Month: August 2025

PAPER ISN’T THE ANSWER

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

  OLD AND QUIRKY

At the heart of American democracy, the act of voting is the key to a free society and to most Americans it is sacred. Yet the machinery behind it—literally—has become
a lightning rod for controversy.  As the 2026 midterms approach, President Donald Trump has reignited his campaign against mail-in voting and electronic voting machines, promising to sign an executive order to “bring HONESTY” back to the ballot box. His proposal would involve eliminating voting machines and replacing  mail-in voting with “watermark paper ballots” counted by hand. However, the push to eliminate voting machines and mail-in ballots via executive fiat faces a steep legal wall.

What Does THE CONSTITUTION Say?

The U.S. Constitution gives states—not the federal government—the authority to regulate elections. Article I, Section 4 states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” are determined by state legislatures. Congress may intervene, but only through legislation—not executive fiat.

In short: no president, past or future, can unilaterally eliminate mail-in voting.   Courts have consistently blocked federal overreach in this domain, reaffirming that election infrastructure is a state prerogative.

But the deeper concern isn’t just legal—it’s civic. Banning voting machines and mail-in voting would disproportionately affect voters with disabilities, rural voters, and those who rely on assistive technology. It would also undermine years of bipartisan investment in secure, auditable systems.

The Voting Process

Mail-in voting has long been a lifeline for voters who are elderly, disabled, overseas, or simply unable to reach polling places. It’s not new, and it’s not partisan. Utah, a reliably red state, conducts elections almost entirely by mail. So does Colorado, a blue state. Both report high turnout and low fraud.

Despite repeated claims, there is no credible evidence of widespread fraud linked to mail-in ballots. Numerous audits, court rulings, and bipartisan investigations have affirmed the integrity of the process.

Most voting machines in use today are not opaque black boxes. They’re optical scanners that read paper ballots—providing both speed and a physical audit trail. In places like Roanoke City and Roanoke County, Virginia, voters use the Unisyn OpenElect Freedom Vote system, which combines accessibility with verifiability. These systems are federally certified and state-approved, designed to balance efficiency with security.

 What This Debate Is Really About!

This isn’t a technical dispute, it’s a symbolic one. The call to return to “paper-only” voting is framed as a restoration of trust. But trust isn’t built by stripping away tools that make voting more accessible and secure. It’s built by transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

Nor is Trump’s proposal a policy disagreement, it’s a test of constitutional boundaries. If executive orders could override state election laws, the balance of power would tilt dangerously toward the presidency. That’s not election reform. That’s executive overreach.

If the goal is election integrity, the answer isn’t to ban machines—it’s to strengthen oversight, expand audits, and ensure every voter can verify their vote. Technology is a tool that, like democracy itself, must be constantly refined and protected.

Voters deserve transparency, security, and access. That means improving systems—not dismantling them. It means respecting the rule of law, even when it’s inconvenient. And it means recognizing that the strength of our democracy lies not in the whims of one leader, but in the collective will of the people.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

The QUIET EROSION of CIVILIAN RULE

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

A New Normal?

In the summer of 2025, armored vehicles rolled through downtown Los Angeles—not in response to foreign attack, but to guard federal buildings during a wave of domestic protest. The troops weren’t requested by California’s governor. They were sent by presidential order. For many Americans, it was a jarring sight: the military, long a symbol of defense abroad, now stationed in the heart of a U.S. city.

This wasn’t a one-off. It was part of a broader trend—one that threatens to blur the line between civilian governance and military power. And now troops are in Washington DC to stem crime in our nation’s capital.  What a symbol for an emerging authoritarian movement.

At the moment we seem to be practicing a system of state capitalism- –a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises. There is a clear change from the free-market economy the U.S. once embraced. In Trump’s first term, CEOs routinely spoke out when they disagreed with his policies on immigration and trade. Now, they shower him with donations and praise or are mostly silent. Trump is deploying financial power and regulatory power to intimidate media companies, banks, law firms, and government agencies he thinks are not sufficiently supportive.

The Legal Guardrails—and Their Cracks

For nearly 150 years, the Posse Comitatus Act has stood as a bulwark against military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Its message is simple: the armed forces are not a police force. But the Insurrection Act, a much older law, offers the president a way around this restriction—allowing troop deployment during times of rebellion or when laws cannot be enforced.

Historically, this power has been used sparingly: to enforce civil rights in the 1960s, to quell riots when local authorities were overwhelmed. But recent deployments—without state consent and absent clear legal justification—suggest a shift. The question isn’t just whether the law allows it. It’s whether our democracy can withstand it

The Risk of Military Governance

The use of US troops domestically tends to escalate tensions, not defuse them. More importantly, it signals a dangerous normalization: federal force as an acceptable substitute for local governance.

This undermines the principle of federalism, the idea that states have autonomy over their internal affairs. It also erodes civilian control, a cornerstone of democratic society. When the executive branch can deploy troops without oversight or consent, the balance of power tilts dangerously later toward authoritarianism.

A Culture Clash in Uniform

Even within the military, there’s discomfort. Pentagon regulations emphasize that domestic deployment must be legal, necessary, and appropriate. Many commanders worry that repeated use of troops on U.S. soil risks politicizing the armed forces and damaging public trust.

The military’s ethos is built on defending the Constitution—not enforcing political will. When soldiers are asked to patrol neighborhoods or guard against protestors, that line begins to blur.

What Comes Next?

California’s lawsuit against the federal government may set a legal precedent. But the deeper question is cultural: Will Americans accept troops in their cities as a new normal? Or will they push back against the quiet erosion of civilian rule?

Democracy depends not just on laws, but on norms—on shared understandings of what power should and shouldn’t do. The use of troops on U.S. soil tests those norms. And the outcome will shape the character of American governance for years to come.

The Vice President

Another interesting development is that Vice President J.D. Vance appears to have been distancing himself from Trump and the administration by taking repeated vacations.  Vance also appears to be undercutting Trump over the Epstein files, twisting the knife while also seeming to make overtures to Trump’s MAGA voters, who have never warmed to Vance.  Vance set up a meeting at his residence to discuss Epstein, a meeting that just happened to leak to the press. Then a few days later, Vance brought up the issue again in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, parroting MAGA beliefs that the files name prominent Democrats.

“Lot of Americans want answers. I certainly want answers,” Vance said

Those people cheering on Trump’s drive for autocratic power because they still somehow think he will use that power to make their lives better might want to consider how their lives may change if that power is in the hands of J.D. Vance.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Gerrymandering

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

                                                                                         August 10, 2025

The Origins and Evolution of Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering has been a fixture of American politics since the early days of the republic. Here’s a look at how it developed and adapted over time.

It all began in 1812: The term “gerrymander” was coined after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a redistricting plan that created a bizarrely shaped district favoring his party. A political cartoon likened it to a salamander—thus, “Gerry-mander”.

Even before the term existed, states like Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were already manipulating district boundaries for political gain in the late 18th century.

Early Electoral Practices

In the 1790s to 1840, states varied widely in how they elected representatives. Some used statewide “general tickets,” while others drew districts with little federal guidance.

The 1842 Apportionment Act mandated single-member districts, intensifying the use of gerrymandering as a strategic tool.

Redistricting and Partisan Power

Post-Civil War to 20th Century, Gerrymandering became entrenched in state politics, often used to suppress minority votes or entrench one-party rule—especially in the South.

Modern methods include techniques like “packing” (concentrating opposition voters in few districts) and “cracking” (splitting them across many districts) have become standard practice.

Current Efforts

Democratic lawmakers from the Texas House of Representatives left the state to deny Republican lawmakers the quorum—the number of legislators required to pass legislation—they need in order to push through a new district map that would take five seats currently held by Democrats and give them to Republicans.

The attempt to grab five new seats in Texas to maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives against the will of voters is a threat not only to Texas, but to the entire country and to the concept of America.

Florida’s redistricting saga may be heating up again.  Governor Ron DeSantis is signaling support for a mid-decade redraw of congressional districts.  While the Governor is pushing for action, many Florida GOP legislators are hesitant citing legal issues and sheer fatigue.  Watch and see.

President Donald J. Trump has demanded this rare mid-decade redistricting in an attempt to hold control of the House of Representatives in 2026. He is urging all Republican-dominated states to make a similar change to guarantee Republican dominance regardless of the will of voters.

Trump also wants a mid-decade census.  A census takes years to organize and implement.  Watch for a “semi-census” haphazardly put together and illegal that the GOP will tout as the real thing.

This is not just rigging the system in Texas and Florida. It’s about rigging the system against the rights of all Americans for years to come.  This is a key element in a move to authoritarian rule.

T. Michael Smith

https://wwwtmichaelsmith.com

AUTHORITARIAN

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

IS AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN AMERICA’S FUTURE?

Authoritarian rule is marked by a concentration of power and a rejection of democratic norms. Here’s a structured breakdown of its core elements:

  • Centralized Power: Authority is held by a single leader or small elite, often without constitutional accountability.
  • Limited Political Pluralism: Opposition parties and dissenting voices are suppressed or tightly controlled.
  • Weak Rule of Law: Legal systems are manipulated to serve the regime’s interests, not justice.
  • Restricted Civil Liberties: Freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are curtailed.
  • Political Violence: Violence or threats are used to silence opposition and maintain control.

The Authoritarian Playbook often follows a recognizable pattern. Leaders foment mistrust and fear to fracture society, undermine truth through lies and conspiracy theories, and destroy checksandbalances by weakening institutions and declaring emergencies to seize power.  Leaders will attack independent media, political adversaries and target minorities, women, and protest movements. Loyalists will be favored, and dissenters will be punished. They will seek to justify harm against out-groups and will use fear to mobilize supporters against mythical adversaries. (Remember the national guard in LA). All of this is designed to convince people that change is impossible without the regime.

The legal system is reshaped to serve the regime: constitutions are amended to extend terms or expand executive power, the judiciary is packed with loyalists, and legal charges are used to neutralize rivals.

Leaders often build mythic personas: excessive praise or manufactured achievements dominate the discourse, national identity may be tied to loyalty to the leader, and public celebrations and media portrayals border on worship.

Freedoms shrink under the guise of “security” or “tradition”: restrictions emerge on protest, speech, and religious expression, surveillance becomes normalized, and minority groups often bear the brunt of repression.

Historical Authoritarian Regimes

Nazi Germany (1933–1945) – Led by Adolf Hitler, this fascist regime used propaganda, terror, and a cult of personality to control nearly every aspect of life.

Soviet Union under Stalin (1924–1953) – Characterized by totalitarian control, purges, and state-induced famine.

Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975–1979) – The Khmer Rouge regime killed nearly 2.8 million people in a brutal attempt to create an agrarian utopia.

Chile under Pinochet (1973–1990) – A military dictatorship marked by disappearances, torture, and suppression of dissent.

Modern Authoritarian Regimes

North Korea – A dynastic dictatorship under the Kim family, with extreme censorship and no political pluralism.

Russia under Vladimir Putin – Power is concentrated in the presidency, with limited opposition and media control.

China – The Communist Party maintains strict control over politics, media, and civil society.

Iran – A theocratic regime where ultimate authority lies with the Supreme Leader, and dissent is tightly controlled.

Saudi Arabia – An absolute monarchy with limited civil liberties and no elected legislature.

Belarus – President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled since 1994, suppressing opposition and protests.

Myanmar – The military has repeatedly seized power, most recently in a 2021 coup.

Eritrea – Often called “Africa’s North Korea,” it has no elections and mandatory indefinite military service.

We need more than nostalgia for what democracy once was. We need a bold, imaginative renewal that adapts to new threats while strengthening the basics.

No democracy survives without strong institutions. Independent judiciaries uphold the rule of law, while electoral commissions ensure voting integrity and legislatures serve as brakes on executive excess.

Democracy lives and dies by the legitimacy of its elections. That means modernizing voting infrastructure, safeguarding against disinformation, and ensuring peaceful transitions of power. Recent reforms like the Electoral Count Act illustrate how democracies can learn from crisis—and legislate against future breakdowns.

Authoritarianism thrives on public apathy and misinformation. A resilient democracy cultivates engaged, informed citizens. This includes teaching democratic principles in schools, supporting independent media, and fueling civic participation.

A few vital safeguards aren’t written in law—they’re customs, conventions, and shared expectations. To protect them, we must turn unwritten norms into enforceable rules. Codifying expectations around judicial independence, limits on emergency powers, and transparent governance which transforms fragile traditions into durable protections.

Democracy is at its strongest when diverse sectors unite in defense. Labor unions, universities, opposition parties, civil society groups, and international allies must coordinate resistance to authoritarian erosion. This whole-of-society approach helped South Africa and Bolivia rebuild democratic systems after periods of upheaval.

Accountability is democracy’s moral backbone. Investigating abuses of power, prosecuting corruption, and protecting whistleblowers must be non-negotiable. Following the January 6th insurrection, these mechanisms proved critical to restoring public trust and reaffirming the importance of democratic transparency.

This is democracy’s moment—not for retreat, but for reimagination. The threats we face are modern, so our defenses must be too. Strengthening institutions, defending elections, educating citizens, and building coalitions are not luxuries—they’re necessities. Renewal begins when we see democracy not as a relic, but as a work in progress.

Democracy is the architecture of freedom. Let civic engagement be its blueprint.

https://wwwtmichaelsmith.wordpress.com