Blab Politics
Potemkin Ballot: Historical Roots of Election Manipulation in Western Democracies
A recent opinion piece on ZeroHedge titled "The Potemkin Ballot" argues that the appearance of free elections in many Western democracies masks a long history of controlled outcomes. The article traces a line of examples—from Renaissance Florence to modern U.S. politics—to illustrate how powerful interests have used electoral systems to maintain dominance.
The piece begins by describing Florence in the 15th century. According to the article, the city’s government operated under a lottery system: when a public office opened, names were drawn from bags, and terms were limited to two months to prevent entrenched power. However, the author notes that the Medici family, then the most powerful banking house in Europe, had a hand in selecting the candidate pool. By controlling which citizens were eligible for the lottery, the Medici could influence the outcome without overtly winning elections.
The article next turns to the United States, citing the Tammany Hall political machine in New York City. It describes how, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, Tammany Hall’s leaders—most famously William “Boss” Tweed—used patronage and control of city jobs to shape elections. The machine’s influence persisted long after Tweed’s downfall, according to the piece, because the system of candidate selection and voter mobilization remained under the control of a small group.
Chicago’s political history is presented as a similar case study. The ZeroHedge article recounts how Mike McDonald’s machine in the late 1800s, and later the Daley family, financed businesses and controlled contracts. It claims that the machine’s leaders, including Irish mobsters Michael “Hinky Dink” Kenna and John Coughlin, used their influence over the police and mayoral appointments to protect their interests.
The author also references the Rothschild banking family, noting that Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s sons were placed in European financial centers in the late 18th century. The article states that the family’s financing of governments and infrastructure projects gave them leverage over political decisions, including the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
In the United States, the piece discusses the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. It explains that the Court held that corporate and union spending on independent political advertisements is protected speech, thereby allowing large donors to spend unlimited sums. The article claims that this ruling led to a surge in Super PACs and other political spending vehicles that can influence elections.
The author then turns to mail‑in voting, citing the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The article alleges that the influx of mail‑in ballots, particularly in swing districts, created opportunities for fraud. It references the 24,000 votes that appeared in the Los Angeles mayoral primary as an example of alleged irregularities. The piece argues that such incidents feed public doubt about the integrity of elections.
The article concludes by suggesting that election fraud is a recurring theme in American history. It cites the 1982 Illinois election fraud cases, the Greylord investigations, and the 2020 election disputes as evidence that fraud has been prosecuted but not always effectively deterred. The author warns that the combination of powerful donors, unchecked political machines, and a lack of robust oversight creates a fertile environment for manipulation.
While the ZeroHedge piece presents these historical and contemporary examples as evidence of systemic manipulation, it does not provide independent verification of the specific fraud allegations it cites. The article’s claims about mail‑in ballot irregularities and the influence of the Rothschild family, for instance, are presented as assertions rather than proven facts.
The discussion raises questions about the extent to which modern electoral systems remain vulnerable to manipulation. It also highlights the need for transparent candidate selection processes, robust voter registration checks, and independent oversight to preserve the integrity of democratic elections.
The piece begins by describing Florence in the 15th century. According to the article, the city’s government operated under a lottery system: when a public office opened, names were drawn from bags, and terms were limited to two months to prevent entrenched power. However, the author notes that the Medici family, then the most powerful banking house in Europe, had a hand in selecting the candidate pool. By controlling which citizens were eligible for the lottery, the Medici could influence the outcome without overtly winning elections.
The article next turns to the United States, citing the Tammany Hall political machine in New York City. It describes how, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, Tammany Hall’s leaders—most famously William “Boss” Tweed—used patronage and control of city jobs to shape elections. The machine’s influence persisted long after Tweed’s downfall, according to the piece, because the system of candidate selection and voter mobilization remained under the control of a small group.
Chicago’s political history is presented as a similar case study. The ZeroHedge article recounts how Mike McDonald’s machine in the late 1800s, and later the Daley family, financed businesses and controlled contracts. It claims that the machine’s leaders, including Irish mobsters Michael “Hinky Dink” Kenna and John Coughlin, used their influence over the police and mayoral appointments to protect their interests.
The author also references the Rothschild banking family, noting that Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s sons were placed in European financial centers in the late 18th century. The article states that the family’s financing of governments and infrastructure projects gave them leverage over political decisions, including the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
In the United States, the piece discusses the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. It explains that the Court held that corporate and union spending on independent political advertisements is protected speech, thereby allowing large donors to spend unlimited sums. The article claims that this ruling led to a surge in Super PACs and other political spending vehicles that can influence elections.
The author then turns to mail‑in voting, citing the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The article alleges that the influx of mail‑in ballots, particularly in swing districts, created opportunities for fraud. It references the 24,000 votes that appeared in the Los Angeles mayoral primary as an example of alleged irregularities. The piece argues that such incidents feed public doubt about the integrity of elections.
The article concludes by suggesting that election fraud is a recurring theme in American history. It cites the 1982 Illinois election fraud cases, the Greylord investigations, and the 2020 election disputes as evidence that fraud has been prosecuted but not always effectively deterred. The author warns that the combination of powerful donors, unchecked political machines, and a lack of robust oversight creates a fertile environment for manipulation.
While the ZeroHedge piece presents these historical and contemporary examples as evidence of systemic manipulation, it does not provide independent verification of the specific fraud allegations it cites. The article’s claims about mail‑in ballot irregularities and the influence of the Rothschild family, for instance, are presented as assertions rather than proven facts.
The discussion raises questions about the extent to which modern electoral systems remain vulnerable to manipulation. It also highlights the need for transparent candidate selection processes, robust voter registration checks, and independent oversight to preserve the integrity of democratic elections.
