Author Archives: Robert Warden

Republican Rigging Part 18: Voter ID Laws, Another Republican Trick to Limit Voting for Democrats

By Robert Warden

For those of us who have sufficient identification such as driver’s licenses, and work IDs, showing identification is probably no big deal, but for people who don’t drive and are not employed by some large organization such as the community college that employs me, or people who have recently changed their names (which is common for women when they get married), proving who you are may be a daunting if not impossible task. Republicans, among their repertoire of dishonest, tricky strategies to improve their chances of winning elections, have seized upon the idea that voter fraud — that is, people who aren’t eligible to vote, voting anyway or people who vote in more than one location — is a massive problem that needs to be addressed by using strict ID requirements to screen out fraudulent voters. The real purpose of these identification requirements, in fact, is not so much to screen out fraudlent voters, who are exceedingly rare according to all available evidence, but to instead screen out voters with a lack of identification documents, or who might be reluctant to show their IDs, since such voters usually vote for Democrats.
Read more

Republican Rigging Part 4: Voter Suppression

Written by Robert Warden

Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually…


As I wrote about before the election, the United States has an abysmally low voter turnout rate. There are two basic reasons for this as I see it, and both benefit and are engineered by Republicans: Laws and maneuvers which prevent or make it difficult for people to vote; and the propagation of cynical, anti-government attitudes which discourage voting and other public participation by citizens.

Legal Challenges to Voting

1. Voter ID laws: Read more

Republican Rigging Part 2: The De Facto Constitutional Rigging of the Senate.

Written by Robert Warden

It has occurred to me that the way Senators are apportioned, 2 per state, favors smaller, more rural, less populous states, which tend to vote for Republicans compared to larger states. The most glaring example of this relative disenfranchisement of voters in more populous states is my state, California, which has the largest population. In order to do an actual, numerical examination of this issue, I found the percentage of the U.S. population in each state, according to the most recent estimates (2016), and also whether the 2 Senators from each state are Democrats, Republicans, or one of each. (I used to be known for data crunching in my blogs years ago, as a trained researcher and statistician, although these are little amateur projects that I can easily do on my home computer. LOL However, I had gotten away from the numerical analyses for a while.)

Here are the sources of my data: Read more

Republican Rigging Part 3: The Gerrymandering Problem


Jerold Irwin “Jerry” Mander (born May 1, 1936)[1] is an American activist and author, best known for his 1977 book, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. His most recent book, The Capitalism Papers, argues against Capitalism as a sustainable and viable system on which to base an economy.


First of all, let me clarify something. This person is not the problem. In fact, it appears that he is on our side (

Having taken care of that detail, let it be clear that I am writing about the drawing of congressional boundaries to maximize the number of elected politicians of a particular party. How this happens, is that after a census, in every year ending in a zero, state legislatures are commissioned to redraw district boundaries for the members of the House of Representatives. This is made necessary because after 10 years, some states gain or lose congress members, and congressional districts themselves gain or lose population so that they no longer contain approximately the same number of residents. Given this task, the party with majority representation in the state legislature, can dictate the new boundaries of congressional districts, with relatively little opposition if that party holds majorities in both houses of the state legislature as well as the governorship. That might seem like a fairly uncommon scenario on the surface, but in fact, because individual states tend to be heavily tilted toward either Republicans or Democrats, this is apparently the case in most states. Only “purple states” are likely to have a mixture of parties at these 3 levels. Thus, the majority party tends to act in such a way as to perpetuate and even increase its majority by drawing as many favorable districts as possible. Basically, what happens is that the voters who tend to vote for the minority party in the state, are relegated to a few districts where they have a huge majority (perhaps 90% for instance) and “safe seats,” while the majority party draws as many districts as possible which have a sufficient majority of people who vote for their party, such as 55 to 60%, which is enough with reliable voters to be fairly certain of victory. This is also a racial issue, by the way, because with Republican gerrymandering, racial minorities tend to be relegated to a few urban districts, and thus once again, denied proportionate representation. Read more