Lengthy meeting heard grumbles about ‘blue wall’ policies and ‘Ming vase’ tactics but no real rancour

As political showdowns go, this week’s gathering of Liberal Democrat MPs, billed by some as a crunch moment for Ed Davey, was a touch underwhelming. “I had expected a damp squib,” one attender put it. “It was damper than I thought.”

Far from generating a mass of opposition to Davey’s leadership, let alone a formal challenge to his position, the lengthy gathering in a Commons committee room on Tuesday evening brought a few minor grumbles, but little else.

Nearly 3,000 events nationwide urged voters to cast ballots early ahead of November 3 elections that will determine control of Congress.

The No Kings movement held nearly 3,000 rallies and marches across the United States on Saturday, urging voters to cast their ballots early in the November 3 midterm elections, as the Trump administration intensified its efforts to challenge mail-in voting and scrutinize ballots cast by suspected noncitizens.

RELATED: Trump’s Attack on Mail-In Voting Seeks to Create an Advantage for Republicans

The nationwide mobilization, held under the slogan “No Kings: Vote Early,” drew millions of participants, according to USA Today, with events in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The demonstrations came two weeks before elections that will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term.

Organizers said the campaign aimed to turn mass mobilization into electoral participation by encouraging voters to make voting plans, cast their ballots early and help protect every eligible vote. They argued that historically high turnout would make it harder for the Trump administration to challenge the results by alleging fraud.

“Across thousands of events in all 50 states and DC today, we are turning enormous people power into direct voter power,” the No Kings Coalition said in a social media statement. It described the initiative as a nationwide effort to encourage early voting and build a network of Americans prepared to defend eligible ballots.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR (@telesurtv)

Text Reads: Demonstrations in Washington, U.S., under the slogan “No Kings: Vote Early,” seek to channel political protest into electoral participation. They call for placing limits on President Trump and protecting the Constitution ahead of the elections.

The coalition also pointed to the rising cost of groceries, gasoline, electricity and other daily necessities, arguing that decisions made by political leaders directly shape families’ lives and economic prospects. It presented the early-voting campaign as the next step in reclaiming political influence after a year of mass demonstrations.

In Atlanta, city council member Michael Julian Bond urged rally participants to encourage others to vote before Election Day rather than wait until the last minute.

“The Constitution gives you a power. That is the power of the vote,” Bond told the crowd.

In Phoenix, Arizona, Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego linked the campaign to opposition to the Trump administration’s policies, accusing the president and congressional Republicans of worsening economic conditions for ordinary Americans while enriching their allies.

“Today, we voted early to send a message loud and clear: no to separating our families, no to corruption, no to no oligarchs, no to stupid forever wars, and no kings.,” Gallego wrote on X.

Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari, who also attended the Phoenix rally, called the upcoming election “the most important election of our lives.” She cited the administration’s deportation policies, the war in Iran, cuts to health care and food assistance, and widespread corruption allegations as central issues facing voters.

Ansari questioned whether Americans would accept immigration enforcement practices that frighten communities and separate families, policies that leave millions without health care, or what she described as a transfer of wealth from working people to billionaires.

The protests unfolded amid heightened political tensions over Trump’s deployment of military personnel to several cities governed by Democrats. The administration has justified the deployments as a way to combat crime and support immigration enforcement operations.

The demonstrations were backed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, Black Voters Matter Fund, Indivisible, MoveOn, Public Citizen, State Voices and Voto Latino.

The push for early voting also came as the Trump administration pursued legal action against mail-in ballots. Trump has repeatedly attacked mail voting and continued to claim, without evidence, that electoral fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.

On Thursday, the administration sued California election officials, asking a judge to bar the state from counting mail-in ballots in the midterm elections cast by people the federal government considers likely to be noncitizens until their immigration status can be verified.

On Friday, the Justice Department warned local election officials that processing and counting ballots submitted by suspected noncitizens could expose them to criminal investigations and prosecution.

Also on Friday, Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois wrote to Attorney General Todd Blanche, demanding assurances that the Justice Department would not seize ballots or other election materials before the midterm results were certified.

• Meta says its system detected intense bursts of activity by a Claude tool.
• That triggered an automatic shutdown and locked admins out of the account.
• It happened during a day of rallies promoting early voting in the midterms.

Meta said Sunday that its systems suspended the No Kings movement's Instagram account during its day of action because it detected "intense" activity by a Claude tool.

The account was locked and administrators were denied access for "several hours" during nationwide rallies on Saturday to mobilize early voting in the midterms, the group said.

Meta initially said that an automatic trigger was responsible for shutting down the account "in error," but offered a fuller explanation a day later.

"Our engineering team discovered that the spike that triggered the incorrect enforcement was primarily in the account's 'reading' behavior," spokesperson Andy Stone said in an X post.

"Specifically, our network security systems detected the use of a Claude tool reading profiles, posts, and hashtags, the rate of which sharply increased (~4x volume) in intense bursts on October 17. "

Stone said the activity resembled bot traffic, prompting the system to take the account offline.

"An automated re-review of the removal action an hour later recognized that shouldn't have happened and restored the account. It unfortunately took additional time for us to straighten out the situation with admin access to the IG account.

"We want to reiterate our sincere apology for the error," he wrote.

The No Kings network, which bills itself as nonpartisan but arose last year in response to President Donald Trump's actions, said it held nearly 3,000 rallies across the country to encourage voters to cast their ballots early as a hedge against any effort to undermine turnout.

"Restricting communications about voting in the middle of an election is unacceptable," it said.

"Meta must answer for this suspension and take immediate steps to ensure it never happens again — to any account, but especially those working to inform voters and encourage participation in our democracy."

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called for an investigation into the shutdown, saying on Sunday evening that even if it was made in error, the incident was a "total indictment of Meta's outsized influence on our culture and politics."

"If it wasn't malevolence, it was likely a natural consequence of a company that is desperate to get as close to Trump as possible (and thus has a disincentive to do the basic, proactive work to be ready to support users on No Kings Day)," he wrote in a post on X.

The senator, who has advocated for stricter regulation and anti-monopoly laws against Big Tech, said Meta's significant share of the political discourse market comes with a responsibility for it to be ready for "major moments of political action."

October 18, 2026: This story was updated with public comment from Sen. Chris Murphy.

President Donald Trump promised jail for California officials who don’t heed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) warning that they will be criminally charged if they include the mail-in ballots of the some 200,000 people reportedly identified as potential noncitizens in their midterm election tallies.

The post Trump Warns California Election Officials of Jail Time if They Let Noncitizens Vote appeared first on Breitbart.

Justice Department actions against state election laws highlight growing national conflict over voter registration lists and mail-in voting security.

Mail-in voting is an established mechanism in the United States election system. It lets eligible citizens cast their votes by mail instead of going to the polling place on Election Day.

RELATED:
U.S. Justice Department Sues California Over Mail-In Ballots

Over the past decades, state governments have modified vote-by-mail laws to lower administrative costs, increase turnout, and provide alternative access for citizens who face logistical challenges on election days.

In this in-depth article, we will explore the history of mail-in voting, its characteristics, and why the current Trump administration has sought to alter this voting system.

History and the Rationale for Mail-In Voting

Remote voting in the United States dates back to the American Civil War (1861 – 1865). During this war, Union and Confederate soldiers who were away from their districts were permitted to submit written absentee ballots so that deployment would not disenfranchise them.

Throughout the 20th century, the mailing vote expanded beyond military personnel. State governments initially granted absentee ballots to civilians who were ill, physically disabled, or traveling for business on Election Day. Later, lawmakers introduced no-excuse absentee voting, which allowed registered voters to request a mail ballot without providing a specific reason.

In November 1998, Oregon became the first state to conduct all primary elections entirely by mail. By 2000, Oregon conducted the first mail-in presidential election in the U.S., achieving a registered voter participation of over 80 percent. Following Oregon’s model, other states, including Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii, transitioned to universal vote-by-mail systems after 2020.

Several practical factors explain the implementation of mail-in voting. For voters, it eliminates common obstacles associated with in-person voting, such as work, child care responsibilities, and long lines at precinct polling sites.

For the U.S. administration, state-wide vote-by-mail reduces the need for temporary poll workers, lowers equipment purchases for physical polling locations, and decreases operational expenses on election days.

How Mail-In Voting Works and Its Security Record

Mail-in voting operates through structured legal protocols designed to maintain ballot security and track individual submissions. State election offices verify registered voter addresses and signatures, using databases before mailing official ballot materials.

After a voter completes their ballot, they can return it by U.S. Postal Service or place it in a designated local election drop box. Upon receipt, election workers process the ballot through signature verification procedures.

Empirical research shows that voter fraud in mail-in systems is extremely rare. Academic studies and data compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice indicate that the total rate of mail voting fraud over general elections averages 0.000043 percent, or roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast.

U.S. State election officials rely on barcoded envelopes, secure chain-of-custody procedures, and signature checks to prevent duplicate submissions and preserve election integrity.

Institutional Mechanics and the 2020 Pandemic Pivot

Mail-in voting requires precise administrative coordination between state election agencies, postal services, and voters. When the U.S. implements universal mail-in voting or no-excuse absentee voting, election authorities cross-reference voter registration databases to ensure accurate residential addresses.

Once ballots are printed, they are mailed to registered voters with instructions, a secrecy sleeve, and a pre-paid or postage-guaranteed return envelope.

Security throughout this process relies on multi-step verification systems. When a voter completes their ballot, they place it inside the secrecy sleeve, seal it within the signature-required return envelope, and sign a legal affirmation printed on the exterior.

Election offices process these returned envelopes by running them through automated sorting machines and optical scanners that capture the voter’s signature. Bipartisan teams of election workers compare the signature against official registration records, such as state driver’s license files or original voter registration cards.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 triggered a transformation in U.S. elections. To prevent viral transmission at crowded indoor polling places, numerous states rapidly expanded mail-in voting options, allowing millions of citizens to vote remotely.

According to reports from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the voters by mail grew to 46 percent nationwide in 2020, more than doubling the fraction recorded in 2016. Conversely, the share of voters casting ballots in person on Election Day dropped from 60 percent to 28 percent.

Following the pandemic emergency, several states, including California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Vermont, permanently codified universal vote-by-mail systems into law, establishing remote ballot delivery as a permanent fixture of their electoral infrastructure.

Partisan Realignment, Demographic Realities, and the Red Mirage

The widespread adoption of mail-in voting reshaped traditional patterns of voter participation and introduced complex dynamics in how election results are reported. 

Despite assumptions that mail-in voting consistently favors a single political party, demographic and class analyses demonstrate that vote-by-mail systems benefit diverse working-class populations across the political spectrum.

Low-wage workers, hourly wage earners, agricultural laborers, and caretakers often lack the schedule flexibility required to stand in long lines during restricted polling hours.

Universal mail-in voting removes these temporal and economic barriers, facilitating participation for working families in both urban centers and rural conservative districts, such as in Utah and Montana, where mail-in voting has enjoyed long-standing bipartisan acceptance.

The differing timelines required to process mail-in ballots also created a phenomenon known as the “red mirage.” Because mail-in ballots require time-intensive signature verification, flattening, and manual extraction before they can be counted, many states process in-person votes first on election night.

This operational sequence frequently caused early vote counts to show a temporary lead for candidates who performed strongly among in-person voters, while subsequent processing of mail-in ballots altered vote totals over the following days.

This structural delay in reporting complete totals became a central focal point in post-election legal disputes and public debates over election administration.

Donald Trump’s Stance and Legal Action Against California

President Donald Trump has maintained a vocal opposition to mail-in voting. In public addresses, Trump has repeatedly alleged that universal mail-in voting systems lead to widespread election fraud and unfair outcomes.

Despite using absentee mail-in voting himself in past state elections, Trump argued throughout his campaigns and current presidency that expanding mail-in voting undermines public trust in election administration.

The Trump administration has taken direct executive actions aimed at curtailing mail ballot access. Policy changes and administrative decisions have altered operational procedures at the U.S. Postal Service, including adjustments to sorting equipment and delivery guidelines.

The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit targeting California’s election procedures. California established a universal mail-in voting model by enacting legislation requiring county election officials to send a mail ballot to every active registered voter in the state.

The lawsuit by the federal government argued that California’s system creates risks of unlawful voting and challenged state oversight of its official voter registration lists.

Specifically, the federal complaint alleged that California had failed to conduct proper voter roll maintenance, citing federal lists regarding individuals flagged as noncitizens who were sent mail ballots.

The lawsuit sought a court order to block state election officials from counting certain mail-in ballots ahead of the elections. In response, California state officials, including the Attorney General and Secretary of State, defended the legal validity of universal mail-in voting.

State leaders noted that California law relies on signature matching, secure drop-box monitoring, and continuous voter file updates to verify voter identity and maintain system integrity, while arguing that federal interventions violate laws restricting voter roll changes close to an election. Courts continue to review these challenges regarding federal authority over state-administered election laws.

Mail-in voting Also Shapes Results

Mail-in voting remains an essential tool in modern American election administration. From its origins, mail-in voting has provided voters with a flexible, low-cost option to participate in national and local elections.

While the expansion of vote-by-mail systems during the 2020 pandemic increased overall voter turnout, it also intensified political debate over election administration and security measures.

Although empirical data show that voter fraud in mail-in systems remains extremely rare, legal and political challenges, such as federal lawsuits targeting state mail-in procedures, continue to shape the discussion surrounding electoral access.

The ongoing debates over vote-by-mail illustrate a continuing effort to balance security with public access in the U.S. election system. As states enact laws to regulate, expand, or limit mail ballot procedures, the future of mail-in voting will remain a central topic in discussions about democratic participation and legal policy.

This year, Alaska held its primary elections on August 18.

As per a 2020 ballot measure, Alaska primary voters pick among all qualified candidates for a single office, regardless of party affiliation, and the top four then advance to the general election.

In the U.S. Senate primary, Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan won 41 percent of the vote, while former Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, captured nearly 50 percent.

Dan Sullivan was also the distant third-place finisher—but in this case, it was Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher who is also running as a Republican but is not the same person as Daniel S. Sullivan, the junior U.S. senator for the 49th state.

The presence of dual Dan Sullivans is a headache for Republicans, who have fought to keep Daniel J. off the ballot, concerned he would split their votes and cost their candidate his seat.

"Mary Peltola and Chuck Schumer know they can't beat Senator Sullivan on his record, so they're resorting to deceitful political maneuvers that attempt to trick Alaskans and buy a seat," a Republican spokesman told Fox News.

"We are looking into it," President Donald Trump said this week. "It's a disgrace." In fact, NBC News reported in July that the FBI and Department of Justice had launched an investigation "looking for possible wire fraud or a conspiracy to deprive Alaskan voters of a free and fair elections process, which could be a civil rights violation."

In August, the government apparently issued subpoenas, though Daniel J. later said he had not received anything.

But is what he is doing actually illegal? For that matter, should it be?

Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, barred Daniel J. from the ballot in June after concluding that he was running "with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate and compromising the fairness of the ballot."

But a state superior court reversed that decision. "Despite the Division's assertion that Mr. Sullivan may be excluded from the ballot because he lacks 'good-faith,' there is no statute which provides such a criterion," wrote Judge Thomas A. Matthews. "The concept of 'good-faith,' or pure motive, or bona fide intent is simply absent." The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, keeping both Sullivans on the November ballot.

Granted, it seems extremely likely that Republicans are right, and Daniel J. is running specifically to hurt Daniel S.'s prospects.

"Campaign material metadata reveals that Amber Lee, a progressive consultant, authored a press release announcing [Daniel J.'s] Senate bid," WFMD reported in May.

Daniel J. told The New York Times that he was running as a moderate Republican in an attempt to steer the party away from its MAGA wing. But he also admitted that he had voted for the Democrat in the last three presidential races and for Peltola in her races for the U.S. House.

In Beecher's original order keeping Daniel J. off the ballot, she wrote that Daniel J. had asked to be identified as "Dan S. Sullivan" on the ballot, the same name as the senator's. (Alaska reporter Dermot Cole wrote in July that this was not true: Daniel J. wrote "Dan S. Sullivan" in an email to Beecher but followed up hours later to correct it to "Dan J. Sullivan.")

If Daniel J.'s goal truly is to mislead voters, then that is indefensible. But it's not clear that it's illegal, or whether it should be.

"I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care," wrote George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. "Trying to prevent such exploitation through criminal and civil liability is likely to violate the First Amendment. In addition, it would likely end up giving incumbent political leaders broad power to curb speech and control electoral campaigns that they cannot be trusted with."

"This is a case about someone running for office with impure motives who is lucky enough to have a name that could confuse some voters," agreed election law expert Richard Hasen. "I don't see how the government could criminalize his running for office for having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. This stuff happens all the time."

But it's entirely possible that Alaska's ranked choice voting system will solve the problem on Election Day.

After the August open primary, the top four candidates compete on a ranked choice ballot, where voters list the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets an outright majority, then the lowest performer is eliminated, and every ballot that picked them first is retallied and applied to their second choice.

As long as every Alaskan who wants to vote for Dan Sullivan—either one—lists both Dan Sullivans as their first and second choices, then the system will take care of any confusion. In the (highly likely) event that Daniel J. does not capture a majority on the first ballot, his votes will be retallied and applied to their second choices. The only plausible hiccup is if Peltola, the Democratic candidate, wins a majority in the first round—in which case either Sullivan would have lost anyway.

Of course, Republicans have opposed the ranked choice system since Alaska adopted it. Former Gov. Sarah Palin, who ran against Peltola twice unsuccessfully, said ranked choice was "so weird" that "it results in voter suppression."

In a post last week on Truth Social, Trump called ranked choice voting "Corrupt" and said it "shouldn't be allowed in our Country."

"I just left Alaska, where we have a real bad thing," Trump said Wednesday at a campaign rally in Arizona. "They have the ranked choice voting, where you go into I guess some kind of a test tube or something, and they pick whoever the hell they want. That's another disgrace."

As ever, it's not clear what Trump was talking about. And despite Republicans' complaints, ranked choice voting works quite well: According to the American Bar Association, recent research finds that it "is an improvement over plurality voting with clear benefits in terms of representation, campaign quality, mobilization, and turnout." It also "encourages greater consensus building as well as more civil political campaigns," and voters find it easy to understand.

In the event that a political party finds itself, for example, with two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, ranked choice voting is a perfect solution. If only the party weren't so hostile to it.

The post What Happens When 2 Dan Sullivans Run for the Same Senate Seat? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Tories, Reform and Restore can't stand each other, but letting the Left win would be daft, argues Nick Rendell. Could fed-up swing voters force the Right's warring tribes to stop squabbling and get their act together?

The post Party Leaders and Daily Sceptic Readers Hate the Idea – But Will Swing Voters Force the Right to Unite? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Greek Parliament voted for lifting the parliamentary immunity of ruling New Democracy MP and former EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos on Thursday. The voting followed a relevant request by Belgian authorities investigating the so-called Qatargate and have issued an arrest warrant last June. Prior to the voting, 73-year-old Avramopoulos submitted a memorandum where he requested “the Plenary […]

The post Qatargate: Greek Parliament lifts immunity of ND MP & ex EU Commissioner appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

Before a pivotal election that could potentially result in a state government ruled exclusively by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, a case of potential postal vote fraud is raising concerns.

A 74-year-old nephew of a 95-year-old resident with severe dementia has filed a criminal complaint after discovering that postal voting documents were requested and a ballot cast in her name at a Dessau retirement home – despite staff first telling him the papers had been destroyed. The case is now being reported in Welt, one of Germany’s largest newspapers.

The case involves the Marthahaus senior residence and centers on whether postal votes from residents who cannot meaningfully participate are being handled properly. The nephew, who acts as his aunt’s legal representative, said he routinely receives every letter and document sent to her, including advertising. When the postal voting materials for the Saxony-Anhalt state election never arrived, he asked the home’s director where these documents were located.

Last Thursday, the director directed him to a female staff member who was not on duty until the next day. On Friday, that employee stated she had collected the election documents sent to residents “and shredded” them, without consulting relatives or authorized representatives.

That account did not hold up. When the nephew inquired at the municipal election office, officials confirmed that postal voting documents had been requested on Aug. 10 using his aunt’s date of birth and that a vote had already been recorded. Staff showed him the application bearing his aunt’s “scribbled” signature. Data-protection rules prevented them from disclosing which party was marked.

The nephew described the home’s alleged actions as a “scandal.” He and his wife first noticed problems during the February 2025 federal election; during the current state-election campaign they again encountered “inconsistencies” and this time pursued them. The complaint against persons unknown has been obtained by reporters.

The Marthahaus did not answer written questions from the Ostdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and declined to comment when reached by telephone. City officials confirmed they were aware of the incident but provided no further details.

A second, still-unreported case has surfaced in Naumburg, according to German newspaper Junge Freiheit. A woman there said she “did not see any election documents for my mother.”

Her mother is “unable to give her own name.” She asked: “Who will vote for her and according to what criteria?”

The allegations come days before voters in Saxony-Anhalt go to the polls and add to the existing debate over how postal ballots are processed in care facilities, where many residents have limited capacity to express a political preference independently. Investigations will determine whether the documented vote was cast with proper authorization or constituted an unauthorized exercise of another person’s vote.

AfD would ban postal voting

One of the parties most opposed to postal voting is the AfD, which has argued that it is prone to fraud, especially in retirement homes. AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla has previously called for an end to mail-in ballots. He discussed his concerns about this form of voting during a conference with top AfD officials in 2024.

“It is also the task of the opposition to always doubt what a government is doing or what happened in an election. That is also a legitimate right and that is a good thing. And I just really want to point out, and we will also question this, for example, the entire security for the legal storage of ballot boxes, some of which are not stored in a legally secure manner, where in some cases only one person or two have access to these ballot boxes,” he said.

JUST IN: "I would ban postal voting."

Germany's AfD party is calling for an end to mass mail-in ballots for elections.

Party co-leader @Tino_Chrupalla points out suspicious activity in the elections in Saxony and Thuringia in this new @RMXnews video. pic.twitter.com/tKydzaqaVj

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 4, 2024

He went on to say that postal voting has been a concern in other elections and that these issues keep coming up. However, he also pointed to a problem plaguing other countries like the United States, which instituted mass mail-in ballots in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis, which has involved activists entering retirement homes and potentially manipulating vulnerable elderly voters.

In the case of Germany, Chrupalla stated, “We have also seen this in old and other election campaigns, such as the current campaigning in retirement and nursing homes, especially when the CDU and SPD campaign in these old people’s homes, which are run by Diakonie or Caritas, or go in and out there, and the AfD does not even get access to present their programs to the elderly. These are also things of influence that are not democratic in my opinion.”

Notably, both Diakonie and Caritas are run by the Protestant and Catholic churches, both of which have come out against the AfD, including expelling members of the party from the Church and calling for Germans to vote against them.

Chrupalla is calling for an end to postal voting, saying: “Personally, I would ban postal voting again. It has only been introduced as an exception or initiated in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is not the rule, it should not become the rule and it is not regulated by law in such a way that it is made the rule.”

The post Germany: Postal vate fraud suspected in retirement home ahead of pivotal Saxony-Anhalt election appeared first on Remix News.