In old days, election rules were a little more flexible
There’s nothing new about candidates or their supporters claiming an election is going to be stolen from them via fraud. Every election I’ve ever participated in has included a suspicion of shady doings.
Typically, this is nothing more than losers’ whining. When a campaign gets outsmarted through perfectly legal means, the true believers often look for excuses, not explanations.
My first election was back in 1952, when I was going to San Francisco State and picked up an extra $18 to be an inspector at a polling place.
Elections were so loose back then that Democratic precinct captains would come by and we would go over the voting rolls together to see who had cast a ballot and who had not. They’d check off
the list, then go out and find the people who had yet to vote and bring them in.
And nobody thought anything of it.
Years later, when I was more involved in politics, we turned our attention to the city’s housing projects. At the time, only about 25 percent of the people living there who were eligible to vote were actually registered.
We organized every single housing project by making healthy voter registration numbers and voter turnout part of a project manager’s annual review.
They told the tenants, here’s your lease, here’s your voter registration form. Fill them both out, and here’s your key to the apartment.
Then we put polling places right in the projects and opened them early, which upset some people.
We’d also bring in the A. Philip Randolph Institute’s voting project. The institute would rent vans to pick up people, take them to City Hall in the days leading up to the election, have them vote, then take them out for a free lunch.
These days, people would scream “voter fraud” at something like that. But back then it was just making sure everyone exercised their civic duty.
But trust me, allegations of voter fraud are nothing compared with what might happen under our own Constitution if it’s a razor-close election on Nov. 8.
Some insiders are already looking ahead to a showdown at the Electoral College. If, say, Evan McMullin manages to win Utah and neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton can get to the 270 votes needed, the contest would go to the Hill — where things could really get wild.
Under the 12th Amendment, the House would pick the president and the Senate would pick the vice president.
Here’s where it gets fun, because each state, no matter how big or small, gets only one vote for president. That vote is determined by the members of each state’s delegation.
In other words, our one collective vote from 53 representatives representing almost 39 million people in California would have the same weight in picking the next president as Alaska, which has fewer people than San Francisco and has exactly one House member.
How’s that for a “rigged system”?
The race for the presidency is just too exhausting, so last week I decided to concentrate on the Senate contests across the country.
The Democrats think they can pick up seven or eight seats, which would give them a majority. And the polls show they may be right.
By my estimate, the Dems have a good shot of electing Tammy Duckworth in Illinois and hanging onto Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada with Catherine Cortez Masto, thanks to the party’s efforts to register more Latino voters. New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan looks good for the Senate race in her state as well.
Toss in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and maybe even Indiana as possibles, and you could have the Democrats calling the shots once again, with New York’s Chuck Schumer at the helm this time.
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, a Democratic Senate will make it far easier for her to appoint potentially several justices to the Supreme Court and set its course for the next 30 years. Who knows? It could even lead to Justice Barack Obama.
On the other hand, if it’s Donald Trump in the White House, the Democrats could be just as effective in blocking court nominees as the GOP has been with, say, Merrick Garland.
Movie time: “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back.” Tom Cruise lacks the physical stature to play the Jack Reacher portrayed in the best-selling Lee Child novels, but that said, this is one fun action movie. It’s also one of those rare sequels that turns out better than the first entry.
For starters, this Reacher has a real story line, one that has our hero trying to clear an Army major accused of treason. The major, of course, is a woman, played by knockout Cobie Smulders.
Throw in Washington, D.C, and New Orleans as the settings for the action, and you have all the ingredients for a good time.
I was in John’s Grill having a drink with David Millstein the other night when this guy comes up and with asks, “Have you put your disability claim in yet?”
“Why would I put in a disability claim?”
“Because come Nov. 9, you and the rest of the country are going to have PTSD.” “PTSD?” “Post-Trump stress disorder. And believe me, it’s going to take us all a long time to recover.”