Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trump won the election fairly there is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise and yet his opponents have never accepted the result, nor ceased trying to frustrate his efforts to govern. If they succeed,American democracy will effectively be finished.

Amidst the giddy enthusiasm of outlets like CNN to report sensational and almost certainly false stories like Sources: White House lawyers research impeachment little thought is being given to the consequences if their wildest dreams come true. And those who have considered the fact that Vice President Mike Pence would take over like far-leftist Sally Kohn and NeverTrumper Bill Kristol assume that Pence will be just as easily dispatched.

Trump won nearly 63 million votes. Those voters would be instantly disenfranchised by his removal. Opinion polls suggest nearly all of them would vote the same way again, and no facts have emerged from the Russia conspiracy theory, nor have any major policy betrayals taken place, that would sever that trust. Seeing him deposed would trigger nationwide anger, and perhaps a real Resistance, not the make-believeResistance the left has contrived.

Even by considering the possibility of impeaching Trump which some conservatives, rightly, have called a silent coup the Beltway elites are sowing division and uncertainty.They have laid bare their contempt for democracy even those who, like Kristol, enthusiastically support imposing democracy abroad.

Trumps voters believed they were taking their country back and did so through the ballot box. God help us if that victory is taken from them.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author ofHow Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

View post:
It's Not About The Donald, It's About Democracy - Breitbart News

Remember the Brexit Battle Bus with this slogan, We send the EU 350 million a week lets fund our NHS instead Vote Leave? It was powerful and misleading according to the UK Statistics Authority. Mr Farage referred to it as a mistake.

No! The number plastered on the side of the Brexit bus was a big fat lie.

It was not a mistake because it affected the Brexit result the way Mr Farage wanted.

In short, we were misled and those who subverted our democracy with this deception have gone unpunished. Therefore it will happen again to further diminish democracy.

Last month the CPS announced that there would be no criminal charges brought against 14 MPs over their expenses in the 2015 election. In March 2017, The Electoral Commission fined the Conservative Party a record 70,000 for numerous failures in reporting expenses for the 2015 General Election. For that election the Conservatives raised some 38, 000,000.

Their fine for gaining an unfair advantage in winning the 2015 election is 0.01842105% of their 38 million war Chest. An inconsequential punishment and a ballot box bargain!

In short, there is no effective discouragement of the financial subversion of our democracy. Whether it was accidental or deliberate matters not. What matters is the harm done to our democracy and the acceptance of such harm to our democracy.

This CPS decision also undermines our legal system. It stated - it is clear agents were told by Conservative Party headquarters that the costs were part of the national campaign and it would not be possible to prove any agent acted knowingly or dishonestly. Therefore we have concluded it is not in the public interest to charge anyone referred to us with this offence.

In short, the CPS establishes the precedent that if your [political?] boss tells you to do something illegal and you do it, then no one will be prosecuted.

The BBC Trust ruled that BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg breached the BBCs impartiality and accuracy guidelines by editing film so that Mr Corbyn appeared to answer one question when he was, in reality, answering another. The Trust found this inaccuracy was compounded when she went on to state that Jeremy Corbins message couldnt be more different from that of David Cameron. The Trust also found that there was no evidence of bias or intent on the part of the journalist.

Even without bias or intent this is a fundamental abuse of trust and professionalism for either there was no need to change the film or, if there were, that fact could and should have been stated.

James Harding, the director of BBC News, stated, While we respect the Trust and the people who work there, we disagree with this finding.

In short, the head of BBC News is content with his viewers being presented with information that was not duly accurate, as the Trust said with a critical question at a time of extreme national concern.

Perhaps this election is about more than winning seats. Perhaps it is also about our speaking up, and possibly more, to make our country safe and healthy for democracy?

* Steve Trevathan is chairperson of Lyme Regis and Marshwood Vale Liberal Democrats.

Read the rest here:
This election is about protecting our democracy - Liberal Democrat Voice

Three young leaders from Asia are in the Cowboy State learning about government and U.S. democracy.

Zahkung Tu Mai, Kelvin Yii Lee Wuen and Ooi Tze Howe are participating in a program in which leaders under 40 visit the United States. Young American political leaders then visit foreign countries as part of the exchange.

The idea behind the 51-year-old American Council of Young Political Leaders program is for people to learn from each other, which will ultimately result in better representation and policy for folks at home, said Bryan Pedersen of Cheyenne, a former state lawmaker who has participated in the exchange and is passionate about its benefits.

Pedersen and Dick Shanor, a Cheyenne city councilman and Wyoming Department of Education chief of staff, have largely organized the leaders schedule in Wyoming, which included visits to public meetings and the Wyoming Supreme Court. They also spent a week in Washington.

Pedersen said hes been to India and Pakistan and later Japan.

The experience taught him how to be empathetic toward people with different backgrounds. When working with others, he said he looks for their different talents, temperaments and convictions.

A better understating of where (people) come from will lead to a more constructive dialogue, he said.

And that leads to better legislation and policy, he said.

Zahkung, of Myanmar, is learning about tourism efforts in Cheyenne.

Myanmar, also called Burma, was ruled by the military for five decades, Zahkung said.

Htin Kyaw recently became president. He is counseled by Aung San Suu Kyi, a renowned human rights activist who was under house arrest by previous regimes for years.

A social scientist, Zahkung said that he was struck by the amount of support and collaboration among the tourism industry, the city of Cheyenne and Wyoming.

The government is very supportive, which you will not see in my county, he said. We have to engage a lot with the government in my county.

Yii, a doctor and attorney in Malaysia, is interested in Shanors work on City Council and at the Wyoming Department of Education.

The main difference between the United States and my country is the decentralization of education here in the United States, he said. The states have autonomy.

Yii said the strength of the U.S. system is that instruction and curriculum can be tailored for different cultures and state priorities.

He sees a weakness in the system in that there arent a lot of national standards to ensure education is fair across the nation, he said.

In Malaysia, he said, schools are equally funded across the country. In the U.S., some states spend more on education than others, he said.

Tze Howe, who goes by TH in the United States, is also from Malaysia. He is an engineer for Schlumberger.

TH is encouraged by the level of civic engagement in the United States. He attended Cheyenne City Council and Laramie County Commission meetings and was amazed at the number of members of the public who attended and commented on local development projects and business licenses.

Theres not that level of engagement in Malaysia, he said.

When he returns home, he would like to educate people on their rights, the separation of powers in government and the Malaysian constitution.

People dont really understand the background, the reasons the system is set up in such a way, he said. Theres not much discussion on how we can make the system better. So Im positioning myself to improve that, to make a difference on what I have learned over here.

Follow political reporter Laura Hancock on Twitter @laurahancock

Read more from the original source:
Asian leaders learn about American-style democracy in Cheyenne ... - Casper Star-Tribune Online

(Photo: AP/Robert Willett/The News & Observer)

People celebrate at Davie Street Presbyterian Church in Raleigh on May 15 after learning that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider reinstating North Carolina's 2013 elections law.

This week, after years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court decision striking down North Carolinas restrictive 2013 voting law. The lower court had ruled that parts of the law illegally target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.

That outcome is a victory not only for North Carolina voters but also for our democracy. For the political process to function, state and federal lawmakers must respect baseline democratic normsthe laws and traditions that guard the integrity of our democracy against extreme political gamesmanship and threats to minority rights.

When state lawmakers cross those lines, as they did in North Carolina, it is up to the courts to protect core democratic values and the rule of law.But in North Carolina, and in other states around the country, lawmakers are again trying to manipulate the rules of the game to their own advantage, this time putting the state judiciary in their crosshairs.

These attacks on the courts magnify the heightened politicization of the federal bench. President Trumps assault on the legitimacy of a so-called judge, his assertion that the courts would be to blame for a terrorist attack,and his call to break up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after it ruled against the administration, all contribute to a political environment where state and federal lawmakers may feel less constrained by the conventions that ensure the courts are an independent check on the political branches.

Since North Carolina Democrats won control of the governors mansion last November, along with a majority on the states highest court, the Republican-controlled legislature has proposed, and passed, a slew of bills focused on entrenching partisan interests in the states courts. Its a worrying trend that risks normalizing political interference with the courts. Already this year, the legislature has twice overridden the governors veto on bills that made it through both chambers, and several other problematic bills have passed the House.

One new law, for example, reduces the size of North Carolinas intermediate appellate court by three seatsa seemingly small change with big political ramifications. Several Republican-appointed judges are expected to hit the states mandatory retirement age in the next few years, and the new law effectively prevents the states Democratic governor from filling those slots. Unlike previous court reform efforts, the bill was passed without input from the court of appeals, its judges, or the courts administrative body.

In a dramatic move just days before the legislature overrode the governors veto, Judge Doug McCullougha Republican who was expected to step down later this month when he reached the mandatory retirement ageresigned in protest so that the governor would be able to appoint a new judge to fill the seat before the bill became law. McCullough said, I did not want my legacy to be the elimination of a seat and the impairment of a court that I have served on.

Unfortunately, similar hijinks are cropping up around the country. A Brennan Center analysis found that lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced 41 bills targeting state courts, often to achieve overtly political goals. These measures range from efforts to manipulate the way judges reach the bench to brazen attempts to unseat sitting judges, to restrictions on courts jurisdiction and power. In Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina, bills have passed; in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Oklahoma, bills have been voted out of a chamber of the legislature.

One particularly troubling new trend is a group of bills that would allow state legislatures toin one way or anotherrefuse to enforce court decisions. This includes a bill that passed the Arizona House of Representative that would give lawmakers the authority to prohibit the use of state resources to implement federal court rulings, and a Washington bill that would empower the legislature to override state court decisions. So far this year, nine such bills have been introduced in seven states.

The potential ramifications of these political power grabs are significant. State courts hear more than 95 percent of all cases nationwide. Judges decisions affect everything from consumer rights to the environment to education fundingand because few state judges enjoy life tenure, and most state constitutions can be changed relatively easily, state benches are more vulnerable to manipulation than their federal counterparts. When the lines between judging and politics start to blur, it risks eroding public trust in our judiciary.

In June 1937, after FDR moved to pack the Supreme Court after it struck down his signature New Deal legislation, his own party rejected the effort as an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. Its hard to imagine a political leader so strongly defying his or her own party today. But thats what American democracy desperately needs: politicians willing to put a stop to the present metastatic greed for partisan power, especially when the integrity of the judiciary is on the line.

See original here:
A Test of American Democracy - The American Prospect - The American Prospect

Voter ID wouldnt make our democracy more secure; it would make it less accessible. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/Reuters

Nestled among a raft of Ukip-esque anti-immigration policies in the Tory manifesto is a plan to force people to show identification when they vote. No passport, no driving licence? No vote. The Tories say this would stop electoral fraud, but statistics suggest theyre interested in making it harder for people to vote.

According to data from the governments own report of the 51.4m votes cast in all elections in 2015, there were a mere 130 allegations of voting fraud in 2015. That amounts to 0.00025% of votes. Now, these figures cant be taken as exact; some of the allegations might be untrue, some go unnoticed. And as the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) pointed out, the report largely relies on anecdotes and self-professed claims to have witnessed (or even just heard about) electoral fraud. But even when taking all of this into account, youd be hard pressed to make the case that voter fraud is in any way a significant problem in the UK.

What this means is the Conservatives have decided that if they win on 8 June, theyll enshrine voter ID in law to deal with a problem thats far from widespread. Whats more, the ERS says that voter ID wouldnt stop vote-buying or coercion, even if it were a major problem. What it will do is make it more difficult for everyone else to vote. In fact, the Electoral Commission estimated that 3.5 million voters (7.5% of the electorate) would have no acceptable piece of photo ID never mind the people who forget their ID or lose it just before an election.

Why, then, have the Tories inked this policy into their manifesto? There are two explanations, neither of which looks particularly good for the Conservatives. One is that they simply dont care about making our democracy more democratic; the other that theyre cynically finding ways to actively undermine the Labour vote.

Its likely that this change would mean that lower-income voters would find it more difficult to vote. As the New Statesmans Stephen Bush observed, theres concrete evidence for this within the UK: Northern Ireland already requires voter ID, and when the process was trialled there, it was found that poorer people were less likely to have the necessary identification, so free voter ID cards were introduced. The Tories have no plans to do the same in the rest of the UK. Voter ID wouldnt make our democracy more secure; it would make it less accessible.

In the US 31 states now enforce voter ID laws, and these have had a disproportionate impact on marginalised groups. The American Civil Liberties Union found even if free voter ID were offered, hidden costs would act as obstacles for people on low incomes. Similarly, a 2014 report by the US Government Accountability Office showed a disproportionate impact on black and younger voters. In the UK we already have a democratic deficit among these groups people who tend to be (but are not exclusively) Labour voters.

People of colour who are on the electoral roll are as likely to vote as their white counterparts. But according to the 2010 Ethnic Minority British Election Study study, 78% of minority ethnic people, and only 59% of Black Africans, were registered to vote in comparison to 90% of white people. For young people, the picture is even worse, youth turnout dropped between 1992 and 2005. Its now about 40%.

This should be set against a broader picture of a concerted effort by the Conservatives to reduce the number of traditional Labour voters on the electoral register. In 2014 they ended the system where the head of a household could register all eligible voters; this meant, for example, students would no longer be automatically registered at their home address.

The Tories have also slashed short money, used to help fund opposition parties, and introduced the Lobbying Act that gagged NGOs, charities and trade unions, but left the Tories corporate supporters largely untouched.

The Tories will say that voter ID is about making democracy more robust. This couldnt be further from the truth. Its hard to see how this is anything but an attempt to further reduce turnout, and to undermine Labour.

Read this article:
No passport, no vote: why this cynical Tory plan will suffocate ... - The Guardian