Are you inclined to vote away your right to vote?

 The Arizona Republic would like nothing better than to relieve you of the burden

Fishy_Arizona_RepublicRobert Robb, the libertarian-leaning columnist at the daily newspaper has often been the stand alone voice of reason at the increasingly leftist publication. Recently, however, he’s been veering into uncharted territory, pulling a complete switcheroo on issues of importance. In February we exposed the scheme being pushed by the Arizona Republic, calling him out for his disappointing change of mind from his previous stance on the “Top Two Primary,” titling the piece, “Robert Robb: Forgetful, schizophrenic or seeking job security?” The post includes Robb’s original logical assessment of the overreach in the second paragraph.

Now with State Treasurer Jeff DeWit announcing his intention not to seek reelection when his term ends in 2018, we get another odd dose of Robert Robb. This time he’s devoted a column to asking, “Why do we elect a state treasurer?”

We’ve been down this road before. In this May 2015 post “AZ Republic wants to mute your voice, muzzle your vote,” we reminded our readers about the deception that has previously come packaged as a component of the benign-sounding “Home Rule.” We characterized the contemptible plan to separate citizens from their votes with these words:

“There have been other such schemes over the years. The warm and fuzzy sounding “Home Rule,” included provisions to appoint all county “line officers” as they were dismissively called, including the County Attorney, Sheriff, Treasurer and School Superintendent. Though its intent was to eliminate citizen’s ability to vote for these and other county officials —-  turning the immense appointment power over to the Board of Supervisors —- it was promoted as merely a “housekeeping” budgetary provision. Arizona voters caught on quickly as did the elected office holders, both successfully pushing back against this ruse.”

The slippery tricksters at the Fish Wrap even went editorial to advocate for appointing the five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission. In July 2012 we wrote, “Left promotes schemes to separate you from your vote.”

In fact the intended mission was to get citizens to the ballot box to….vote away their right to vote. Under the guise of simplifying the process, we would cede to the Board of Supervisors our ability to vote for what were contemptuously termed “line officers.” 

The argument always began with the office of the mine inspector — a state official.  “Who knows who the mine inspector is or what he does? Why should that be an elective office?” From there it went down the line of county officers from assessor to  recorder and every office in between.  When the Sheriff was the topic, the incessant liberal echo was “The police chief is appointed, why not the sheriff?”

The plan is to encourage voters to vote to give their votes away. Think of it as a deliberate attempt to separate you from your vote by telling you others can vote on your behalf more efficiently and effectively.

What each of these offices have in common is the fact that they are all held by elected Republicans. No wonder the newspaper wants them appointed.

7 Responses to Are you inclined to vote away your right to vote?

  1. Arizona Conservative Guy says:

    This issue appears with regularity in one form or another, as the usurpers hope the electorate will buy into not having to bother themselves by researching the candidates and ballot propositions. Americans have fought and died since the founding of our nation to preserve this key element of our freedom. Think what it means that the once highly regarded free press now pushes the idea of suppressing our votes. There are no honorable voices at the Arizona Repulsive, which is why we no longer pay them to insult us.We stopped subscribing several years ago.

  2. Kimball says:

    In response to the question posed in the headline, my response is not only “no,” but “hell no!!”

  3. LEO IN TSN says:

    The newest stealth movement to separate US from our votes is the “National Popular Vote” (NPV) jihad. It is designed to take votes from the conservative middle states and give the electoral power to the urban welfare centers. Any guesses as to who that will benefit??

    Don’t give up your right to vote. Fight for our Constitution, and say “NO” to NPV. Tell that to your state representatives, for whom we still can vote.

    God bless America.

    • East Valley Conservative says:

      Leo,
      I’ve been reading your comments for quite some time and agree with your perspective on the issues, so I’m interested in your take on the National Popular Vote.
      One of the committeemen in my district is pushing this at every opportunity. The district chair even sets aside time for this NPV enthusiast to make presentations. He is a fairly new PC and is on a crusade.
      I would appreciate it if you could provide more facts to bring me up to speed. Listening to him gives me a sense that this is a problematic course. I don’t view him as a braintrust.

  4. Hunter says:

    The basics can be found in Wikipedia. Essentially, when in effect, the electoral votes from states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes will be cast for the winner of the national popular vote rather than for the winners of their individual states.

    This may seem to be a great thing at first glance because every vote is counted equally.

    However, there are problems. States have different qualifications for voting including disqualification based on past criminal convictions. They also have different standards of enforcement regarding voter fraud including things like fake people and dead people voting. People voting in 2 states would have a bigger impact too.

    States with larger populations of legal residents who cannot vote (legal immigrant aliens and children and disqualified voters) would lose out on the extra representation they currently get in the electoral college. Some people might regard this as an improvement, but it would probably hurt Arizona.

    Recounts for presidential elections would be problematic because there would be no central legal authority to administer it. Therefore, states could engage in recounts to “find” votes for the candidate supported by state officials. If that state already voted in favor of the “officially preferred” candidate, then there is no gain to finding more votes with the traditional electoral college. With the popular vote method, there is a strong incentive to “find” every possible vote because every vote will count. This is an invitation for massive electoral fraud which would be greater in urban areas because of the larger concentrations of people allowing it to be hidden.

    Plus, smaller population states lose their 2 vote bump in the electoral college (based on 2 electoral votes for each state in addition to those based on population) which gives them greater influence than their population justifies.

  5. LEO IN TSN says:

    Here is a good summary of some of the problems.
    http://amac.us/does-your-state-want-to-replace-electoral-college-with-popular-vote-for-president/

    It is interesting to note that all major dimocrat groups support NPV. Any voting plan that is enthusiastically endorsed by dimocrat Communist Party of America is wrong for America. Remember ACORN, which is still very active across the country? Remember obamao’s ’12 re-election campaign committee, that was immediately morphed by IRS into a non-profit dimocrat arm of ACORN? Remember the obamao DOJ that wants to crush every state’s attempts at voter integrity? This NPV is designed specifically to allow – no, facilitate – vote fraud in major urban areas that will be impossible to track, and will crush the votes of small conservative states.

    Nope, anytime you hear the dimocrats say “we can work together on this” you’d better get your back against the wall. They don’t need our help – they are doing a pretty good job of destroying US already.

    God bless America.