The current White House administration is awkwardly going out of its way to broadcast the presence of “fair elections” and that the election system just proved that it’s working just fine.  But the stalled, delayed House elections, and possible “ballot dumps,” are setting the stage for the DNC to “count” its way to a House majority.  House of Representative powers include initiating all revenue bills, the authority to impeach federal officers, and even electing a president in the absence of a majority of votes in the Electoral College.

NYU Law and history professor Anna Harvey has written an excellent book: A Mere Machine: The Supreme Court, Congress and American Democracy.  In it, she makes a critical point about how the House controls the purse — it has the checkbook — but there is also a fascinating historical statistical correlation between House control and Supreme Court influence, if not effective political control.

By the Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives makes and passes federal laws.  The role and power of speaker, the expanded authority of sub-committees, and power over appointments and staffing are also critical control points and can make the minority party effectively inert at the House level.  Much DNC mischief and corruption and many radical policy plans can be continued and carried out with House control alone, including its latitude to initiate impeachment or pursue numerous radical plans in election law.  When this is combined with the “RINO” effect, which, although reduced, still exists, an effective political coalition can be formed beyond strict control of seats.

The progressive left, with House control, can advance many parts of its radical agenda, maintain much leverage over spending and law, and otherwise put a wedge or “monkey wrench” in aspects of a new administration.  This is more than a “check and balance” benefit by splitting Congress among parties — the House operates with important authority and discretion as a bicameral body.  

In my view, a possible “cheat” is on to “manage” ballots, their counting, and the reporting of results, while the White House press puts up a false conciliation posture, and a pure marketing act, to create the public impression of uniform fair elections and a peaceful transition. 

This may be a political Trojan horse to create effective government mayhem and frustrate and distract the next four years as best they can.

Matthew G. Andersson is a former CEO and author of the upcoming book “Legally Blind” concerning law and public policy. He has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Washington Post, the National Academy of Sciences, and the 2001 Pulitzer Prize report by the Chicago Tribune, and hosted on ABC, CBS, Bloomberg, the BBC and Public Television. He received the Silver Anvil award from the Public Relations Society of America and has testified to the U.S. Senate, and cited by the UK Parliament on international trade policy.  He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Texas at Austin where he worked with economist and White House national security advisor W.W. Rostow at the LBJ School of Public Affairs.

Image via Picryl.