I’m writing this column on the morning of November 3, technically “election day” in the US even though, per the AssocatedPpress, more than 57 million Americans voted “early” (in person or by mail) this year. Chances are you won’t read it until later this week, after the polls have closed and most of the mail ballots have purportedly been received and counted.

In almost any US election of the 20th century, the election would have mostly been considered “over” late Tuesday or early Wednesday. Perhaps a few razor-thin races might remain unresolved, with recounts in the offing.

Not that there wasn’t any grousing about it. Many still living can recall the claims in 1960 that “the graveyards of Chicago” brought in late and fraudulent votes to put John F. Kennedy over the top versus Richard Nixon for president. But that grousing was after the fact — the election was “over” and by golly those deemed winners were certain to take office.

These days, elections don’t end when the votes are cast and counted. In every close race (and many not-so-close races) of consequence, the supposed losers and their supporters move immediately to screeching “Rigged! Stolen!”

They demand recounts. They go to court seeking to have ballot boxes seized and election officials indicted.

In one case, which you may remember, they even stormed the Capitol to prevent certification of the results and, potentially, to hang the vice-president of the United States as he presided over said certification.

In another, earlier case, the losing candidate immediately went to work trying to blame Russian meddling, rather than her lackluster campaign and well-deserved negative public image, for her loss.

How did we get here? I trace it all back to a presidential election which was arguably actually “stolen.”

In 2000, it came down to 537 votes in Florida. The courts halted recounts and declared George W. Bush the winner; subsequent analyses almost uniformly concluded that Al Gore would have won the presidency if the recounts had proceeded.

Attempts to undo the courts’ rulings failed, in part because Gore, himself vice-president, congenially presided over Congress’s certification of his loss instead of going to war over the matter. But Democrats never forgave, or forgot … and we entered a new era of bipartisan “fight them until hell freezes over, then fight them on the ice.”

No matter what happens today, expect Election 2026 to drag on into the new year.

If the predicted “blue wave” materializes, Republicans will contest every close election both in the courts and, quite possibly, by declining to seat newly elected Democrats in the US House and Senate. They’ll declare any and every unfavorable result “rigged” or “fraudulent.”

If the “blue wave” crests lower than predicted, Democrats will contest every close election in the courts and declare any unfavorable result “rigged” or “fraudulent.”

Those of us who expect (and usually get) business as usual from government no matter how elections come out can only shake our heads and note “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

If you voted last week, or vote today, I won’t put you down for it. I voted too, because voting is one way of expressing my opinion and I like to express my opinion.

But voting is mostly just entertainment — and the Great Election Show, like Happy Days, has long since “jumped the shark.”

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

It’s all over the Internet, of course. People are worried and wondering what’s up (including my sister-in-law, who called my special attention to it). From a random look at stories about it, here’s  International Business Times lede:

“The Pentagon is preparing every major U.S. military base to operate independently for at least 90 days without outside electricity, fuel, water or supplies, as part of FORTRESS, a sweeping initiative designed for a major war that could cripple power grids, disrupt supply chains and threaten critical infrastructure on American soil.”

Between actual war (on semi-pause) with Iran, potential spread to other areas of the war in Ukraine, and justified suspicion that US Donald Trump may  get more aggressive than he already has in attempting to nullify midterm congressional elections (the phrase “Insurrection Act” gets thrown around a bit), the question “why exactly NOW?” does seem rather pertinent.

It’s not just the US military. It’s not even just the US. Newsweek reports that regimes around the world are leaning into an emphasis on civilian “prepping” for unspecified disasters, urging their populations to keep canned food, batteries, and other emergency supplies on hand.

I’d like to say “don’t panic,” and that’s exactly what I will say — not because I’m convinced nothing bizarre is about to happen, but because “prepping” is always good advice anyway.

These news cycle indicators may or may not be predictive in the near term, but laying in some shelf-stable food and bottled water can’t hurt and will stand you in good stead for even the smaller “disasters” that have always been part of life (blizzards, hurricanes, etc.).

IS something big coming? I haven’t the faintest. I don’t move in circles of power where I’d pick up that kind of thing before you.

That said, we live in a time of multiple escalating crises.

You’ve already seen what even limited war with Iran has done to gas prices and is starting to do to food prices with less oil and less fertilizer precursor material moving through the Strait of Hormuz.

While the Russian armed forces have somehow managed to bog down for 4 1/2 years in their invasion of a country with a quarter of Russia’s population, the Kremlin remains eminently capable of hurting “the west” in various ways if it sees a reason to.

Most modern countries rely on complex and far-flung “grids” to keep people’s lights on and refrigerators running. Storms and minor accidents already knock out power to millions of people for days on end.

Targeted attacks at vulnerable nodes on those “grids” — or if the attackers can and do go big, the electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere — could affect far larger numbers of people, far worse and for far longer. Most power outages are inconveniences. Tens of millions, for weeks, would be deadly.

In the US in particular, Donald Trump has openly worked to develop and implement a more effective plan than the Beer Belly Putsch of January 6, 2021 for holding on to power when the voters disagree.

If push comes to shove on that front, it’s not impossible that we’ll see open fighting between the citizenry and federal law enforcement (and even military troops) in America’s urban cores over the next few months. Events of that sort usually mean power outages, telecommunications disruptions, and curfews (even if one otherwise felt safe trying to get to the grocery store).

Picking up some extra cans of soup, pods of shelf-stable milk, etc. might feel like doing not much of anything, but, again, it can’t hurt … and it might turn out to be more important than you think.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In a rather strange lawsuit — United States v. State of Alaska, filed on October 23 — the US Department of Justice asked a court to block that state’s election authority from certifying an election result that isn’t even known yet and won’t be known until, at the earliest, November 3.

Weird enough, but it gets even weirder: DOJ wants certification of the result blocked if, and only if, incumbent US Senator Dan Sullivan loses the election.  If he wins? Move along, nothing to see here.

The “problem,” DOJ claims, is that voters may be “confused” by the presence of two Dan Sullivans on the ballot — the aforementioned Daniel S. Sullivan, a Republican, and  “independent” Daniel J. Sullivan — in addition to Democrat Mary Peltola and a second Republican, Gerald L. Heikes.

In other words, DOJ wants the court to rule that Alaska’s voters are really, really stupid.

So stupid that they’re incapable of distinguishing Daniel S. Sullivan, who’s clearly marked on the ballot as both a Republican and the incumbent, from Daniel J. Sullivan, who appears with no party designation next to his name.

So stupid that there needs to be a magical new judge-made law forbidding candidates with similar names to run for office lest those stupid, stupid voters get “confused.”

The other part of DOJ’s argument is that Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy is a Democratic Party dirty trick designed to produce exactly the “confusion” in question. So I guess they’re claiming that Democrats think Alaskans are stupid, too.

Three big problems with DOJ’s case: There’s no law against voter stupidity, nor is there any law against similarly named candidates seeking the same office, nor are there any laws against political dirty tricks as such. I’m not a lawyer, but so far as I can tell there’s just no legal basis for the suit. It’s DOJ plaintively whining “give us what we want, because we want it.”

A fourth problem is that the problem isn’t a problem: Alaska uses ranked-choice voting.

Instead of voting for one, and only one, candidate, Alaskans “rank” the candidates in order of preference. If your first choice gets the fewest votes, your vote moves to your second choice in a second (theoretically instant) round of vote-counting. If THAT candidate gets the fewest votes, your vote moves to your third choice. This goes on until one candidate gets a majority of votes.

As Greg Orman points out at RealClearPolitics, this particular situation tends to benefit that Republican incumbent.

Some voters want to vote for the Republican incumbent and either know or can figure out who that Republican incumbent is by, you know, READING THE BALLOT. They’ll rank Daniel S. Sullivan first, and may or may not pick a second choice at all.

“Confused” voters who want to vote for the Republican incumbent and have problems READING THE BALLOT will likely rank the two Sullivans first and second just to be sure (unless they’re “confused” by Heikes’s Republican designation). In a second round, the more popular Sullivan will likely get the less popular Sullivan’s votes. It’s a safe bet that word has gotten around enough for the incumbent to outpoll the challenger as first choice.

“Problem” solved. Daniel S. Sullivan likely loses this election only if he’s less popular with voters than Mary Peltola.

Frivolous lawfare shenanigans like this go a long way toward achieving precisely that outcome. Even if Daniel S. Sullivan didn’t personally ask DOJ to publicly claim — right before an election! — that Alaska’s voters are too stupid to have their votes count, those voters are likely to notice the insult, and on whose behalf it was levied.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY