I'm thinking Christie had a real chance in 2016 UNTIL his corruption and "great ideas" [like this one] were exposed ~ now I just see him as a dangerous joke ~ ~ bolding/emphasis below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Christie wants GOP control over ‘voting mechanisms’
10/22/14 02:26 PM—Updated 10/22/14 03:57 PM
By Steve Benen

When it comes to Republican governors imposing harsh, new voting restrictions, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is hardly the first name that pops up. The Republican vetoed an early-voting bill last year, he’s offered some odd criticisms of same-day registration recently, and he played some shameless political games when scheduling his state’s U.S. Senate special election last year, but in general, Christie isn’t known for electoral mischief, at least not by contemporary GOP standards.

But that’s all the more reason to take note of Christie’s comments this week on “voting mechanisms.” The Bergen Record reported this morning:


In remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the New Jersey governor said, “Would you rather have Rick Scott in Florida overseeing the voting mechanism, or Charlie Crist? Would you rather have Scott Walker in Wisconsin overseeing the voting mechanism, or would you rather have Mary Burke? Who would you rather have in Ohio, John Kasich or Ed FitzGerald?”

I’m not sure which is worse: the prospect of Christie making these remarks without thinking them through or Christie making these remarks because he’s already thought this through.

In theory, in a functioning democracy, control over “voting mechanisms” shouldn’t dictate election outcomes. Citizens consider the candidates, they cast their ballots, the ballots are counted, and the winner takes office. It’s supposed to be non-partisan – indeed, the oversight of the elections process must be professional and detached from politics in order to maintain the integrity of the system itself.

So what exactly is Chris Christie suggesting here?

One possible interpretation is that Republican victories will lead to control over elections, which in turn will lead to more Republican victories. If this is what the governor meant, Christie almost seemed to be endorsing corruption.

A more charitable interpretation is that the governor thinks Democrats will try to cheat, so electing Republicans will ensure the proper “voting mechanisms.”

Still, political scientist Norm Ornstein paraphrased Christie’s comments this way: “How can we cheat on vote counts if we don’t control the governorships?”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/christie-wants-gop-control-over-voting-mechanisms

Primo Joan Walsh commentary ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Thursday, Oct 23, 2014 2:36 PM UTC
Christie’s gross confession: “Moderate” admits GOP’s voter suppression agenda
Christie says in new speech that GOP governors must control states' "voting mechanism" to win in '16. Tell us more!
Joan Walsh

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie prides himself on saying things other politicians don’t have the cojones to share with the public: calling teachers’ unions “thugs” and his Democratic opponents “jerks,” for instance. In his latest candid moment with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he laid bare his party’s voter-suppression agenda – or rather, its crusade to make sure Republican governors control the “voting mechanism” of every state possible, in order to regain the White House in 2016.

“Would you rather have Rick Scott in Florida overseeing the voting mechanism, or Charlie Crist?” he asked. “Would you rather have Scott Walker in Wisconsin overseeing the voting mechanism, or would you rather have Mary Burke? Who would you rather have in Ohio, John Kasich or Ed FitzGerald?” he asked.

“The fact is it doesn’t matter if you don’t really care what happens in these states, you’re going to care about who is running the state in November of 2016, what kind of political apparatus they’ve set up and what kind of governmental apparatus they’ve set up to ensure a full and fair election in 2016,” he said. “All of those things are incredibly important.”

There are so many things wrong with Christie’s confession. First, of course, is the assumption that Democrats don’t want and thus can’t preside over “a full and fair election.” He’s of course alluding to the non-problem of voter fraud, which Seventh District Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner last month called “essentially nonexistent.” In fact, Christie’s description of the importance of Republicans controlling the “voter mechanism” echoes Posner’s – except Posner was excoriating Republicans, not praising them.

There are indeed correlations between Republican governors and the “voting mechanism,” the conservative judge found. Specifically, new voter identification laws are “highly correlated with a state’s having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature.” Unfortunately, Posner went on to say that such laws appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks.” He continued: “There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”

Oh. Well, Christie didn’t mean to say that.

It’s also fascinating to see Christie take for granted that the Chamber supports the GOP’s voter-restriction agenda. It’s one thing to tell the Chamber you’re going to keep tax rates low or block a minimum wage hike, policy issues core to what the group considers a “pro-business” agenda. But last time I checked, the Chamber at least pretended to be non-partisan. Christie wasn’t talking to the Koch-controlled Americans for Prosperity or the donors behind the Republican Governors Association, which he chairs.

Until now, the supposedly “moderate” Christie hasn’t been a crusader on voter ID laws, ducking questions on those laws passed by Republicans in other states. He did veto a bill that would have established early voting in New Jersey on the eve of his re-election bid, insisting it would be too costly – even as he authorized a very costly October special election the same year to fill Frank Lautenberg’s Senate seat, expressly so Democratic voters heading to the polls to back Cory Booker wouldn’t be a threat in his own race.

One of Christie’s advantages in a presidential race was supposed to be his ability to win the votes of African Americans and Latinos – he won 21 percent of New Jersey black voters and 51 percent of Latinos in 2013. He was supposed to be the guy that could help the GOP avoid demographic extinction, as its aging white base loses its hold on the American electorate. In fact, only a week ago he made that very pitch to a group of Republican donors in New York.

Now it looks like Christie thinks the road back to the White House for the GOP is the tried and true path of voter suppression. I never thought he was a different brand of Republican in the first place, but it’s good to see that he’s giving up the pretense entirely.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/23/christies_gross_confession_moderate_admits_gops_voter_suppression_agenda/

to ensure a full and fair election

what else CAN you do if you don't actually have the votes?

Here's some follow-up ~ seems like when Christie talks, he makes things worse ~ ~ Sooz

Christie wants GOP control of voting rules, election officials
10/24/14 09:25 AM—Updated 10/24/14 09:26 AM
By Steve Benen

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) stunned voting-rights advocates this week, arguing that Republican governors should control “voting mechanisms” in order to help the party win the 2016 presidential election.

In remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the New Jersey governor said, “Would you rather have Rick Scott in Florida overseeing the voting mechanism, or Charlie Crist? Would you rather have Scott Walker in Wisconsin overseeing the voting mechanism, or would you rather have Mary Burke? Who would you rather have in Ohio, John Kasich or Ed FitzGerald?”

Political scientist Norm Ornstein paraphrased Christie’s comments this way: “How can we cheat on vote counts if we don’t control the governorships?”

The good news is, the Garden State governor decided to clarify his remarks yesterday. The bad news is, Christie made things worse.


According to another local account, the governor added, “What I was talking about was, who’s going to be in charge of the state when the votes are being counted.”

As Rachel noted yesterday, “That’s the kind of ‘clarification’ that makes things worse, not better.”

Indeed, taking the two sets of Christie comments together, it’s difficult to think of a charitable interpretation.

As we discussed the other day, in a functioning democracy, control over “voting mechanisms” shouldn’t dictate election outcomes. Citizens consider the candidates, they cast their ballots, the ballots are counted, and the winner takes office. It’s supposed to be non-partisan – the oversight of the elections process must be professional and detached from politics in order to maintain the integrity of the system itself.

But Christie’s preferred model flips the system on its head. He wants an elections process in which Republicans control the “voting mechanisms,” Republicans appoint the elections officials, Republicans help dictate “what the rules are” when it comes to Americans casting ballots, and Republicans are “in charge of the state when the votes are being counted.”

In other words, Christie doesn’t want a non-partisan elections process. The governor and likely presidential candidate wants the exact opposite.

Brian Beutler added, “In Christie’s mind, American election outcomes are a direct function of partisan control of states. Republicans, who ‘oversee the voting mechanisms,’ need to win so that they can continue to ‘oversee the voting mechanisms.’ If they don’t win now, they’ll lose control of the voting mechanisms ahead of an election in which fundamentals will favor the Democrats, and be doomed.”

It might very well be the most controversial thing Christie has ever said in public. That he sees this as unimportant – his intended “clarification” only added insult to injury – speaks volumes about Christie’s cynical, partisan vision of how democracy is supposed to work.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/christie-wants-gop-control-voting-rules-election-officials