Why did Glenn call the GOP the amazing tower of Jell-O?

The GOP promised action on 12 issues in the first 12 weeks in Congress. They have acted, unfortunately they’ve acted extremely cowardly so far. From folding on immigration and Obamacare they have completely caved to progressive pressures. The latest failure was backing down on a slam-dunk bill outlawing abortions past the point where the baby can feel pain.

Below is a transcript of this story from radio

GLENN: It looks like the Republicans are abandoning the immigration campaign promises as they have abandoned the abortion promises too. So...

PAT: No. Because we were promised that they were going to hit hard. The 12 items in 12 weeks thing.

GLENN: But they are. They're hitting it hard. And the Keystone oil pipeline hasn't gone through either.

PAT: Except for those three things.

GLENN: But other than that...

PAT: So the first three weeks of the 12 weeks are a total wash. But after that, we'll buckle right down and get these taken care of. So nine items in nine weeks.

GLENN: But don't worry, it's only immigration. So they're folding on the small ones. Abortion, immigration --

PAT: It doesn't get any bigger than those.

GLENN: No.

PAT: It really doesn't.

GLENN: And you could even say, okay, abortion --

PAT: Let's keep killing babies. Let's just keep killing babies at the rate we have been. It's only 45 million now since 1972. Why not do another 45 million?

GLENN: Yeah. So let's just wait the next time.

PAT: Don't even worry about it. Why bother. Then the flood of illegals across the border, I wouldn't worry about that at all.

GLENN: You could say, why? But here's the deal, this is what scared them off of this, the president's approval rating is back to 50 percent.

PAT: Well, in Gallup, but it was 40 percent in some other poll last week.

GLENN: You don't understand, it's 50 percent in Gallup now. So they should panic. They should abandon their principles.

PAT: Because his approval rating is back up.

GLENN: His approval rating is back up. So the people must be with of him. It's insanity.

PAT: He has free health care going. Free Obama phones. Free food to the masses. Doing the free community college. Free child care. He's offering freebies to everybody not paying anything into the system. Of course, 50 percent are with him because 50 percent aren't paying any of the freight. Of course, they're always going to be with him. How is it they can't figure this out? How is it?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know.

PAT: I don't understand it. It's really not rocket science.

GLENN: I was thinking this morning. I was listening to something Rand Paul said. And he was on stage with -- Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were on stage together. They were both talking and they both made a lot of sense. I thought to myself, how is it that Romney and Jeb Bush can get together, and they can -- they can work together to take people out, but we can't get Rand Paul and Ted Cruz together and say, look, you guys -- and maybe Scott Walker. You guys, work together. Bobby Jindal, work together. And take out the -- the progressive Republicans and take out the Jeb Bush and the Mitt Romneys, and then we'll decide between you guys. Why can't you guys all stand together? That's what they're doing. What the hell is wrong with you guys.

[break]

So I get up this morning, and I think to myself, why can't we get -- if we can get Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney to get together and meet and say, hey, I don't know -- you know, why don't we all meet and take out all those nasty Tea Party guys, why can't the Ted Cruz -- and what's his name? Rand Paul. Why can't they get together and maybe even -- I don't know. We need to talk -- let's get Walker on. Let's see if we can get him on.

PAT: I'd like to talk to Scott Walker. He seems great.

GLENN: Yeah, I think I'd like him. I think he's a candidate worth considering. And even Marco Rubio. Even Marco Rubio, why can't these guys get together and say, we're all for small government. So let's go against the progressives. When we get into the debates, all of us, we just focus on the progressive policies of these two.

If they all got together and said, look, we're just going to work together. We're nonprogressives. They're progressives. If you want progressive, then go vote for the Democrat. We don't believe in the progressive principles. So we'll all stand together. And when the debate questions are asked, we won't attack each other. We'll turn our guys to these guys and say, look, a few of us on stage, here's the big choice, America. The first choice you have to make is, are we going to believe in big government has the solution or that government is the problem?

If government is the problem and the people are the solution, then you should consider one of us four. If you believe that the government solves all the problem and needs to babysit everyone, then it should be Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee. You take those guys. We believe in small limited government, and that's the first choice Republicans have to make. Which direction?

I don't know why they can't get together and do that. Because that's exactly what the progressive Republicans are doing. They're getting together and saying, let's take out Rand Paul and let's take out Ted Cruz. What are they thinking?

PAT: Mitt and Jeb already met in Utah. Right?

GLENN: Yeah, it's already happened. And Jeb Bush called the Clintons to say, hey, just want you to know, we're going to be running. They're all on it together.

PAT: The Clintons and the Bushes are incredibly close.

GLENN: What is wrong with our guys?

STU: I guess the argument is they would align themselves and have a situation where all four of them are splitting that vote. And then whoever from the establishment side pokes their head out, and they will work together, then, you know, you will have four Ted Cruz-type guys splitting votes and none of them win. I mean, the only way to work together --

GLENN: Here's what will happen. All the Jeb Bushes and the Mitt Romneys will work together, and they will take them out. They'll target them one after another. So what you do is you target all four of those guys. Target Jeb Bush. Number one target, Jeb Bush. And in the debates, you just target the policies of Jeb Bush. Look, I think it's important -- no matter what they ask you. I think it's important to understand, that Common Core is wrong. And I'm against Common Core and all the guys here are against Common Core. We don't believe that they should at that we should repeal and augment or replace -- we believe we should repeal Obamacare and then let the free market system work it out.

He likes big government health care. And so does Mitt Romney. And when you have people pointing that out, then they'll be forced to make a choice. I don't understand. That's exactly what they'll do. They can say the same thing. Well, one of us is going to lose.

STU: But they did. And they met together.

GLENN: Right. Because they're willing. Because they actually believe in something. They're willing to lose. Mitt Romney has even said this. Jeb, if it's not me, it should be you. Can I get Ted Cruz to say that about Rand Paul and Rand Paul say that about Ted Cruz? Hey, if it's not me, it shouldn't be Ted Cruz. If it's not me, it should be Rand Paul. No. I don't think they will.

GLENN: I don't think they will. And you already have Mitt Romney saying that about Jeb Bush.

STU: He's not outwardly saying that.

GLENN: Yes, he did. He said, if Jeb Bush runs, I don't think I will run because there will at least be someone there that will carry on what I believe needs to be done.

STU: And that was before he decided to run.

GLENN: Right. So now he won't say that. But he was saying that -- but in their meeting, they're bringing this up. Instead, we have all these progressive Republicans playing the game of, oh, we're going to be tough. Boy, are we going to be tough. Give me the 12 in 12. The idea -- and we need to have Chris Stewart on again.

STU: Yeah, he's not available today.

GLENN: Maybe tomorrow?

STU: Either later this week or next week. Do you have an update on that, Jeffy?

JEFFY: I do not.

GLENN: So he'll come on.

PAT: He will.

GLENN: He said, you know, I'll come on once a week and tell you about the 12 in 12. And the idea was, I voted for Boehner and a lot of us did because we have an agreement that Boehner will get really tough on these things. And we'll pass these 12 things in Congress. You'll see, Glenn.

Okay. Good, I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

And I like Chris. And I know Chris. And I disagree with his point of view here, but I know he's trying to do the right thing.

PAT: And if these 12 things worked out, it would be great.

GLENN: It would be great.

PAT: But so far, I haven't seen any of the 12 actually come to fruition.

GLENN: Okay. Well, here's what happened. I got up this morning, and I'm reading the news and I'm looking at how the Republicans seem to be folding on immigration. They just folded on abortion.

PAT: Right. That's two of the things.

GLENN: They're now talking about how Barack Obama's poll numbers are up. And so, well, if his poll numbers are up, we're worried about that, because maybe we should be more like Jeb Bush.

Oh, my gosh. Towers of Jell-O.

PAT: So the Keystone Pipeline was one of the issues.

GLENN: Let's go through the 12. Let's see where everything stands. Who has the list of 12?

PAT: I do.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JEFFY: I do.

PAT: So does Jeffy. Keystone Pipeline. Border security.

STU: Keystone Pipeline is --

GLENN: Was passed in the House. And it is now being dragged down by the Democrats in the Senate. So it's being blocked by the Democrats in the Senate.

PAT: Okay. Border security, which they've apparently folded on already. Right?

GLENN: Yes. What they're doing is, they're saying they're going to do the immigration reform, but not the border security.

PAT: This, to me, if it's not the most important, it's certainly top two.

GLENN: Can I tell you something, you know what pisses me off? Have you guys seen the fence that Saudi Arabia is building?

STU: Yeah, 600 miles.

GLENN: Yeah, of fence.

When Israel builds a fence --

STU: It is hateful.

GLENN: It is hateful, and it's the Holocaust. When Saudi Arabia builds a 600-mile fence, it's not apartheid, no, it's common sense.

STU: It's to keep ISIS out, by the way. Because they're implementing that policy because we couldn't handle ISIS in the country that we were supposed to be handling them in. We've let that happen.

So instead, now, Saudi Arabia has to build a fence, which is the supposed response we were going to have to another problem in America that we couldn't handle and never built the fence. It's just a cacophony of failure.

PAT: So you have Keystone.

GLENN: Keystone is bogged down in the Senate.

PAT: Border.

GLENN: Border looks like they're done -- no, they'll do the immigration reform. They'll make people citizens, but they won't secure the border.

PAT: Yes. That's what will happen.

The REINS Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies who have become the most powerful in Washington --

GLENN: Don't know anything about that.

STU: Very good. It's Mike Lee. Mike Lee priority. It actually would make a huge difference to the country.

PAT: It would be great.

STU: It's not sexy at all. Basically all the regulation that goes in there, Congress would have an opportunity to say, no, not on that part. No.

GLENN: You want to know one of the most non-sexy issues of FDR's reign, was the commerce laws. Nobody paid attention to that. I'm trying to remember. What was the name of that court case that went to the Supreme Court?

STU: Yeah, I know what you're talking about.

GLENN: So, anyway, it was a non-sexy thing. That changed everything in America.

STU: It's the justification of every single government action today.

GLENN: Because they said it's state lines. Crossing state lines. So anything crossing state lines now can be regulated by the federal government. So that one court case changed -- if you just reversed that one thing, it will roll back progressivism 100 years. One hundred years. Make huge difference in everyone's life. Make an impact you would actually feel. When Mike Lee says it's not sexy, the REINS Act, nobody is paying attention to it. Nobody even understands that court case. I can't even remember the name of that court case. Do you have it?

STU: There's been multiple ones. There's the one with the wheat. I'm trying to think of the one that is well-known. I can't find the stupid name of it.

Wickard versus Filburn.

GLENN: And the one with the wheat is really important too. That was the guy he was going to make bread with wheat on his own property, and he wasn't allowed to.

STU: That's Gibbons versus Ogden. Yeah, that was the one where he wanted to make it on his own property. In theory, that would affect the entire wheat market.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So they can regulate what he does on his own property because someone in Idaho might have the price of wheat affected by what he's doing in his backyard.

GLENN: So everything changed. When he says the REINS Act is not sexy. Fine. Little changes like that, that nobody is paying attention to, make all the difference in the world.

STU: This is essentially an anti-Cass Sunstein law. Which would make it so that people like Cass Sunstein, who aren't elected, who go in there and write thousands of pages of regulations after we pass a law --

GLENN: It's the health care bill.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The health care bill, it just said page after page after page, the regulations shall be determined by the Secretary. And so there were no -- there were no -- the law was just empowering people to come up with all the laws.

STU: Yeah, exactly.

GLENN: And that's not the way it's supposed to be. Congress is supposed to pass the laws of the regulations.

STU: Congress can say, wait a minute. We don't agree with that regulation. It's not in the spirit of the law. They can vote on that. There has to be approval on this. It's not sexy at all, but it would be very important.

GLENN: Huge. Any idea where a that stands?

STU: I have not heard a word about it yet.

PAT: I don't think they're doing anything on it.

JEFFY: Not yet.

STU: They have 12 weeks. They could get to some of the stuff before the 12. The progress so far, not so great.

PAT: Tax reform, the only one talking about it, that I've heard, so far is the president.

GLENN: Well, and Ted Cruz. He's talking about repeal the IRS. Shut down the IRS.

PAT: Yeah, but the one who is really driving this bus right now is the president, on raising taxes.

GLENN: Did you guys see the show last night? Did you get a chance to watch the TV show?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Tonight I have him on again. It is -- here's the biggest thing. David Buckner is an adjunct professor at Columbia. He's also a consultant for some of the biggest corporations around the world. He spends time all around the world. Mainly in Europe and in Russia and in China.

And we talked about tax policy and hyperinflation last night. And because he said, two years ago, that the United States government is going to start raising interest rates. And when they start raising interest rates, unless they put us in the poppy field and make us feel like everything is okay, that's when everything starts to fall apart. He explained this last night in a way that I have not understood. He's on again tonight. He'll go into it a little bit more.

The reason why we can't now lower our tax rates, think of this. What's happened to all of the money? The president prints all this money. And who gets all this money? We printed all the money. Who gets the money? Who is he giving the money to?

STU: You mean, like the fed?

GLENN: Yeah, the fed prints all the money, and where does it go?

STU: The banks. So they can have more capital.

GLENN: Correct. So we've all heard. The banks aren't giving out any loans.

STU: They're sitting on it.

GLENN: They're sitting on that money. They're not sitting on that money here. They're investing over in places like Europe because the interest rates are higher over there. Here it's 0 percent. So they're borrowing money. They're lending money overseas because they can make money overseas. If we start to raise our -- our -- or lower our income tax, that means that money is going to start coming back here. If we raise our interest rates, it means, okay, we can invest here, because you'll put the money back on shore, and that money will make money.

If you lower the rates, all that money that's off shore making money someplace else again will come back here. And when you do that, what happens? All of that inflated money comes rushing back into the United States, and now you have hyperinflation. He's like, we're just -- we're just screwed.

STU: Thanks, David.

[laughter]

JEFFY: Not if we make it through the list of 12.

[laughter]

GLENN: Watch last night's episode and watch tonight's episode with David Buckner. Really fascinating conversation. Understood things about the economy I just didn't understand. Really fascinating.

All right. What else is on the 12?

PAT: Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS.

GLENN: Not going to happen.

PAT: Continue to work to repeal Obamacare and have a replacement for it.

GLENN: A replacement!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're already folding on that.

PAT: The Unborn Child Act, which prohibits abortion for those unborn children who actually can feel pain. Twenty weeks and above.

GLENN: And they just folded on that.

STU: They say they'll revisit that one.

PAT: Audit the fed. They haven't done that.

GLENN: No. That's not going to happen.

PAT: Reform the EPA.

And the Antiquities Act, which deals with federal land in the west, and the president's ability to use a law that has nothing to do with that in order to claim that federal land, which I believe is exactly what he's doing with Alaska right now.

STU: So far so good is what you're saying?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: G.O.P. tower of Jell-O!

On Wednesday's TV show, Glenn Beck sat down with radio show host, author, political commentator, and film critic, Michael Medved.

Michael had an interesting prediction for the 2020 election outcome: a brokered convention by the DNC will usher in former First Lady Michelle Obama to run against President Donald Trump.

Watch the video below to hear why he's making this surprising forecast:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

On Thursday's "Glenn Beck Radio Program," BlazeTV's White House correspondent Jon Miller described the current situation in Virginia after Gov. Ralph Northam (D) declared a state of emergency and banned people carrying guns at Capitol Square just days before a pro-Second-Amendment rally scheduled on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Jon told Glenn that Gov. Northam and the Virginia Legislature are "trying to deprive the people of their Second Amendment rights" but the citizens of Virginia are "rising up" to defend their constitutional rights.

"I do think this is the flashpoint," Jon said. "They [Virginia lawmakers] are saying, 'You cannot exercise your rights ... and instead of trying to de-escalate the situation, we are putting pressure. We're trying to escalate it and we're trying to enrage the citizenry even more'."

Glenn noted how Gov. Northam initially blamed the threat of violence from Antifa for his decision to ban weapons but quickly changed his narrative to blame "white supremacists" to vilify the people who are standing up for the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

"What he's doing is, he's making all all the law-abiding citizens of Virginia into white supremacists," Glenn said.

"Sadly, that's exactly right," Jon replied. "And I think he knows exactly what he's doing."

Watch the video to catch more of the conversation below:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Ryan: Trump Louisiana Finale

Photo by Jim Dale

Part One. Part Two. Part Three.

At the end of Trump rallies, I would throw on my Carhartt jacket, sneak out of the press area, then blend in with everyone as they left, filing out through swinging doors.

Often, someone held the door open for me. Just 30 minutes earlier, the same person had most likely had most likely hissed at me for being a journalist. And now they were Sunday smiles and "Oh, yes, thank you, sir" like some redneck concierge.

People flooded out of the arena with the stupidity of a fire drill mishap, desperate to survive.

The air smacked you as soon as you crossed the threshold, back into Louisiana. And the lawn was a wasteland of camping chairs and coolers and shopping bags and to-go containers and soda cans and articles of clothing and even a few tents.

In Monroe, in the dark, the Trump supporters bobbled over mounds of waste like elephants trying to tiptoe. And the trash was as neutral to them as concrete or grass. They plodded over it because it, an object, had somehow gotten in their way.

It did not matter that they were responsible for this wreckage.Out in the sharp-edged moonlight, rally-goers hooted and yapped and boogied and danced, and the bbq food truck was all smoke and paper plates.

They were even more pumped than they had been before the rally, like 6,000 eight year olds who'd been chugging Mountain Dew for hours. Which made Donald Trump the father, the trooper, God of the Underworld, Mr. Elite, Sheriff on high horse, the AR-15 sticker of the family.

Ritualistic mayhem, all at once. And, there in Louisiana, Trump's supporters had gotten a taste of it. They were all so happy. It bordered on rage.

Still, I could not imagine their view of America. Worse, after a day of strange hostilities, I did not care.

My highest priority, my job as a reporter, was to care. To understand them and the world that they inhabit. But I did not give a damn and I never wanted to come back.

Worst of all, I would be back. In less than a week.

Was this how dogs felt on the 4th of July? Hunched in a corner while everyone else gets drunk and launches wailing light into the sky? configurations of blue and red and white.

It was 10:00 p.m. and we'd been traveling since 11:00 a.m., and we still had 5 hours to go and all I wanted was a home, my home, any home, just not here, in the cold sweat of this nowhere. Grey-mangled sky. No evidence of planes or satellites or any proof of modern-day. Just century-old bridges that trains shuffled over one clack at a time.

And casinos, all spangles and neon like the 1960s in Las Vegas. Kitchy and dumb, too tacky for lighthearted gambling. And only in the nicer cities, like Shreveport, which is not nice at all.

And swamp. Black water that rarely shimmered. Inhabited by gadflies and leeches and not one single fish that was pretty.

Full of alligators, and other killing types. The storks gnawing on frogs, the vultures never hungry. The coyotes with nobody to stop them and so much land to themselves. The roaches in the wild, like tiny wildebeests.

Then, the occasional deer carcass on the side of the road, eyes splayed as if distracted, tongue out, relaxed but empty. The diseased willows like skeletons in hairnets. The owls that never quit staring. A million facets of wilderness that would outlive us all.

Because Nature has poise. It thrives and is original.

Because silence is impossible. Even in an anechoic chamber, perfectly soundproofed, you can hear your own heartbeat, steady as a drum. A never-ending war.

I put "Headache" by Grouper on repeat as we glided west. We were deadlocked to asphalt, rubber over tarface.

And I thought about lines from a Rita Dove poem titled "I have been a stranger in a strange land"

He was off cataloging the universe, probably,
pretending he could organize
what was clearly someone else's chaos.

Wasn't that exactly what I was doing? Looking for an impossible answer, examining every single accident, eager for meaning? telling myself, "If it happens and matters the next year, in America, I want to be there, or to know what it means. I owe it to whoever cares to listen."

Humans are collectors and I had gone overboard.

Because maybe this wasn't even my home. These landmarks, what did they mean? Was I obvious here? When I smiled, did I trick them into believing that I felt some vague sense of approval? Or did my expressions betray me?

Out in all that garbage-streaked emptiness — despite the occasional burst of passing halogen — I couldn't tell if everything we encountered was haunted or just old, derelict, broken, useless. One never-ending landfill.

Around those parts, they'd made everything into junk. Homes. Roads. Glass. Nature. Life itself, they made into junk.

I cringed as we passed yet another deer carcass mounded on the side of the road.

As written in Job 35:11,

Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?

Nobody. Look at nature and you feel something powerful. Look at an animal, in all of its untamable majesty, and you capture a deep love, all swept up in the power of creation. But, here, all I saw were poor creatures who people had slammed into and kept driving. Driving to where? For what reason? What exactly was so important that they left a trail of dead animals behind them?

So I crossed myself dolorously and said an "Our Father" and recited a stanza from Charles Bukowski's "The Laughing Heart"

you can't beat death but
you can beat death in life, sometimes.
and the more often you learn to do it,
the more light there will be.

Out here, nothing but darkness. Needing some light, by God. Give me something better than a Moon that hides like an underfed coward.

Jade told me about some of the more traumatic things she'd seen while working at the State Fair.

"Bro, they pull roaches out of the iced lemonade jugs and act like nothing happened."

"All right but what about the corn dogs?"

"You do not want to know, little bro."

She looked around in the quiet. "Back in the day, the Louisiana Congress refused to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21," she said. "They didn't want to lose all that drunk gambler money. So the federal government cut off funding to highways."

We glided through moon-pale landscape for an hour before I realized what she had meant. That there weren't any light poles or billboards along the road. Nothing to guide us or distract us. Just us, alone. And it felt like outer space had collapsed, swallowed us like jellybeans.

Like two teenagers playing a prank on the universe.

In the cozy Subaru Crosstrek, in the old wild night, brimming with the uncertainty of life and the nonchalance of failure, we paraded ourselves back to Dallas. Alive in the river silence that follows us everywhere.

New installments come Mondays and Thursdays. Next, the Iowa caucuses. Check out my Twitter. Email me at kryan@blazemedia.com

The Iowa primary is just around the corner, and concerns of election interference from the last presidential election still loom. Back in 2016, The Associated Press found that a majority of U.S. elections systems still use Windows 7 as an operating system, making them highly susceptible to bugs and errors. And last year, a Mississippi voter tried multiple times to vote for the candidate of his choice, but the system continuously switched his vote to the other candidate. It's pretty clear: America's voting systems desperately need an update.

That's where blockchain voting comes in.

Blockchain voting is a record-keeping system that's 100% verifiable and nearly impossible to hack. Blockchain, the newest innovation in cybersecurity, is set to grow into a $20 billion industry by 2025. Its genius is in its decentralized nature, distributing information throughout a network of computers, requiring would-be hackers to infiltrate a much larger system. Infiltrating multiple access points spread across many computers requires a significant amount of computing power, which often costs more than hackers expect to get in return.

Blockchain voting wouldn't allow for many weak spots. For instance, Voatz, arguably the leading mobile voting platform, requires a person to take a picture of their government-issued ID and a picture of themselves before voting (a feature, of course, not present in vote-by-mail, where the only form of identity verification is a handwritten signature, which is easily forgeable). Voters select their choices and hit submit. They then receive an immediate receipt of their choices via email, another security feature not present in vote-by-mail, or even in-person voting. And because the system operates on blockchain technology, it's nearly impossible to tamper with.

Votes are then tabulated, and the election results are published, providing a paper trail, which is a top priority for elections security experts.

The benefits of blockchain voting can't be dismissed. Folks can cast their vote from the comfort of their homes, offices, etc., vastly increasing the number of people who can participate in the electoral process. Two to three-hour lines at polling places, which often deter voters, would become significantly diminished.

Even outside of the voting increase, the upsides are manifold. Thanks to the photo identification requirements, voter fraud—whether real or merely suspected—would be eliminated. The environment would win, too, since we'd no longer be wasting paper on mail-in ballots. Moreover, the financial burden on election offices would be alleviated, because there's decreased staff time spent on the election, saving the taxpayer money.

From Oregon to West Virginia, elections offices have already implemented blockchain voting, and the results have been highly positive. For example, the city of Denver utilized mobile voting for overseas voters in their 2019 municipal elections. The system was secure and free of technical errors, and participants reported that it was very user-friendly. Utah County used the same system for their 2019 primary and general elections. An independent audit revealed that every vote that was cast on the app was counted and counted correctly. These successful test cases are laying the groundwork for even larger expansions of the program in 2020.

With this vital switch, our elections become significantly more secure, accurate, and efficient. But right now, our election infrastructure is a sitting duck for manipulation. Our current lack of election integrity undermines the results of both local and national elections, fans the flames of partisanship, and zaps voter confidence in the democratic system. While there's never a silver bullet or quick fix to those kinds of things, blockchain voting would push us much closer to a solution than anything else.

Chris Harelson is the Executive Director at Prosperity Council and a Young Voices contributor.