Was Stalin Right about Voting?

Joseph Stalin was a tyrant who killed some 42 million of his own citizens, more than Mao, more than Hitler.

[The greatest cause of death in the 20th Century?  It was not disease or war; it was leaders killing their own citizens, as documented by Professor R.J. Rummel in his book Death by Government.]  

Stalin was a Communist - and evil by most standards - but he was also a great politician.  He understood how to attain authoritarian power.  When asked about voting, he said, "I believe that who and how people in the Party vote is unimportant. What is extremely important is who counts the votes, and how they are recorded.”  He had no qualms about having the counters change the results in his favor.

That is exactly why honest methods and systems for counting votes - and for verifying those counts - is so crucial.  Because anything short of that invites cheating and manipulation by the authoritarians.

The Russian citizens did not vote of course - Stalin was referring to his Party members who numbered less than a thousand, and he knew who they were.  In America, though, the people do vote so we have an additional challenge with our millions of voters.  It’s not just the counting but we also have to make sure that we know who they are and that only eligible citizens vote.  That they only vote once, and only for themselves.  Otherwise, the whole democratic process is distorted and mistrusted, even to the point of becoming meaningless.

So, yes, Stalin was right; if those who counted the votes and recorded them were able to manipulate the numbers, then he could maintain the illusion, and the public perception, of having “won.”  

But even before the counting, the voting itself can be manipulated through such things as mass mailed ballots, no ID, no verification, ballot harvesting . . . all of these things also invite cheating.  And authoritarianism.  It’s simply not democracy.

Most of us know and understand this.  Yet there is an establishment campaign against cleaning up our democratic process and ensuring that it is honest and transparent.  They fight against voter ID, for example.  Why?  For goodness sake, ID is required for nearly every activity that we can imagine . . .  except for voting.  Some folks can’t afford it?  Simple: we can make ID’s free, which will help those folks in other ways as well.

But that’s just a red herring; that’s not the real reason that they oppose clear and consistent rules for Federal elections.  Because they know that if we leave things as they are, then the door is wide open to cheating and manipulation.  (Just like they have opened the border.) 

Why would they want those doors open?  Perhaps they do not understand what Stalin was saying?  No, quite the opposite, they understand it very well.  It’s an invitation to more and bigger government “justified” by the illusion of a democratic process.

By resisting every attempt to ensure honest and fair elections, they are truly destroying democracy.  And then, as always, they accuse the other side of what that they are already doing.

[Note: we are talking here only about Federal elections.  In my opinion, if some States and jurisdictions want to allow unidentified persons and  illegal aliens and dead people to vote in their local elections, if their citizens are OK with mass mailings and early voting and ballot harvesting - if they don’t care that they are destroying their democracy - then so be it.  Let them.  That is part and parcel of freedom of choice and State sovereignty.  If we are right, those policies will come back to haunt them and prove how dangerous they truly are.]

A few folks in Congress regularly put forward legislation to address this issue, but we can count on the majority in one or both houses to argue against it and to defeat every attempt at honest Federal elections.  Is it any wonder that professional politicians are held in lower esteem than used car salespeople and attorneys?

The authoritarian responses to the Covid “pandemic” provided the opportunity and the excuse to introduce numerous “emergency measures” for voting and counting.  But like most “temporary” programs of governments, they never go away.  Until we demand it. 

Stalin knew the effective tactics of authoritarianism.  As do the progressive, collectivist and corporatist American leaders who likewise aspire to more power over the people.

But many of us want them to have less power over us, not more.  And we want the democratic process to actually work.  We need to start by making sure that only eligible citizens vote; that they are who they say they are; and that they have not moved to another jurisdiction (or died).  So first we need to require voter ID.  And keep the voter rolls up to date and accurate.

We also must ensure that votes and counts are accurate and verifiable.  End the mass mailing of unrequested ballots.  End early voting and enforce deadlines.

What is wrong with voting in person on November 5th, on a paper ballot?  Make it a national holiday.  Exceptions can be made, of course; folks with legitimate reasons can request a mailed ballot.

The Presidential race brings out the worst in politics.  Both sides are claiming that if the other wins, it will be the end of democracy.  Yet far too many of us are just standing by and allowing the erosion and destruction of our democratic process.  Isn't it time to demand a fair and transparent democratic process?  And reject Stalin’s tactics?