Strategic Mastery:

Navigating Political Warfare and Governmental Structures to Amplify Capabilities

Introduction

Over the past year and a half, I’ve focused much of my writing on a crucial yet often overlooked message: the importance of understanding and engaging with your local government. Policies, processes, structures—these are not just abstract concepts but the mechanisms through which decisions are made, directly impacting our lives. In particular, the way elections are conducted, monitored, and managed at the local level is a key area where vigilance is essential. Without a deep understanding of these elements, nefarious or corrupt actions can easily go unnoticed, undermining the very foundation of our republic.

In this article, I will piece together various elements to show you exactly what I mean. Through a critical examination of the election processes, particularly in key battleground states, we’ll explore how local government actions—or inactions—can either protect or compromise the integrity of our elections. This understanding is not just academic; it’s a necessary tool for ensuring that our voices are truly heard and that our electoral process remains fair and transparent.

Understanding Political Strategies: An Analysis

The key point of my article yesterday was to delve into the detailed political strategies employed by Republicans and Democrats. By understanding their respective strengths and weaknesses, I can gain insights into political dynamics, allowing us to either reinforce our own strengths or exploit the weaknesses of our adversaries—legally, of course. This understanding is not just theoretical; it’s a practical approach to navigating and influencing the political landscape effectively.

Brief Political Strategy Breakdowns:

Republican Strategy:

Centralized Approach: The GOP often focuses on a top-down strategy, emphasizing strong national leadership, judicial appointments, and long-term policy goals. This centralized control fosters cohesive messaging and policy consistency, enabling the party to maintain a unified front on key issues. However, this approach can sometimes hinder the party’s ability to adapt quickly at the grassroots level, where rapid mobilization and local engagement are critical.

Strengths: The Republican strategy excels in long-term influence through judicial appointments, ensuring that conservative principles have a lasting impact on the judiciary. Additionally, the party’s clear national messaging aligns well with its policy consistency, allowing for a strong, unified voice on major issues.

Weaknesses: One of the primary challenges for the GOP is its slower grassroots mobilization. The top-down approach can make it difficult to respond quickly to rapidly changing political environments, particularly at the local level where decentralized, grassroots efforts are often more effective.

Democrat Strategy:

Decentralized, Grassroots Approach: The Democratic Party excels in grassroots mobilization, digital engagement, and rapid response to emerging issues. This bottom-up approach allows the party to be highly adaptable, engaging diverse coalitions and responding swiftly to political challenges. However, this decentralization can also lead to fragmented messaging at the national level, as local priorities sometimes overshadow broader party goals.

Strengths: The Democratic strategy’s greatest strength lies in its agility. The party’s ability to mobilize strong grassroots networks and engage diverse coalitions quickly gives it an edge in dynamic political environments. This approach also fosters strong local engagement, which can be crucial in winning tight races.

Weaknesses: The flip side of the Democrats’ decentralized approach is the potential for disunity in messaging. With so many local voices contributing to the conversation, maintaining a coherent national narrative can be challenging. Additionally, the focus on short-term, reactive strategies can sometimes detract from long-term structural changes, such as judicial appointments, that require a more sustained and coordinated effort.

Understanding Election Dynamics: A Critical Examination

Understanding the dynamics at play during elections is crucial, especially when we consider the integrity and perception of the electoral process. The 2020 election, in particular, highlighted several incidents, complaints, and claims that demand our attention. These events, and the responses to them, are vital for comprehending the challenges we face in maintaining a transparent and fair election system.

Incidents and Their Locations:

Vote Counting Pauses:

In key battleground states such as Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) and Michigan (Detroit), there were instances where vote counting was halted late at night. These pauses, which often occurred due to logistical challenges or the sheer volume of absentee ballots, raised suspicions among some observers. The timing of these pauses led to widespread speculation about potential tampering or irregularities. Although the official explanations pointed to procedural necessities, the lack of real-time communication fueled concerns about transparency.

Removal of Poll Watchers:

Reports and videos emerged from cities like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Detroit, Michigan, where poll watchers were removed or restricted from observing the vote counting process. This lack of transparency became a focal point in several lawsuits and was widely debated in public forums. The presence of video footage and testimonies underscored the severity of these concerns, leading to significant public debate about the fairness of the electoral process in these critical areas.

Ballot Drop Box Concerns:

In states like Georgia and Wisconsin, the use of ballot drop boxes became a contentious issue. There were reports of individuals dropping off multiple ballots, raising alarms about the potential for ballot harvesting. Additionally, the uneven regulation and monitoring of these drop boxes across different states heightened concerns about their security. Critics argued that without standardized oversight, drop boxes could become vulnerable to abuse, undermining confidence in the voting process.

Allegations of Ballot Harvesting:

Allegations of ballot harvesting were particularly prominent in states like California, where the practice is legal under certain conditions, and in states where it is not. The involvement of third parties in collecting and submitting ballots sparked fears of potential coercion or manipulation. These concerns were amplified in areas with high concentrations of vulnerable voters, where the power dynamics between voters and those collecting ballots could easily be exploited.

Software Glitches and Voting Machine Errors:

In Antrim County, Michigan, and other locations, reports of software glitches in voting machines led to initial misreporting of vote counts. While these incidents were quickly corrected, they became central to claims of widespread fraud. Critics argued that even minor errors in voting machines could indicate deeper systemic vulnerabilities, potentially affecting the accuracy of the overall vote count.

Foreign Interference and Disinformation:

Nationally, there were pervasive concerns about foreign interference, particularly through disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining confidence in the electoral process. These campaigns, primarily conducted online, sought to exploit existing divisions within the electorate and sow doubt about the legitimacy of the election. The spread of disinformation complicated the already contentious environment, making it difficult for voters to distinguish between factual information and false narratives.

Disinformation and Misinformation Campaigns

Disinformation and misinformation campaigns played a significant role in shaping public perception during the 2020 election. These campaigns, by design, are meant to obscure the truth, creating a fog of confusion that makes it difficult for both the public and officials to distinguish between legitimate concerns and fabricated narratives. This confusion can be particularly dangerous in the context of an election, where trust in the process is paramount.

Potential Cover-Up:

Muddying the Waters:

It’s entirely plausible that disinformation and misinformation campaigns could be employed not only to create general confusion but also to distract or cover up actual interference or manipulation. By flooding the public with conflicting narratives, these campaigns can make it nearly impossible to discern truth from fiction, effectively obscuring real issues or irregularities. The complexity of these campaigns, often involving both foreign and domestic actors, adds layers of deception, making it challenging to separate fact from fiction. This deliberate confusion can delay or derail efforts to address genuine concerns, allowing potential wrongdoing to go unchecked.

Impact on Investigations

Compromised Investigations:

The prevalence of disinformation could have significantly compromised the effectiveness of investigations into election interference. When both the public and officials are bombarded with a barrage of conflicting information, investigative efforts may become scattered or misdirected. Instead of focusing on uncovering genuine interference, investigators might waste valuable resources disproving or chasing after false claims. This scattering of efforts not only dilutes the focus of investigations but can also diminish public trust in the findings, leaving the door open for ongoing disputes and doubts about the election’s integrity.

Hatred Towards Trump

The 2020 election was marked not just by partisan divides but also by deep personal animosity towards Donald Trump, a factor that crossed party lines and had profound implications for the election process itself. This widespread disdain, present among both Democrats and some Republicans, could have influenced key aspects of the election, from how votes were counted to the thoroughness of post-election investigations.

Bipartisan Bias:

Widespread Disdain:

The animosity towards Trump wasn’t limited to Democrats; it also included Republicans who opposed his leadership. This bipartisan disdain could have influenced the behavior of individuals involved in the election process, potentially leading to actions that were not entirely impartial. Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, can manifest in various ways—how votes are counted, how allegations of fraud are handled, or how investigations into irregularities are conducted. When key figures in the process harbor strong personal or political biases, the integrity of the election can be compromised, whether through intentional actions or subtle, unconscious influences.

Potential for Inadequate Investigations:

Biased Investigations:

If those responsible for investigating the election were influenced by personal or political biases, it could lead to less rigorous investigations. For example, investigations initiated under Trump’s executive order regarding election security might not have been pursued with the necessary rigor if those conducting the investigations were either sympathetic to his opposition or simply wanted to avoid controversy. In such a charged environment, the potential for investigations to be conducted inadequately—whether due to bias, lack of thoroughness, or a desire to avoid further conflict—is significant, and this could leave critical questions unanswered and undermine public trust in the election process.

Laws and Regulations Governing Elections in Key Battleground States

Laws and regulations governing elections in key battleground states have a significant impact on election integrity. Some of these laws may not fully support the best practices for ensuring a secure and transparent election process. Let’s examine some of the laws and practices in the states where key complaints arose during the 2020 election:

Pennsylvania

Mail-In Voting Expansion: In 2019, Pennsylvania passed Act 77, which expanded mail-in voting without the need for an excuse. This significant change was implemented just before the 2020 election and led to a dramatic increase in mail-in ballots.

Concerns: Critics argued that the rapid implementation of expanded mail-in voting, without robust safeguards, opened the door to potential fraud and administrative errors. The lack of clarity and consistency in how different counties managed mail-in ballots, particularly in verifying signatures and handling “naked ballots” (ballots returned without the inner secrecy envelope), raised concerns about the integrity of the vote.

Late Ballot Acceptance: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to three days later could be counted.

Concerns: This decision was contentious, with critics arguing that extending the deadline without legislative approval could lead to unequal treatment of voters and potential for ballots to be submitted after the results were known.

Michigan

Absentee Voting: Michigan voters passed Proposal 3 in 2018, which allowed for no-excuse absentee voting, leading to a significant increase in absentee ballots in 2020.

Concerns: The dramatic increase in absentee voting led to delays and challenges in processing ballots, with particular scrutiny on Detroit’s handling of absentee ballots. Allegations of ballot handling irregularities, such as improper counting practices, were raised.

Poll Watcher Access: Michigan law allows for poll watchers, but there were reports of poll watchers being restricted or removed, particularly in Detroit’s TCF Center.

Concerns: The removal or restriction of poll watchers, especially during the counting of absentee ballots, led to claims of a lack of transparency and fairness.

Georgia

Signature Matching: Georgia required signature verification for absentee ballots, but the process for challenging or verifying signatures was criticized.

Concerns: Critics argued that the signature verification process was inconsistently applied, with some counties being more lenient than others. This led to allegations that some invalid ballots were accepted while others were unjustly rejected.

Use of Drop Boxes: Georgia allowed the use of ballot drop boxes for the first time in 2020 due to the pandemic, but the rules for monitoring these drop boxes varied by county.

Concerns: The variation in how drop boxes were monitored and secured led to concerns about the potential for ballot harvesting or tampering.

Wisconsin

Absentee Ballot Return Options: Wisconsin allowed absentee ballots to be returned via mail, in-person at the clerk’s office, or in drop boxes. However, there was controversy over how and where these drop boxes were used.

Concerns: Critics argued that the drop boxes were not evenly distributed and that some were not properly monitored, which could lead to potential ballot harvesting.

Voter ID Law: Wisconsin’s voter ID law requires voters to present an ID when voting in person, but absentee voters must only provide a copy of their ID when applying for a ballot, not when returning it.

Concerns: This discrepancy led to concerns that absentee ballots could be less secure than in-person votes.

Arizona

Mail-In Voting: Arizona has a long history of mail-in voting, with the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) allowing voters to automatically receive mail-in ballots for every election.

Concerns: While generally well-regarded, the significant reliance on mail-in voting led to concerns about ballot security and the potential for lost or mishandled ballots.

Changes to Election Laws Since 2020

Since the 2020 election, several key battleground states have enacted changes to their election laws. Some of these changes address concerns raised during the 2020 cycle, while others have introduced new restrictions aimed at further securing the electoral process. Here’s a summary of the major changes:

Georgia

New ID Requirements: Georgia has implemented stricter ID requirements for absentee ballots. Voters are now required to provide a driver’s license number or state ID number when applying for and returning absentee ballots. This measure aims to enhance the security of absentee voting by ensuring that only eligible voters can cast absentee ballots.

Drop Box Limitations: The state has reduced the number of drop boxes available for absentee ballots and limited their use to the early voting period. Additionally, drop boxes must now be located inside election offices, further restricting access and aiming to reduce potential tampering.

Early Voting: Georgia has extended the early voting period for general elections, providing voters with more opportunities to cast their ballots before Election Day. However, for runoff elections, the early voting period has been shortened, which could impact voter turnout in these closely contested races.

Arizona

Mail-In Voting Restrictions: Arizona has passed laws to limit who can remain on the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL). Voters who do not use their mail-in ballots for two consecutive election cycles may be removed from the list unless they actively choose to stay on it. This change is intended to ensure that only active voters remain on the list, reducing the risk of ballots being sent to outdated addresses.

Signature Matching: Arizona has tightened its signature verification process for mail-in ballots, with specific guidelines now in place for curing mismatched signatures. This change is designed to enhance the integrity of mail-in voting by ensuring that only ballots with verified signatures are counted.

Michigan

Expanded Early Voting: Michigan has expanded its early voting options, providing more days and locations for voters to cast their ballots ahead of Election Day. This change aims to increase voter access and reduce the burden on Election Day itself.

Mail-In Voting: While Michigan has maintained its no-excuse absentee voting, discussions are ongoing about adding more secure drop boxes and improving the systems for tracking ballots. These potential changes reflect a continued focus on making absentee voting both accessible and secure.

Pennsylvania

Mail-In Voting: Pennsylvania’s Act 77, which significantly expanded mail-in voting, remains in place despite facing legal challenges. The state has been working on improving the consistency of how mail-in ballots are processed and counted across counties, aiming to address some of the issues that arose during the 2020 election.

Voter Roll Maintenance: Pennsylvania has also focused on better maintenance of voter rolls, with efforts to more efficiently remove deceased voters and those who have moved out of state. This change is intended to ensure that the voter rolls are accurate and up-to-date, reducing the potential for voter fraud.

Wisconsin

Drop Box Regulations: Wisconsin has placed restrictions on the use of drop boxes, limiting where they can be located and how they are monitored. These changes are intended to secure drop boxes and reduce concerns about ballot harvesting or tampering.

Absentee Voting: Wisconsin has made adjustments to its absentee voting procedures, including implementing stricter rules on who can assist voters in returning their ballots. Additionally, the state has enhanced its tracking and verification processes for absentee ballots to ensure that they are securely and accurately processed.

While these changes vary by state, they reflect a broader trend of states adjusting their election laws in response to the 2020 election. Some states have focused on increasing security measures, such as stricter ID requirements and limiting the use of drop boxes, while others have expanded early voting and absentee voting access. These changes illustrate the ongoing debate over how to balance voter access with election security, and they will likely continue to evolve as we approach future elections.

Overall Rectification Estimate:

Broad Legislative Changes: Across the United States, approximately 28% of states have passed laws that significantly tightened election security measures (such as stricter ID requirements, limiting drop boxes, and refining absentee ballot processes) .

Expansion of Voting Access: Around 46% of states have introduced laws expanding voter access, such as increasing early voting opportunities or making absentee voting more accessible .

Mixed Impact: The remaining states, roughly 26%, have passed laws that had mixed effects, either slightly improving security while expanding access in other areas, or implementing minor changes that didn’t drastically alter the electoral process.

While it’s challenging to quantify rectification as a single percentage, we can broadly estimate that about 28% of states have made significant changes aimed at rectifying perceived vulnerabilities from the 2020 election. The overall impact varies depending on the type of changes enacted and the specific concerns they aimed to address.

Political Strategies in the Context of Election Fraud and Interference

Now then, let’s venture back to the political strategies and how they can apply in the context of election fraud and/or interference. The speed and agility of grassroots networks, particularly those aligned with a specific political party or ideology, can play a significant role in shaping the narrative around election complaints, irregularities, and even allegations of fraud. Here’s how this can work, particularly in the context of reacting to such complaints:

Rapid Response to Allegations

Mobilization of Support: Grassroots networks can quickly mobilize supporters to respond to allegations of election irregularities. This might include organizing protests, flooding social media with counter-narratives, or even creating campaigns to discredit the claims. By responding rapidly, these networks can shape public perception before the full details of the allegations are widely known. The ability to quickly rally a large number of people helps in creating a powerful first impression, which can be difficult to reverse once established.

Discrediting Complaints: In some cases, grassroots efforts might focus on discrediting the individuals or groups making the complaints. This could involve casting doubt on the credibility of the sources, questioning their motives, or framing the complaints as partisan attacks rather than legitimate concerns. Such tactics can be effective in swaying public opinion, particularly if they are disseminated quickly and widely through digital platforms.

Shaping Public Perception

Control of Information: Grassroots networks, especially those with strong digital capabilities, can control the flow of information by amplifying certain narratives while suppressing others. For example, they might highlight stories that dismiss or minimize election irregularities while downplaying or ignoring those that support the allegations. This selective amplification can create an echo chamber effect, reinforcing the preferred narrative among supporters.

Creation of Counter-Narratives: In response to allegations of fraud or irregularities, grassroots groups can quickly craft and disseminate counter-narratives that either explain away the irregularities or accuse the other side of similar or worse behavior. This can create a situation where the public is bombarded with conflicting information, making it difficult for anyone to discern the truth. The creation of a “fog of war” environment benefits those who wish to obscure the facts.

Localized Influence

Influence in Key Areas: Even in areas traditionally aligned with the opposing party, a well-organized grassroots network can exert significant influence, particularly at the local level. This might involve pressuring local officials to dismiss or downplay complaints, organizing local events or media campaigns to shift public opinion, or leveraging relationships with local media to control the narrative. The local level influence is crucial because it can directly impact the certification of votes and the handling of disputes.

Suppressing Opposition: In areas with strong grassroots networks, complaints or allegations from the opposition might be actively suppressed. This could involve organizing counter-protests to drown out dissenting voices, applying social pressure on individuals who raise concerns, or leveraging media connections to limit the visibility of opposition claims. These tactics can effectively silence potential whistleblowers and prevent legitimate concerns from gaining traction.

Legal and Procedural Maneuvering

Legal Challenges: Grassroots networks often have access to legal resources that can be quickly mobilized to challenge election complaints or defend against allegations of fraud. This might involve filing lawsuits to block recounts, challenging the admissibility of evidence, or using procedural tactics to delay investigations. The goal is to use the legal system strategically to either undermine the opposition’s claims or to create enough procedural hurdles to slow down the process.

Procedural Obfuscation: By flooding the system with challenges or procedural maneuvers, grassroots networks can bog down efforts to investigate or address complaints, making it harder for legitimate concerns to be heard or acted upon in a timely manner. This tactic can be particularly effective in delaying the resolution of disputes until after key deadlines have passed, making it difficult or impossible to revisit the results.

Conclusion

The combination of speed, agility, and local influence makes grassroots networks a powerful tool in managing and reacting to election complaints and allegations. Whether these networks are working to uncover the truth or cover up potential wrongdoing, their ability to quickly shape narratives and influence public perception is a critical factor in how election-related controversies are resolved. This dynamic underscores the importance of transparency, robust legal processes, and independent oversight in ensuring that election integrity is maintained, regardless of which party or group might be in power.

Victory in any struggle is seldom the result of sheer force or luck; it is the product of careful planning, tactical precision, and relentless organization. We must not only recognize and understand the tactics of our adversaries, but also critically evaluate and adapt our own strategies. To believe that a hidden hand is causing our despair is to abdicate our responsibility to act. We must instead find strength in the belief that, just as they are doing it, so too can we—with courage, clarity, and conviction.

Written by SpartanAltsobaPatriot