alternet--2020-11-13--The catastrophic failure of the Electoral College has brought us to the brink

Prior to the end of the 2020 election , many conservatives started tossing around a provocative prediction : With Joe Biden 's imminent and likely resounding win , Democrats may abruptly drop their objections to the Electoral College and learn to love it again .
Among those putting their chips behind such a forecast was former Republican George Will .
`` Joe Biden 's victory , which will be decisive in the popular vote , will be even more so in electoral votes , '' he wrote in his column for the Washington Post on Oct. 30 .
`` So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have kindlier thoughts about the electoral college .
Because Democratic candidates lost two of this century 's first five presidential elections while winning the popular vote , many Democrats have called for abolishing the electoral-vote system and adopting election by direct popular vote .
This year , the electoral-vote-inflation factor favoring Biden should have the wholesome effect of dampening Democrats ' enthusiasm for abolition . ''
But while the predictions of Biden 's victory have been vindicated , the Electoral College 's reputation remains in tatters .
In fact , it looks worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to the brink of catastrophe , and it urgently needs to be eradicated .
This point has become somewhat confused because of the order in which the media projected Trump and Biden as winners in each state and how the votes were tallied .
Some have argued that , despite the disadvantage Biden faced because of the Electoral College 's bizarre structure , the Democrat nevertheless achieved a decisive win .
Unfortunately , this is not so .
Here 's how Josh Jordan put it , looking at the most recent margins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Biden 's margin in Pennsylvania is still expected to grow significantly as outstanding ballots are counted , while the others are likely to be relatively stable ) : Despite his claim , this genuinely was a very close race .
At this time , Wisconsin appears to be the `` tipping point state '' — essentially , the state which gave Biden a decisive lead by the smallest margin .
Biden only won there by about 20,000 votes , or a margin 0.3 points .
It 's easy to imagine a scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the shift of a several tens of thousands of votes — relatively few in the scale of the election and in terms of swings that the electorate experiences — in Wisconsin , Georgia , and Arizona flipped the states into Trump 's column .
Amazingly , that scenario does n't make Trump the clear victor .
It turns the race into a 269-269 tie : It 's not clear why the framers of the Constitution left us with a system that allows for the possibility of an Electoral College tie ( they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate ) , but that 's what we have .
The consequence would be that all the states ' results are essentially discarded , and the House of Representatives picks a president .
But it does n't simply give a vote to each member ; each state votes in the House as a single delegation with one vote each .
Because Republicans would control a majority of state delegations , they would likely give the election to Trump , though it 's impossible to say how it would play out ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse than that , because there 's the possibility of faithless electors .
While some states legally require electors to cast their ballots with the party that won the state , some are technically free to vote their consciences .
This does n't happen much because parties tend to pick loyalists who are committed partisans .
But history shows that there are electors who subvert expectations .
In 2016 , there were a total of seven faithless electors — five defecting from Hillary Clinton , and two defecting from Trump .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final determination , of course , and faithless electors never have in U.S. history .
In a tight 269-269 split , however , it would literally take only one faithless elector to change history .
Maybe that would be unlikely , but it would be awfully tempting .
In 2020 , it would mean that the race could n't be called until the Electoral College actually met and cast its vote .
Only once the votes were actually counted would we even know if the final decision for president would go before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ random elector would decide the fate of the country on their own .
Under these circumstances , it 's hard to be sure we could guarantee a peaceful transition of power .
But putting aside the mechanics and the risks of this case , it 's important to dwell on how absurd and anti-democratic it is .
According to FiveThirtyEight 's Nate Silver , Biden is likely to end up with a lead in the popular vote of 4.4 points : This means that , assuming Wisconsin was indeed the tipping point state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4.1 point bias in Trump 's favor ( or , more accurately , in favor of a tie result that likely would have resulted in a Trump presidency . )
This should be unacceptable to a country that cares about the will of the people , fairness , and democracy .
In typical elections , a 2-points lead is often seen as relatively formidable and decisive .
It 's not a landslide , but it 's not a squeaker , and no one really doubts that the winner has a compelling reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malfeasance .
But in the presidential race we just lived through , Democrats were required to win over a majority of the country by a margin of more than 4 points — something they just barely managed to do .
Another way of putting the point : Democratic votes simply count less than Republican votes under the current system when it comes to control of the presidency .
This imbalance is compounded by the fact that Donald Trump is only president at all because in 2016 , there was a similar bias in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote 2.1 points , but lost because of Trump 's slim leads in Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania .
That was , many argued , unjust .
Trump is a dangerous man and an incompetent president .
For this reason , he 's unpopular with a majority of Americans , and pretty much always has been in his political career .
If the popular will mattered enough , he would never have gotten the job .
And if it mattered just slightly less than it does now , or if Democrats were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were , he would have been able to hold on to power despite majority outrage and and opposition .
The situation would n't have been quite as bad , however — from the perspective of democracy — if 2016 had just been a fluke .
Of course , it was n't just a fluke ; Al Gore lost the presidency while winning the popular vote in 2000 , too ( let 's put aside the Florida recount and Supreme Court intervention ) .
And now , as Biden 's slim room for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a highly unfavorable playing field .
And it may not get any better — indeed , it may get even worse .
This is n't a fluke or a glitch ; it 's systematic , unjust , oppressive regime .
Some might say that , regardless , of the bias against Biden , he and critics of the Electoral College should just be happy he won .
Perhaps , they 'd say , there are technical objections to the Electoral College , but in the real world , it mostly works out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) But this argument misses the fact that , in order to win , Biden had to be hyperaware of the fact that the deck was stacked against him .
There was a protracted debate during the campaign about the regulation of fracking , an important industry in Pennsylvania , which was believed to be a key swing state .
And the state 's outsized importance due to the Electoral College likely played a role in how Biden hedged on the issue during the debate , hedging that may box him in as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority .
What 's more , the president himself has , as of this writing , refused to accept his loss in 2020 .
While it 's impossible to say what he would have done if the president were determined by the popular vote winner , it would have been much harder for him to protest the result under such a system .
It would have been clear on the night of Tuesday , Nov. 3 , that Biden was going to win the popular vote and the presidency and that Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued , as it did , but we would n't have had endless days of rolling results before a clear winner could be projected .
And Trump would n't have , as he does now , potential paths to undermine the result of the election .
Despite his clear loss , Trump and his allies have been exploring multiple paths to his maintaining power , including inducing Biden electors to become faithless , convincing state legislatures to appoint slates of electors at odds with the voters ' choices , or using lawsuits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
These ideas are all likely to fail , and Biden will be inaugurated .
But another presidential candidate and their party may be better positioned to exploit these anti-democratic tactics in the future .
And even the prospect that they could work is doing serious damage to the United States in the present .
None of these ideas would be viable if the popular vote determined the winner .
They 're only on the table because of the destructive and Byzantine Electoral College .
If the country 's leaders had enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the antiquated institution as soon as possible .

Prior to the end of the 2020 election, many conservatives started tossing around a provocative prediction: With Joe Biden's imminent and likely resounding win, Democrats may abruptly drop their objections to the Electoral College and learn to love it again. Among those putting their chips behind such a forecast was former Republican George Will.
"Joe Biden's victory, which will be decisive in the popular vote, will be even more so in electoral votes," he wrote in his column for the Washington Post on Oct. 30. "So, on Wednesday, many Democrats might have kindlier thoughts about the electoral college. Because Democratic candidates lost two of this century's first five presidential elections while winning the popular vote, many Democrats have called for abolishing the electoral-vote system and adopting election by direct popular vote. This year, the electoral-vote-inflation factor favoring Biden should have the wholesome effect of dampening Democrats' enthusiasm for abolition."
But while the predictions of Biden's victory have been vindicated, the Electoral College's reputation remains in tatters. In fact, it looks worse than ever before. It has brought us to the brink of catastrophe, and it urgently needs to be eradicated.
This point has become somewhat confused because of the order in which the media projected Trump and Biden as winners in each state and how the votes were tallied. Some have argued that, despite the disadvantage Biden faced because of the Electoral College's bizarre structure, the Democrat nevertheless achieved a decisive win.
Unfortunately, this is not so.
Here's how Josh Jordan put it, looking at the most recent margins in the key swing states (note: Biden's margin in Pennsylvania is still expected to grow significantly as outstanding ballots are counted, while the others are likely to be relatively stable):
Despite his claim, this genuinely was a very close race. At this time, Wisconsin appears to be the "tipping point state" — essentially, the state which gave Biden a decisive lead by the smallest margin. Biden only won there by about 20,000 votes, or a margin 0.3 points.
It's easy to imagine a scenario in which, for what ever reason, the shift of a several tens of thousands of votes — relatively few in the scale of the election and in terms of swings that the electorate experiences — in Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona flipped the states into Trump's column. Amazingly, that scenario doesn't make Trump the clear victor. It turns the race into a 269-269 tie:
It's not clear why the framers of the Constitution left us with a system that allows for the possibility of an Electoral College tie (they figured out how to break ties in the Senate), but that's what we have. The consequence would be that all the states' results are essentially discarded, and the House of Representatives picks a president. But it doesn't simply give a vote to each member; each state votes in the House as a single delegation with one vote each. Because Republicans would control a majority of state delegations, they would likely give the election to Trump, though it's impossible to say how it would play out ahead of time.
In fact, it's even worse than that, because there's the possibility of faithless electors. While some states legally require electors to cast their ballots with the party that won the state, some are technically free to vote their consciences. This doesn't happen much because parties tend to pick loyalists who are committed partisans.
But history shows that there are electors who subvert expectations. In 2016, there were a total of seven faithless electors — five defecting from Hillary Clinton, and two defecting from Trump. That didn't make a difference in the final determination, of course, and faithless electors never have in U.S. history.
In a tight 269-269 split, however, it would literally take only one faithless elector to change history. Maybe that would be unlikely, but it would be awfully tempting. In 2020, it would mean that the race couldn't be called until the Electoral College actually met and cast its vote. Only once the votes were actually counted would we even know if the final decision for president would go before the House of Representatives, or if some random elector would decide the fate of the country on their own.
Under these circumstances, it's hard to be sure we could guarantee a peaceful transition of power.
But putting aside the mechanics and the risks of this case, it's important to dwell on how absurd and anti-democratic it is. According to FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver, Biden is likely to end up with a lead in the popular vote of 4.4 points:
This means that, assuming Wisconsin was indeed the tipping point state, the Electoral College essentially had a 4.1 point bias in Trump's favor (or, more accurately, in favor of a tie result that likely would have resulted in a Trump presidency.) This should be unacceptable to a country that cares about the will of the people, fairness, and democracy.
In typical elections, a 2-points lead is often seen as relatively formidable and decisive. It's not a landslide, but it's not a squeaker, and no one really doubts that the winner has a compelling reason to claim a clear victory, assuming no malfeasance.
But in the presidential race we just lived through, Democrats were required to win over a majority of the country by a margin of more than4 points — something they just barely managed to do. Another way of putting the point: Democratic votes simply count less than Republican votes under the current system when it comes to control of the presidency.
This imbalance is compounded by the fact that Donald Trump is only president at all because in 2016, there was a similar bias in his favor. Clinton won the popular vote 2.1 points, but lost because of Trump's slim leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. That was, many argued, unjust.
Trump is a dangerous man and an incompetent president. For this reason, he's unpopular with a majority of Americans, and pretty much always has been in his political career. If the popular will mattered enough, he would never have gotten the job. And if it mattered just slightly less than it does now, or if Democrats were slightly less effective at fighting him than they were, he would have been able to hold on to power despite majority outrage and and opposition.
The situation wouldn't have been quite as bad, however — from the perspective of democracy — if 2016 had just been a fluke. Of course, it wasn't just a fluke; Al Gore lost the presidency while winning the popular vote in 2000, too (let's put aside the Florida recount and Supreme Court intervention). And now, as Biden's slim room for error makes clear, Democrats are playing on a highly unfavorable playing field. And it may not get any better — indeed, it may get even worse. This isn't a fluke or a glitch; it's systematic, unjust, oppressive regime.
Some might say that, regardless, of the bias against Biden, he and critics of the Electoral College should just be happy he won. Perhaps, they'd say, there are technical objections to the Electoral College, but in the real world, it mostly works out fine (2000 and 2016 notwithstanding.) But this argument misses the fact that, in order to win, Biden had to be hyperaware of the fact that the deck was stacked against him. There was a protracted debate during the campaign about the regulation of fracking, an important industry in Pennsylvania, which was believed to be a key swing state. And the state's outsized importance due to the Electoral College likely played a role in how Biden hedged on the issue during the debate, hedging that may box him in as president — undermining the preferences of the majority.
What's more, the president himself has, as of this writing, refused to accept his loss in 2020. While it's impossible to say what he would have done if the president were determined by the popular vote winner, it would have been much harder for him to protest the result under such a system. It would have been clear on the night of Tuesday, Nov. 3, that Biden was going to win the popular vote and the presidency and that Trump was the loser. The counting would have continued, as it did, but we wouldn't have had endless days of rolling results before a clear winner could be projected.
And Trump wouldn't have, as he does now, potential paths to undermine the result of the election. Despite his clear loss, Trump and his allies have been exploring multiple paths to his maintaining power, including inducing Biden electors to become faithless, convincing state legislatures to appoint slates of electors at odds with the voters' choices, or using lawsuits and recounts to overturn the outcomes in key states.
These ideas are all likely to fail, and Biden will be inaugurated. But another presidential candidate and their party may be better positioned to exploit these anti-democratic tactics in the future. And even the prospect that they could work is doing serious damage to the United States in the present.
None of these ideas would be viable if the popular vote determined the winner. They're only on the table because of the destructive and Byzantine Electoral College. If the country's leaders had enough sense and decency, they'd abolish the antiquated institution as soon as possible.


alternet--2020-11-13--A Supreme Court justice just tore into Democrats and lit his claims to impartiality on fire

U.S. Supreme Court justices , in theory , are supposed to avoid being overtly partisan .
Although they 're nominated and confirmed by partisan politicians their general goal is appear above the fray , deciding cases on the basis of the facts and the law , rather than political ideology .
But Justice Samuel Alito , who was appointed by President George W. Bush , is drawing vehement criticism for a Federalist Society speech that , critics say , was full of flat-out partisanship and Fox News-like fear-mongering .
On Thursday night , Alito gave the keynote address at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was strictly an online event this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic .
And according to Slate 's Mark Joseph Stern , Alito `` abandoned any pretense of impartiality in his speech , a grievance-laden tirade against Democrats , the progressive movement , and the United States ' response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Alito 's targets included COVID-related restrictions , same-sex marriage , abortion , Plan B , the contraceptive mandate , LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws , and five sitting Democratic senators . ''
Stern notes that Alito started the speech by slamming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to forbid federal judges from being members of the Federalist Society , an alliance of right-wing attorneys .
Alito claimed that liberals are trying to `` hobble the debate that the Federalist Society fosters '' and claimed that law school students who join that organization are telling him that they `` face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy . ''
`` Remarkably , Alito did not just grouse about the outcome of certain cases , but the political context of those decisions — and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Stern explains .
`` Although the justice accused several Democratic senators of being unprofessional , he himself defied the basic principles of judicial conduct . ''
Stern points out that Alito , during his speech , was highly critical of governors who have issued stay-at-home orders and social distancing requirements in their states because of the COVID-19 pandemic , attacking them as `` previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty . ''
According to Stern , Alito painted President Barack Obama 's administration as hostile to freedom of religion .
It should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former First Lady Michelle Obama are known for being churchgoing Christians .
The former president is far from an atheist , let alone a militant one .
But Obama has stressed that freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution offers protections to people of all religious stripes — from Protestants and Catholics to Muslims to Buddhists — and protects the civil liberties of atheists and agnostics as well .
`` Alito waded into fierce political debates over public health during a pandemic , reproductive rights , LGBTQ equality , and other issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Stern observes .
`` It is wildly inappropriate for a justice to assume the role of Fox News commentators , and unwise in light of progressives ' mounting doubt about the Supreme Court 's legitimacy . ''
Gabe Roth of Fix the Court , a group that is highly critic of the Supreme Court 's move to the far right , issued a statement slamming Alito 's Federalist Society speech .
`` Full of disinformation on the state of the First Amendment , how women 's reproductive systems work and the goals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Alito 's speech Thursday was more befitting a Trump rally than a legal society , '' Roth wrote .
According to Roth , `` Alito 's decision to speak about COVID 's impact on religious exercise is unconscionable at a time when cases concerning this very topic remain active at the Supreme Court and across the federal judiciary .
If there were enforceable recusal standards at the High Court , this would be a ripe opportunity for a motion to disqualify .
Last night proved once and for all that the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
More criticism of Alito 's speech has come from Esquire 's Charles P. Pierce , who wrote , `` Alito hit all the wingnut G spots — marriage equality , 'religious liberty , ' lying about the Plan B contraceptive , the jackboots of social media descending on honest conservative voices , why criticism equals 'censorship , ' the protocols put in place by besieged state governors for dealing with the pandemic , and 'celebrity chefs . '
It was such a grotesque partisan performance that you almost forgot to wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice was addressing a political pressure group in the first place .
Here are some Twitter comments on Alito 's speech :

U.S. Supreme Court justices, in theory, are supposed to avoid being overtly partisan. Although they're nominated and confirmed by partisan politicians their general goal is appear above the fray, deciding cases on the basis of the facts and the law, rather than political ideology.
But Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, is drawing vehement criticism for a Federalist Society speech that, critics say, was full of flat-out partisanship and Fox News-like fear-mongering.
On Thursday night, Alito gave the keynote address at the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, which was strictly an online event this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. And according to Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, Alito "abandoned any pretense of impartiality in his speech, a grievance-laden tirade against Democrats, the progressive movement, and the United States' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Alito's targets included COVID-related restrictions, same-sex marriage, abortion, Plan B, the contraceptive mandate, LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, and five sitting Democratic senators."
Stern notes that Alito started the speech by slamming the U.S. Judicial Conference's effort to forbid federal judges from being members of the Federalist Society, an alliance of right-wing attorneys. Alito claimed that liberals are trying to "hobble the debate that the Federalist Society fosters" and claimed that law school students who join that organization are telling him that they "face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy."
"Remarkably, Alito did not just grouse about the outcome of certain cases, but the political context of those decisions — and the broader cultural and political forces behind them," Stern explains. "Although the justice accused several Democratic senators of being unprofessional, he himself defied the basic principles of judicial conduct."
Stern points out that Alito, during his speech, was highly critical of governors who have issued stay-at-home orders and social distancing requirements in their states because of the COVID-19 pandemic, attacking them as "previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty." According to Stern, Alito painted President Barack Obama's administration as hostile to freedom of religion.
It should be noted, however, that Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama are known for being churchgoing Christians. The former president is far from an atheist, let alone a militant one. But Obama has stressed that freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution offers protections to people of all religious stripes — from Protestants and Catholics to Muslims to Buddhists — and protects the civil liberties of atheists and agnostics as well.
"Alito waded into fierce political debates over public health during a pandemic, reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, and other issues that routinely come before his court," Stern observes. "It is wildly inappropriate for a justice to assume the role of Fox News commentators, and unwise in light of progressives' mounting doubt about the Supreme Court's legitimacy."
Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a group that is highly critic of the Supreme Court's move to the far right, issued a statement slamming Alito's Federalist Society speech.
"Full of disinformation on the state of the First Amendment, how women's reproductive systems work and the goals of a milquetoast judicial ethics proposal, Justice Alito's speech Thursday was more befitting a Trump rally than a legal society," Roth wrote.
According to Roth, "Alito's decision to speak about COVID's impact on religious exercise is unconscionable at a time when cases concerning this very topic remain active at the Supreme Court and across the federal judiciary. If there were enforceable recusal standards at the High Court, this would be a ripe opportunity for a motion to disqualify. Last night proved once and for all that the Supreme Court needs a formal code of conduct."
More criticism of Alito's speech has come from Esquire's Charles P. Pierce, who wrote, "Alito hit all the wingnut G spots — marriage equality, 'religious liberty,' lying about the Plan B contraceptive, the jackboots of social media descending on honest conservative voices, why criticism equals 'censorship,' the protocols put in place by besieged state governors for dealing with the pandemic, and 'celebrity chefs.' It was such a grotesque partisan performance that you almost forgot to wonder why in hell a sitting Supreme Court justice was addressing a political pressure group in the first place.
Here are some Twitter comments on Alito's speech:


alternet--2020-11-13--The coming mass displacement will force us all to face a dark path of spiraling conflict

I saw them for only a few seconds .
One glimpse and they were gone .
The young woman wore a brown headwrap , a yellow short-sleeved shirt , and a long pink , red , and blue floral-patterned skirt .
She held the reins of the donkey pulling her rust-pink cart .
Across her lap lay an infant .
Perched beside her at the edge of the metal wagon was a young girl who could n't have been more than eight .
Some firewood , rugs , woven mats , rolled-up clothing or sheets , a dark green plastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can were lashed to the bed of the cart .
Three goats tied to the rear of it ambled along behind .
They found themselves , as I did , on a hot , dusty road slowly being choked by families who had hastily hitched up their donkeys and piled whatever they could -- kindling , sleeping mats , cooking pots -- into sun-bleached carts or bush taxis .
And they were the lucky ones .
Many had simply set out on foot .
Young boys tended small herds of recalcitrant goats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare shade of a roadside tree , a family had stopped and a middle-aged man hung his head , holding it in one hand .
Earlier this year , I traveled that ochre-dirt road in Burkina Faso , a tiny landlocked nation in the African Sahel once known for having the largest film festival on the continent .
Now , it 's the site of an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe .
Those people were streaming down the main road from Barsalogho about 100 miles north of the capital , Ouagadougou , toward Kaya , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled this year , due to the displaced .
Across the country 's northern stretches , other Burkinabe ( as citizens are known ) were making similar journeys toward towns offering only the most uncertain kinds of refuge .
They were victims of a war without a name , a battle between Islamist militants who murder and massacre without compunction and armed forces that kill more civilians than militants .
I 've witnessed variations of this wretched scene before -- exhausted , upended families evicted by machete-wielding militiamen or Kalashnikov-carrying government troops , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dust-caked traumatized people plodding down lonesome highways , fleeing artillery strikes , smoldering villages , or towns dotted with moldering corpses .
Sometimes motorbikes pull the carts .
Sometimes , young girls carry the jerry cans on their heads .
Sometimes , people flee with nothing more than what they 're wearing .
Sometimes , they cross national borders and become refugees or , as in Burkina Faso , become internally displaced persons , or IDPs , in their own homeland .
Whatever the particulars , such scenes are increasingly commonplace in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible way , unremarkable .
And though you would hardly know it in the United States , that 's what also makes them , collectively , one of the signature stories of our time .
At least 100 million people have been forced to flee their homes due to violence , persecution , or other forms of public disorder over the last decade , according to UNHCR , the United Nations refugee agency .
That 's about one in every 97 people on the planet , roughly one percent of humanity .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own state to homestead , it would be the 14th largest nation , population-wise , in the world .
By the end of June , according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center , an additional 4.8 million people had been uprooted by conflict , with the most devastating increases in Syria , the Democratic Republic of Congo , and Burkina Faso .
Yet , as dismal as these numbers may be , they 're set to be dwarfed by people displaced by another signature story of our time : climate change .
Already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flight by fires , derechos , and super storms , and so much worse is yet to come , according to experts .
A recent forecast suggests that , by the year 2050 , the number of people driven from their homes by ecological catastrophes could be 900 % greater than the 100 million forced to flee conflicts over the last decade .
Women , children , and men driven from their homes by conflict have been a defining feature of modern warfare .
For almost a century now , combat correspondents have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Newly routed civilians , now homeless like the others with no idea of where they would next sleep or eat , with all their future lives an uncertainty , trudged back from the fighting zone , '' the legendary Eric Sevareid reported , while covering Italy for CBS News during World War II .
`` A dust-covered girl clung desperately to a heavy , squirming burlap sack .
The pig inside was squealing faintly .
Tears made streaks down the girl 's face .
No one moved to help her ... '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflagration involving 70 nations and 70 million combatants .
Fighting stretched across three continents in unparalleled destructive fury , including terror bombing , countless massacres , two atomic attacks , and the killing of 60 million people , most of them civilians , including six million Jews in a genocide known as the Holocaust .
Another 60 million were displaced , more than the population of Italy ( then the ninth-largest country in the world ) .
An unprecedented global war causing unimaginable suffering , it nonetheless left far fewer people homeless than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crises as 2019 ended .
How can violence-displaced people already exceed World War II 's total by almost 20 million ( without even counting the nearly five million more added in the first half of 2020 ) ?
The answer : these days , you ca n't go home again .
In May 1945 , the war in Europe came to an end .
By the beginning of September , the war in the Pacific was over , too .
A month later , most of Europe 's displaced -- including more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1.5 million French , 586,000 Italians , 274,000 Dutch , and hundreds of thousands of Belgians , Yugoslavs , Czechs , Poles , and others -- had already returned home .
A little more than a million people , mostly Eastern Europeans , still found themselves stranded in camps overseen by occupying forces and the United Nations .
Today , according to UNHCR , ever fewer war refugees and IDPs are able to rebuild their lives .
In the 1990s , an average of 1.5 million refugees were able to return home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that number has dropped to around 385,000 .
Today , about 77 % of the world 's refugees are trapped in long-term displacement situations thanks to forever wars like the conflict in Afghanistan that , in its multiple iterations , is now in its sixth decade .
War on ( of and for ) Terror One of the most dramatic drivers of displacement over the last 20 years , according to researchers from Brown University 's Costs of War project , has been that conflict in Afghanistan and the seven other `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launched or participated in since 2001 . ''
In the wake of the killing of 2,974 people by al-Qaeda militants that September 11th and the decision of George W. Bush 's administration to launch a Global War on Terror , conflicts the United States initiated , escalated , or participated in -- specifically , in Afghanistan , Iraq , Libya , Pakistan , the Philippines , Somalia , Syria , and Yemen -- have displaced between 37 million and 59 million people .
While U.S. troops have also seen combat in Burkina Faso @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars of `` security assistance '' into that country , its displaced are n't even counted in the Costs of War tally .
And yet there 's a clear link between the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libya 's autocrat , Muammar Qaddafi , in 2011 and Burkina Faso 's desperate state today .
`` Ever since the West assassinated Qaddafi , and I 'm conscious of using that particular word , Libya has been completely destabilized , '' Chérif Sy , Burkina Faso 's defense minister , explained in a 2019 interview .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the country with the most guns .
It has become an arms cache for the region . ''
Those arms helped destabilize neighboring Mali and led to a 2012 coup by a U.S.-trained officer .
Two years later , another U.S.-trained officer seized power in Burkina Faso during a popular uprising .
This year , yet another U.S.-trained officer overthrew yet another government in Mali .
All the while , terrorist attacks have been ravaging the region .
`` The Sahel has seen the most dramatic escalation of violence since mid-2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Africa Center for Strategic Studies , a Defense Department research institution .
In 2005 , Burkina Faso did n't even warrant mention in the `` Africa Overview '' section of the State Department 's annual report on terrorism .
Still , more than 15 separate American security assistance programs were brought to bear there -- about $ 100 million in the last two years alone .
Meanwhile , militant Islamist violence in the country has skyrocketed from just three attacks in 2015 to 516 in the 12 months from mid-2019 to mid-2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center .
The violence in Burkina Faso has led to a cascade of compounding crises .
Around one million Burkinabe are now displaced , a 1,500 % increase since last January , and the number only keeps rising .
So do the attacks and the fatalities .
And this is just the beginning , since Burkina Faso finds itself on the frontlines of yet another crisis , a global disaster that 's expected to generate levels of displacement that will dwarf today 's historic figures .
Burkina Faso has been battered by desertification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1960s .
In 1973 , a drought led to the deaths of 100,000 people there and in five other nations of the Sahel .
Severe drought and hunger struck again in the mid-1980s and aid agencies began privately warning that those living in the north of the country would need to move southward as farming became ever less feasible .
By the early 2000s , despite persistent droughts , the cattle population of the country had doubled , leading to increasing ethnic conflict between Mossi farmers and Fulani cattle herders .
The war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along those same ethnic lines .
In 2010 , Bassiaka Dao , the president of the confederation of farmers in Burkina Faso , told the United Nations news agency , IRIN , that the impacts of climate change had been noticeable for years and were getting worse .
As the decade wore on , rising temperatures and new rainfall patterns -- droughts followed by flash floods -- increasingly drove farmers from their villages , while desertification swelled the populations of urban centers .
In a report published earlier this year , William Chemaly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network of nongovernmental organizations , international aid groups , and United Nations agencies , noted that in Burkina Faso `` climate change is crippling livelihoods , exacerbating food insecurity , and intensifying armed conflict and violent extremism . ''
Sitting at the edge of the Sahara Desert , the country has long faced ecological adversity that 's only worsening as the frontlines of climate change steadily spread across the planet .
Forecasts now warn of increasing ecological disasters and resource wars supercharging the already surging phenomenon of global displacement .
According to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Peace , a think tank that produces annual global terrorism and peace indexes , two billion people already face uncertain access to sufficient food -- a number set to jump to 3.5 billion by 2050 .
Another one billion `` live in countries that do not have the current resilience to deal with the ecological changes they are expected to face in the future . ''
The report warns that the global climate crisis may displace as many as 1.2 billion people by 2050 .
On the Road to Kaya I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and two children I spotted on the road to Kaya .
If they ended up like the scores of people I spoke with in that market town , now bulging with displaced people , they 're facing a difficult time .
Rents are high , jobs scarce , government assistance all but nil .
People there are living on the edge of catastrophe , dependent on relatives and the kindness of new neighbors with little to spare themselves .
Some , driven by want , are even heading back into the conflict zone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kaya ca n't deal with the massive influx of people forced from their homes by Islamist militants .
Burkina Faso ca n't deal with the one million people already displaced by conflict .
And the world ca n't deal with the almost 80 million people already driven from their homes by violence .
So how will we cope with 1.2 billion people -- nearly the population of China or India -- likely to be displaced by climate driven-conflicts , water wars , increasing ecological devastation , and other unnatural disasters in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ever more of us will find ourselves on roads like the one to Kaya , running from the devastation of raging wildfires or uncontrolled floodwaters , successive hurricanes or supercharged cyclones , withering droughts , spiraling conflicts , or the next life-altering pandemic .
As a reporter , I 've already been on that road .
Pray you 're the one speeding by in the four-wheel-drive vehicle and not the one choking in the dust , driving the donkey cart .
Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch and a fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the author most recently of Next Time They 'll Come to Count the Dead : War and Survival in South Sudan and of the bestselling Kill Anything That Moves .
This article was reported in partnership with Brown University 's Costs of War Project and Type Investigations .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the newest Dispatch Books , John Feffer 's new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky 's novel Every Body Has a Story , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War , as well as Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror Since World Wr II .

I saw them for only a few seconds. One glimpse and they were gone. The young woman wore a brown headwrap, a yellow short-sleeved shirt, and a long pink, red, and blue floral-patterned skirt. She held the reins of the donkey pulling her rust-pink cart. Across her lap lay an infant. Perched beside her at the edge of the metal wagon was a young girl who couldn't have been more than eight. Some firewood, rugs, woven mats, rolled-up clothing or sheets, a dark green plastic tub, and an oversized plastic jerry can were lashed to the bed of the cart. Three goats tied to the rear of it ambled along behind.
They found themselves, as I did, on a hot, dusty road slowly being choked by families who had hastily hitched up their donkeys and piled whatever they could -- kindling, sleeping mats, cooking pots -- into sun-bleached carts or bush taxis. And they were the lucky ones. Many had simply set out on foot. Young boys tended small herds of recalcitrant goats. Women toted dazed toddlers. In the rare shade of a roadside tree, a family had stopped and a middle-aged man hung his head, holding it in one hand.
Earlier this year, I traveled that ochre-dirt road in Burkina Faso, a tiny landlocked nation in the African Sahel once known for having the largest film festival on the continent. Now, it's the site of an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. Those people were streaming down the main road from Barsalogho about 100 miles north of the capital, Ouagadougou, toward Kaya, a market town whose population has almost doubled this year, due to the displaced. Across the country's northern stretches, other Burkinabe (as citizens are known) were making similar journeys toward towns offering only the most uncertain kinds of refuge. They were victims of a war without a name, a battle between Islamist militants who murder and massacre without compunction and armed forces that kill more civilians than militants.
I've witnessed variations of this wretched scene before -- exhausted, upended families evicted by machete-wielding militiamen or Kalashnikov-carrying government troops, or the mercenaries of a warlord; dust-caked traumatized people plodding down lonesome highways, fleeing artillery strikes, smoldering villages, or towns dotted with moldering corpses. Sometimes motorbikes pull the carts. Sometimes, young girls carry the jerry cans on their heads. Sometimes, people flee with nothing more than what they're wearing. Sometimes, they cross national borders and become refugees or, as in Burkina Faso, become internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in their own homeland. Whatever the particulars, such scenes are increasingly commonplace in our world and so, in the worst possible way, unremarkable. And though you would hardly know it in the United States, that's what also makes them, collectively, one of the signature stories of our time.
At least 100 million people have been forced to flee their homes due to violence, persecution, or other forms of public disorder over the last decade, according to UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency. That's about one in every 97 people on the planet, roughly one percent of humanity. If such war victims had been given their own state to homestead, it would be the 14th largest nation, population-wise, in the world.
By the end of June, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, an additional 4.8 million people had been uprooted by conflict, with the most devastating increases in Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burkina Faso. Yet, as dismal as these numbers may be, they're set to be dwarfed by people displaced by another signature story of our time: climate change.
Already, shocking numbers have been put to flight by fires, derechos, and super storms, and so much worse is yet to come, according to experts. A recent forecast suggests that, by the year 2050, the number of people driven from their homes by ecological catastrophes could be 900% greater than the 100 million forced to flee conflicts over the last decade.
Worse Than World War II
Women, children, and men driven from their homes by conflict have been a defining feature of modern warfare. For almost a century now, combat correspondents have witnessed such scenes again and again. "Newly routed civilians, now homeless like the others with no idea of where they would next sleep or eat, with all their future lives an uncertainty, trudged back from the fighting zone," the legendary Eric Sevareid reported, while covering Italy for CBS News during World War II. "A dust-covered girl clung desperately to a heavy, squirming burlap sack. The pig inside was squealing faintly. Tears made streaks down the girl's face. No one moved to help her..."
The Second World War was a cataclysmic conflagration involving 70 nations and 70 million combatants. Fighting stretched across three continents in unparalleled destructive fury, including terror bombing, countlessmassacres, two atomic attacks, and the killing of 60 million people, most of them civilians, including six million Jews in a genocide known as the Holocaust. Another 60 million were displaced, more than the population of Italy (then the ninth-largest country in the world). An unprecedented global war causing unimaginable suffering, it nonetheless left far fewer people homeless than the 79.5 million displaced by conflicts and crises as 2019 ended.
How can violence-displaced people already exceed World War II's total by almost 20 million (without even counting the nearly five million more added in the first half of 2020)?
The answer: these days, you can't go home again.
In May 1945, the war in Europe came to an end. By the beginning of September, the war in the Pacific was over, too. A month later, most of Europe's displaced -- including more than two million refugees from the Soviet Union, 1.5 million French, 586,000 Italians, 274,000 Dutch, and hundreds of thousands of Belgians, Yugoslavs, Czechs, Poles, and others -- had already returned home. A little more than a million people, mostly Eastern Europeans, still found themselves stranded in camps overseen by occupying forces and the United Nations.
Today, according to UNHCR, ever fewer war refugees and IDPs are able to rebuild their lives. In the 1990s, an average of 1.5 million refugees were able to return home annually. For the last 10 years, that number has dropped to around 385,000. Today, about 77% of the world's refugees are trapped in long-term displacement situations thanks to forever wars like the conflict in Afghanistan that, in its multiple iterations, is now in its sixth decade.
War on (of and for) Terror
One of the most dramatic drivers of displacement over the last 20 years, according to researchers from Brown University's Costs of War project, has been that conflict in Afghanistan and the seven other "most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in since 2001." In the wake of the killing of 2,974 people by al-Qaeda militants that September 11th and the decision of George W. Bush's administration to launch a Global War on Terror, conflicts the United States initiated, escalated, or participated in -- specifically, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen -- have displaced between 37 million and 59 million people.
While U.S. troops have also seen combat in Burkina Faso and Washington has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars of "security assistance" into that country, its displaced aren't even counted in the Costs of War tally. And yet there's a clear link between the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libya's autocrat, Muammar Qaddafi, in 2011 and Burkina Faso's desperate state today. "Ever since the West assassinated Qaddafi, and I'm conscious of using that particular word, Libya has been completely destabilized," Chérif Sy, Burkina Faso's defense minister, explained in a 2019 interview. "While at the same time it was the country with the most guns. It has become an arms cache for the region."
Those arms helped destabilize neighboring Mali and led to a 2012 coup by a U.S.-trained officer. Two years later, another U.S.-trained officer seized power in Burkina Faso during a popular uprising. This year, yet another U.S.-trained officer overthrew yet another government in Mali. All the while, terrorist attacks have been ravaging the region. "The Sahel has seen the most dramatic escalation of violence since mid-2017," according to a July report by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research institution.
In 2005, Burkina Faso didn't even warrant mention in the "Africa Overview" section of the State Department's annual report on terrorism. Still, more than 15 separate American security assistance programs were brought to bear there -- about $100 million in the last two years alone. Meanwhile, militant Islamist violence in the country has skyrocketed from just three attacks in 2015 to 516 in the 12 months from mid-2019 to mid-2020, according to the Pentagon's Africa Center.
Compounding Crises to Come
The violence in Burkina Faso has led to a cascade of compounding crises. Around one million Burkinabe are now displaced, a 1,500% increase since last January, and the number only keeps rising. So do the attacks and the fatalities. And this is just the beginning, since Burkina Faso finds itself on the frontlines of yet another crisis, a global disaster that's expected to generate levels of displacement that will dwarf today's historic figures.
Burkina Faso has been battered by desertification and environmental degradation since at least the 1960s. In 1973, a drought led to the deaths of 100,000 people there and in five other nations of the Sahel. Severe drought and hunger struck again in the mid-1980s and aid agencies began privately warning that those living in the north of the country would need to move southward as farming became ever less feasible. By the early 2000s, despite persistent droughts, the cattle population of the country had doubled, leading to increasing ethnic conflict between Mossi farmers and Fulani cattle herders. The war now tearing the country apart largely divides along those same ethnic lines.
In 2010, Bassiaka Dao, the president of the confederation of farmers in Burkina Faso, told the United Nations news agency, IRIN, that the impacts of climate change had been noticeable for years and were getting worse. As the decade wore on, rising temperatures and new rainfall patterns -- droughts followed by flash floods -- increasingly drove farmers from their villages, while desertification swelled the populations of urban centers.
In a report published earlier this year, William Chemaly of the Global Protection Cluster, a network of nongovernmental organizations, international aid groups, and United Nations agencies, noted that in Burkina Faso "climate change is crippling livelihoods, exacerbating food insecurity, and intensifying armed conflict and violent extremism."
Sitting at the edge of the Sahara Desert, the country has long faced ecological adversity that's only worsening as the frontlines of climate change steadily spread across the planet. Forecasts now warn of increasing ecological disasters and resource wars supercharging the already surging phenomenon of global displacement. According to a recent report by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a think tank that produces annual global terrorism and peace indexes, two billion people already face uncertain access to sufficient food -- a number set to jump to 3.5 billion by 2050. Another one billion "live in countries that do not have the current resilience to deal with the ecological changes they are expected to face in the future." The report warns that the global climate crisis may displace as many as 1.2 billion people by 2050.
On the Road to Kaya
I don't know what happened to the mother and two children I spotted on the road to Kaya. If they ended up like the scores of people I spoke with in that market town, now bulging with displaced people, they're facing a difficult time. Rents are high, jobs scarce, government assistance all but nil. People there are living on the edge of catastrophe, dependent on relatives and the kindness of new neighbors with little to spare themselves. Some, driven by want, are even heading back into the conflict zone, risking death to gather firewood.
Kaya can't deal with the massive influx of people forced from their homes by Islamist militants. Burkina Faso can't deal with the one million people already displaced by conflict. And the world can't deal with the almost 80 million people already driven from their homes by violence. So how will we cope with 1.2 billion people -- nearly the population of China or India -- likely to be displaced by climate driven-conflicts, water wars, increasing ecological devastation, and other unnatural disasters in the next 30 years?
In the decades ahead, ever more of us will find ourselves on roads like the one to Kaya, running from the devastation of raging wildfires or uncontrolled floodwaters, successive hurricanes or supercharged cyclones, withering droughts, spiraling conflicts, or the next life-altering pandemic. As a reporter, I've already been on that road. Pray you're the one speeding by in the four-wheel-drive vehicle and not the one choking in the dust, driving the donkey cart.
Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatchand a fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author most recently of Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudanand of the bestselling Kill Anything That Moves.This article was reported in partnership withBrown University's Costs of War Project and Type Investigations.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World Wr II.
Copyright 2020 Nick Turse


alternet--2020-11-13--White House official admits the administration is still pretending Biden didn't win

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro claimed on Friday that White House officials are still operating as if President Donald Trump will remain in office for a second term despite him losing the presidential election to President-elect Joe Biden .
During an appearance on Fox Business , Navarro revealed how post-election day-to-day operations are occurring at the White House .
Navarro 's remarks appear to confirm numerous reports circulating about the Trump administration 's stance on Biden winning the election .
According to them , he did not win at the election at all .
In fact , Navarro and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome of the election .
`` We are moving forward here at the White House under the assumption there will be a second Trump term , '' Navarro said on Friday morning .
Due to Trump 's refusal to concede , his staffers have followed suit .
Navarro noted the uphill legal battle Trump is attempting to fight in hopes of having the election results overturned .
He claimed the White House would not focus on any aspects of transferring power to the Biden administration .
`` Until we do that , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Navarro said .
`` Any speculation about what Joe Biden might do , I think , is moot at this point . ''
Navarro also offered his take on the post-election legal battle .
Despite Trump and the Republican National Committee failing to provide substantial evidence of voter fraud or illegal voting , Navarro undermined the legal vote-counting process as he described it as an `` immaculate deception . ''
`` We have what appears , in some sense , to be an immaculate deception , '' Navarro said .
The White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and his allies continue to scramble .
Despite their attempts to discredit the results of the election , they have continued to come up short .
In fact , their post-election lawsuits have been repeatedly dismissed by judges in multiple states .

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro claimed on Friday that White House officials are still operating as if President Donald Trump will remain in office for a second term despite him losing the presidential election to President-elect Joe Biden.
During an appearance on Fox Business, Navarro revealed how post-election day-to-day operations are occurring at the White House. Navarro's remarks appear to confirm numerous reports circulating about the Trump administration's stance on Biden winning the election. According to them, he did not win at the election at all. In fact, Navarro and others are continuing to blatantly disregard the outcome of the election.
"We are moving forward here at the White House under the assumption there will be a second Trump term," Navarro said on Friday morning.
Due to Trump's refusal to concede, his staffers have followed suit. Navarro noted the uphill legal battle Trump is attempting to fight in hopes of having the election results overturned. He claimed the White House would not focus on any aspects of transferring power to the Biden administration.
"Until we do that, our assumption is a second Trump term," Navarro said. "Any speculation about what Joe Biden might do, I think, is moot at this point."
Navarro also offered his take on the post-election legal battle. Despite Trump and the Republican National Committee failing to provide substantial evidence of voter fraud or illegal voting, Navarro undermined the legal vote-counting process as he described it as an "immaculate deception."
"We have what appears, in some sense, to be an immaculate deception," Navarro said.
The White House trade adviser's remarks come as Trump and his allies continue to scramble. Despite their attempts to discredit the results of the election, they have continued to come up short. In fact, their post-election lawsuits have been repeatedly dismissed by judges in multiple states.


alternet--2020-11-13--Fox News forced to correct legal scholar over humiliating and debunked election error claim

A legal scholar on Fox News attempted to spew a debunked claim about election errors on Friday , and even the network 's conservative anchors had to stop him in his tracks .
On Friday , Jonathan Turley , who famously defended the president during impeachment , appeared on Fox & Friends where he discussed a false theory surrounding the Dominion voting machines .
According to Turley , `` thousands '' of President Donald Trump 's votes in Michigan were switched to President-elect Joe Biden in Michigan — another claim the president is pushing to undermine his election defeat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ software had been used in multiple states including `` half of the districts in Michigan '' as he suggested that the `` vulnerable '' software may have impacted the outcome of the election .
He made clear he believed mistakes may be the result of `` human error . ''
However , a Fox News co-host pushed back as he noted that he also researched Trump 's claim .
He explained that the glitch did not impact or compromise the vote count in any way .
Like Trump 's arguments , Turley 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Turley 's Fox appearance comes just one day after Trump tweeted a baseless theory about the Dominion voting software .
Trump claimed hundreds of thousands of votes had been stolen from him despite having no evidence to support his assertions .
Almost immediately after the president tweeted about the conspiracy , his allies and supporters followed suit .
The New York Times and other fact-checkers quickly released a report striking down the allegations .
Election technology expert , Edward Perez , also pushed back against the claims as he condemned the spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims being asserted about Dominion and questionable voting technology is misinformation at best and , in many cases , they 're outright disinformation , '' said Perez .
`` I 'm not aware of any evidence of specific things or defects in Dominion software that would lead one to believe that votes had been recorded or counted incorrectly . ''
Even Trump 's own administration has flatly debunked these false claims .
`` There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes , changed votes , or was in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement .
Editor 's note : After publication , Turley reached out to AlterNet to dispute the characterization of his claims .
This story has been updated to reflect the fact that he did not specifically allege a `` conspiracy '' when made claims about unintentional election errors .

A legal scholar on Fox News attempted to spew a debunked claim about election errors on Friday, and even the network's conservative anchors had to stop him in his tracks.
On Friday, Jonathan Turley, who famously defended the president during impeachment, appeared on Fox & Friends where he discussed a false theory surrounding the Dominion voting machines. According to Turley, "thousands" of President Donald Trump's votes in Michigan were switched to President-elect Joe Biden in Michigan — another claim the president is pushing to undermine his election defeat to his Democratic opponent.
Turley claimed the software had been used in multiple states including "half of the districts in Michigan" as he suggested that the "vulnerable" software may have impacted the outcome of the election. He made clear he believed mistakes may be the result of "human error."
However, a Fox News co-host pushed back as he noted that he also researched Trump's claim. He explained that the glitch did not impact or compromise the vote count in any way. Like Trump's arguments, Turley's claims were also confirmed to be unfounded.
Turley's Fox appearance comes just one day after Trump tweeted a baseless theory about the Dominion voting software. Trump claimed hundreds of thousands of votes had been stolen from him despite having no evidence to support his assertions.
Almost immediately after the president tweeted about the conspiracy, his allies and supporters followed suit. The New York Times and other fact-checkers quickly released a report striking down the allegations. Election technology expert, Edward Perez, also pushed back against the claims as he condemned the spreading of misinformation.
"Many of the claims being asserted about Dominion and questionable voting technology is misinformation at best and, in many cases, they're outright disinformation," said Perez. "I'm not aware of any evidence of specific things or defects in Dominion software that would lead one to believe that votes had been recorded or counted incorrectly."
Even Trump's own administration has flatly debunked these false claims.
"There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," officials said in a statement.
Editor's note: After publication, Turley reached out to AlterNet to dispute the characterization of his claims. This story has been updated to reflect the fact that he did not specifically allege a "conspiracy" when made claims about unintentional election errors.


alternet--2020-11-13--'John McCain's revenge': Arizona flips on Trump — and the senator's widow tells the GOP to move on

Some pundits have been describing President-elect Joe Biden 's win in Arizona as `` John McCain 's revenge '' — a reference to the fact that the late Arizona Republican was a blistering critic of President Donald Trump but got along well with Biden when the two of them were serving in the U.S. Senate .
His widow , Cindy McCain , endorsed Biden over Trump in the 2020 presidential election — even though , like her late husband , she is a conservative Republican — and during an appearance on CNN 's `` New Day '' this week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCain would have wanted to see Biden recognized as president-elect .
Camerota noted that even though Biden now has 290 electoral votes , Trump has yet to concede — and that `` scores of Republican leaders are going along with his unreality and claiming that President Trump did not lose . ''
And Camerota asked Cindy McCain what her late husband `` would be saying to them today . ''
Sen. McCain 's widow responded , `` He would be telling these people , 'It is time that we move on , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is time that we support our president-elect . '
And also , ( Sen. McCain would ) encourage the GSA to release the funds so that ( Biden ) can get on with his transition team . ''
Biden , Cindy McCain stressed to Camerota , needs to be talking to `` people who are within the White House right now that work with the pandemic .
That is perhaps our most important issue right now . ''
Camerota told her guest that according to her colleague at CNN , Anderson Cooper , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on '' prominent Republicans who are joining Trump in refusing to accept Biden 's victory .
And when Camerota asked Cindy McCain what that `` would sound like , '' she laughed and responded , `` Well , the going McCain would not be on the voter electorate , but it might be on the some of his folks that he worked with in the Senate .
As you know , John was one that stood for the deep honor and democratic process that this country represents .
And the fact that that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and there are people that might want to undermine the process — would really , in so many words , rile him up .
He would not be happy with that , and yes , he would be going McCain . ''

Some pundits have been describing President-elect Joe Biden's win in Arizona as "John McCain's revenge" — a reference to the fact that the late Arizona Republican was a blistering critic of President Donald Trump but got along well with Biden when the two of them were serving in the U.S. Senate. His widow, Cindy McCain, endorsed Biden over Trump in the 2020 presidential election — even though, like her late husband, she is a conservative Republican — and during an appearance on CNN's "New Day" this week, she told host Alisyn Camerota that Sen. McCain would have wanted to see Biden recognized as president-elect.
Camerota noted that even though Biden now has 290 electoral votes, Trump has yet to concede — and that "scores of Republican leaders are going along with his unreality and claiming that President Trump did not lose." And Camerota asked Cindy McCain what her late husband "would be saying to them today."
Sen. McCain's widow responded, "He would be telling these people, 'It is time that we move on, it is time that we heal, it is time that we support our president-elect.' And also, (Sen. McCain would) encourage the GSA to release the funds so that (Biden) can get on with his transition team."
Biden, Cindy McCain stressed to Camerota, needs to be talking to "people who are within the White House right now that work with the pandemic. That is perhaps our most important issue right now."
Camerota told her guest that according to her colleague at CNN, Anderson Cooper, Sen. McCain would be "going McCain on" prominent Republicans who are joining Trump in refusing to accept Biden's victory. And when Camerota asked Cindy McCain what that "would sound like," she laughed and responded, "Well, the going McCain would not be on the voter electorate, but it might be on the some of his folks that he worked with in the Senate. As you know, John was one that stood for the deep honor and democratic process that this country represents. And the fact that that is not necessarily occurring completely right now — and there are people that might want to undermine the process — would really, in so many words, rile him up. He would not be happy with that, and yes, he would be going McCain."