 

Accusations of fraudulent activity are common. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people are on voter rolls who have passed away, moved to another jurisdiction, or who are not eligible voters. Elections must be limited to citizens who are legal voters and registered in the states and localities in which they live.

Some elected officials keep trying to make everything related to voting, from registration to actual ballot-casting, easier. Many believe these efforts are beneficial, and to an extent, they are. But we must work hard to protect the rights we have, and that includes our right — and our duty — to vote for those who will serve us in public office. We must not allow convenience to become the enemy of a fair and just election.

We should not mind putting forth the effort needed to get ourselves properly registered to vote, and get to the polls on election day to cast our ballots. We should not mind spending the necessary time studying those running for office so that we make educated choices. Important things deserve our putting out some effort for them.

Some people, however, cannot negotiate the rigors of registration and voting, so most states have mechanisms to help those people, and some private organizations also assist them.

Some of the “conveniences” created to make voting easier weaken the system. Early voting, for example, is a loser, as many Democrats learned recently. Three candidates dropped out before voting on Super Tuesday, meaning those who voted early for those three wasted their votes. 

Absentee ballots for people who are away from their voting district on election day are a reasonable option, but that idea, too, may result in wasted votes if the ballots are submitted too early.

And we see several other truly bad ideas for the election process that are currently being pushed. Among them are:

* All mail-in ballots - All ballots will be distributed and returned by mail

* Ballot harvesting - Permits individuals to collect ballots and supposedly return them to a sanctioned voting office to be counted

* Automatic voter registration - People are automatically registered to vote when they register a vehicle at the DMV, and must “opt out” if they are not eligible to vote

* Abolishing voter ID requirements - Show up at the polls and vote; no ID of any kind required

* Abolish voter residency requirements - Normally, name, birthdate and residential address are required, but this would do away with the residential address requirement

* Same-day voter registration - Show up at the polls and vote, and if you are not registered when you get to the polling place, you register, then vote

* Out-of-precinct voting - A variation of same-day registration

These measures are a flashing neon sign inviting election fraud, taking the control of election results out of the hands of election officials, and delivering it into the hands of cheaters, who do not want an honest system, and therefore look for weaknesses to exploit. 

And here are two more foolish ideas being floated by those wishing to weaken the election system:

* Lax enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act - Discouraging the cleaning of dead or ineligible persons from voter rolls 

* Doing away with the Electoral College - Making the popular vote determine who will be president, which allows a few high-population areas to make the decision and the rest of us are at the mercy of their choice

These ideas are, generally speaking, being advanced by individuals and organizations on the left, and more specifically by Open Society Foundations (OSF), which are organizations that have contributed $1.5 billion to 199 other organizations in the U.S. Formed in 1979 by billionaire George Soros, OSF received $18 billion from Soros in 2017, which was more than 70 percent of his total wealth of $25.2 billion, as estimated by Forbes Magazine.

During the 2004 election cycle when George W. Bush was seeking reelection, Soros contributed some $25 million to liberal and Democrat groups working to defeat Bush, according to Judicial Watch.

Since that time, he has supported Democrat candidates for national office, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of course, Soros is not the only one seeking to influence our elections.

Campaigns cost too much, these days, and the more money that is in the system, the more likely it is that mischief will occur. Former President Barack Obama warned Americans of the perils of “dark money” in elections, saying it “pulls us into the gutter” as a nation.

Why should any person or organization be allowed to contribute to any political campaign they choose, anywhere in the country? Why should someone in one state be able to contribute to campaigns of people seeking office in other states? If someone has no direct interest in who wins or loses a particular election, why should they be able to support those candidates?

Let us all want and work for clean, fair and just elections.