My guest today is Ernest Canning, attorney and long-time legal contributor at the BradBlog.
Joan Brunwasser: Welcome back to OpEdNews, Ernie. You were featured recently on the BradBlog talking about the issue of election fraud and some recent court rulings. Can you get us started, please?
Ernest Canning: Great to hear from you, Joan. This topic entails an issue central to the election integrity movement--transparency in the manner in which votes are tabulated.
JB: Don't stop there, Ernie. Tell us more. And please explain so that the least geeky among us can fully understand.
EC: By transparency, I mean the ability of the electorate to know that the votes they and their fellow citizens cast in a given election have been accurately counted.
Mandated by express provisions in their respective constitutions, transparency provides the central feature of election law in both Germany and Austria. Sadly, it is a feature that is conspicuously absent in the United States, which, for the most part, conducts what many in the election integrity community have aptly dubbed as "faith-based elections."
JB: Before we discuss what happened on the other side of the Atlantic, what exactly do you mean by "faith-based elections"? Whatever it is, it doesn't sound good.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
