It is surreal to see The Economist suggest that it is somehow problematic to make a law saying that if you wish to go into a voting booth, you must show an ID (The bill that won't die, July 11th) — something that has been considered the epitome of common sense as far as anyone can remember. (Cheers to Sarah for the Instalink.)
After speaking, derogatorily, about "Donald Trump’s fixation on a bill with little chance of becoming law," the London weekly goes on to ape one leftist talking point after another.
Mr Trump says he will not sign any legislation until the SAVE Act is approved. Prediction markets put its odds at less than one in ten.
… Supporters describe the measure as an election-integrity reform that would increase public confidence and ensure that only citizens vote. Yet evidence of voter fraud by non-citizens—or anyone else—is vanishingly rare.
The SAVE Act would, however, make it harder for citizens to register and vote.
… In private, Republican aides concede that Mr Trump will probably use the bill’s failure as a pretext to blame lawmakers if the party loses seats in the midterms. Critics see a broader purpose. They argue that the SAVE Act is part of an effort to undermine trust in elections. “The strategy was never about necessarily passing this bill,” argues Alexandra Chandler of Protect Democracy, a non-profit. “It’s about setting the pretext to claim that if Democrats win, then the election can’t be trusted.”
Mr Trump has repeatedly made such claims. Earlier this month his administration ordered the FBI to beef up an investigation related to the 2020 election in Georgia, reviving his baseless allegations of widespread fraud in the contest he lost. [Sic: Check out my post Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It's Unprofessional Journalism.]
Whatever the fate of the SAVE Act, Americans’ trust in the electoral process has already been deeply eroded, not least by Mr Trump’s repeated attacks on election integrity.
Moreover, that such a reasonable bill as the SAVE America Act should be necessary shows how far left America's Democrat party has gone. And yet The Economist puts all the onus on Donald Trump, calling the president's concerns for elections past and present "baseless" as well as a "fixation" while implying that he is the one trying to cheat.
But where else on the planet have leftists accumulated such a stronghold of dubious voting rules — or, rather, the lack thereof (unconstitutional changes to state election laws, voting by mail, vote harvesting, unsupervised ballot drop boxes, counting votes for days or weeks after election "day", not demanding an ID because doing so is racist, etc)? Is it really Donald Trump, then, who is undermining trust in elections?!
There is not a single country in Europe — supposedly the model for the Democrat party on numerous issues — not to mention such nations as Japan and Nigeria, where such rules (or the lack thereof) are present; so the only conclusion must be that all of them are de facto racist.
Regular voting is called election "day" across the West for a reason — by the end of the day (or within 24 hours), the population is supposed to know the results. Not having election integrity might suggest, as Donald Trump has pointed out, that your nation is akin to a third world country.
• See also: Joe Biden, Why Are You Calling Denmark a White Supremacist Country? And You, Barack Obama: Why Are You Calling Africa a Racist Continent?
• Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It's Unprofessional Journalism
* Also called Why Donald Trump won’t let a doomed bill die, July 11th
