We must have remote voting


On the same April day that New York City saw more than 800 deaths in one day, Wisconsin voters had to go to the polls for the Democratic primary. Of course, thanks to the pandemic, Wisconsin's voter turnout rate for this election was far lower than the 2016 presidential primary, which saw a nearly 50% turnout rate. Yet, the worst problems weren't the lower turnout rate and the absentee voting rife with issues. The worst part of it was that Wisconsinites had to risk their health and safety to practice their rights as citizens.

Soon enough, every other state will have to go to the polls, and we have no real understanding of when the virus will ebb. It's time, then, that we incorporate remote electronic voting options into our electoral process.

After all, the one remote option we currently have, absentee voting, clearly isn't equipped to carry out an error-free election. This year's presidential primary left Wisconsin with an immense number of absentee votes, nearly 1.1 million, which accounted for nearly 80% of the total vote share—and the system floundered. There have been numerous reports about voters not receiving their ballots in time to vote, if at all. Moreover, there were issues regarding the postmarking of ballots such that they might not be counted. Investigations are already underway surrounding these issues.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? We should be striving for a system that allows easy access to voting so that an investigation into the integrity of an election isn't required in the first place.

Electronic remote voting, secured by blockchain technology, could very well be the key. A blockchain ledger is similar to a database that keeps track of various types of transactions. These transactions, however, are not controlled by a central computer or company, but are "dispersed across multiple computers, which can be located all over the world and run by anyone with an Internet connection." What's more, these are permanent data—once a transaction like a vote is recorded, it can't be removed or edited.

This tech has already been tested and has been proven to be secure.

This tech has already been tested and has been proven to be secure.

The trick would be to ensure each voter only votes once by way of attaching a unique voter ID into the ledger. Of course, this would require some sort of nationwide or state-by-state voter identification practice, but the upside is tremendous.

For starters, it would address standing issues of voter accessibility—anyone who is eligible with an internet connection could vote. And this type of secure, remote electronic voting would likely prevent various types of voter fraud, and is pandemic-proof.

Remote electronic voting using blockchain technology would completely disallow for cases of fraudulent voting that include identities found in obituaries, and would likely prevent ballot harvesting, as the vote depends on one's unique, individual voter ID number.

The use of a unique voter ID number, along with biometrics or other government-issued IDs ensures the votes are tied to active, eligible individuals. Moreover, voters would be able to audit their ballots to ensure the proper tallying of vote totals. In West Virginia (as well as Utah and Denver), officials launched a pilot mobile voting program that used QR codes for such self-checking.

COVID-19 will certainly affect life for quite a while, and remote electronic voting would allow us to prevent the need to wait in line with thousands of people (among a shortage of poll workers) for the upcoming primaries and general election. Too, voting would become a lot more convenient. No longer would your ability to vote depend or be upended by fewer and inaccessible polling locations, or the ability to get time off from work. Instead, it'd be a mere test of one's ability to access to the internet, which could be facilitated to local public libraries, coffee shops, or any local business with a WiFi service (which might not be a bad way to attract customers, as an aside).

We are living in a technological age. Let's start voting like it.

Anthony DiMauro is a Young Voices contributor. His work has appeared in Real Clear, The National Interest, Areo Magazine, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @AnthonyMDiMauro.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld joined Glenn on "The Glenn Beck Podcast" this week to talk about his new book, "The Plus: Self-Help for People Who Hate Self-Help."

Greg admits he is probably the last person who should write a self-help book. Nevertheless, he offers his offbeat advice on how to save America during what has become one of the most tumultuous times in history, as well as drinking while tweeting (spoiler: don't do it).

He also shares his "evolution" on President Donald Trump, his prediction for the election, and what it means to be an agnostic-atheist.

In this clip, Greg shares what he calls his "first great epiphany" on how dangerous cancel culture has become.

"I believe that cancel culture is the first successful work-around of the First Amendment," he said. "Because freedom of speech doesn't protect me from my career being ruined, my livelihood being destroyed, or me getting so depressed I commit suicide. Cancel culture is the first successful work-around of freedom of speech. It can oppress your speech with the scepter of destruction. We don't have freedom of speech anymore."

Watch the video clip below or find the full Glenn Beck Podcast with Greg Gutfeld here.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Use code UNMASKED to save $20 on one year of BlazeTV.

Dr. Simone Gold joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to set the record straight about hydroxychloroquine -- what it is, how it works, and the real reason for all the current controversy surrounding a centuries-old medication.

Dr. Gold is a board certified emergency physician. She graduated from Chicago Medical School before attending Stanford University Law School. She completed her residency in emergency medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York, and worked in Washington D.C. for the Surgeon General, as well for the chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. She works as an emergency physician on the front lines, whether or not there is a pandemic, and her clinical work serves all Americans from urban inner city to suburban and the Native American population. Her legal practice focuses on policy issues relating to law and medicine.

She is also the founder of America's frontline doctors, a group of doctors who have been under attack this week for speaking out about hydroxychloroquine during a news conference held outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

On the program, Dr. Gold emphasized that the controversy over hydroxychloroquine is a "complete myth."

"Hydroxychloroquine is an analogue or a derivative of quinine, which is found in tree bark. It's the most noncontroversial of medications that there is," she explained.

"It's been around for centuries and it's been FDA-approved in the modern version, called hydroxychloroquine, for 65 years. In all of that time, [doctors] used it for breast-feeding women, pregnant women, elderly, children, and immune compromised. The typical use is for years or even decades because we give it mostly to RA, rheumatoid arthritis patients and lupus patients who need to be on it, essentially, all of their life. So, we have extensive experience with it ... it's one of the most commonly used medications throughout the world."

Dr. Gold told Glenn she was surprised when the media suddenly "vomited all over hydroxychloroquine", but initially chalked it up to the left's predictable hatred for anything President Donald Trump endorses. However, when the media gave the drug Remdesivir glowing reviews, despite disappointing clinical trial results, she decided to do some research.

"[Remdesivir] certainly wasn't a fabulous drug, but the media coverage was all about how fabulous it was. At that moment, I thought that was really weird. Because it's one thing to hate hydroxychloroquine because the president [endorsed] it. But it's another thing to give a free pass to another medicine that doesn't seem that great. I thought that was really weird, so I started looking into it. And let me tell you, what I discovered was absolutely shocking," she said.

Watch the video below for more details:

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.

According to the mainstream media's COVID-19 narrative, the president is "ignoring" the crisis.

On tonight's "Glenn TV" special, Glenn Beck exposes the media's last four months of political theater that has helped shape America's confusion and fear over coronavirus. And now, with a new school year looming on the horizon, the ongoing hysteria has enormous ramifications for our children, but the media is working overtime to paint the Trump administration as anti-science Neanderthals who want to send children and teachers off to die by reopening schools.

Glenn fights back with the facts and interviews the medical doctor Big Tech fears the most. Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America's Frontline Doctors, stands up to the media's smear campaign and explains why she could no longer stay silent in her fight against coronavirus fear.

Watch a preview below:

In order to watch tonight's episode, you must be a BlazeTV subscriber. Join today to get a 30-day free trial, and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code UNMASKED.

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.

It's high time to leave the partisan politics behind and focus on the facts about face masks and whether or not they really work against COVID-19.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn Beck spoke with Drs. Scott Jensen and George Rutherford about the scientific evidence that proves or disproves the effectiveness of mask wearing to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Then, Dr. Karyln Borysenko joined to break down where the massive political divide over masks came from in the first place.

"I think if we were to talk about this a couple months ago, I might have said, 'Well, there's the science of masks, and there's the emotions of masks.' But, unfortunately, there's something in between," Jensen said. "I would have thought that the science of masks would have to do with the physics of masks, so I did a video a couple months ago where I talked about the pore side of a cotton mask or a surgical mask."

He explained that properly worn masks can help reduce the spread of virus particles, but cautioned against a false-sense of security when wearing a mask because they are far from providing complete protection.

"If you have a triple-ply mask, the pore size will end up being effectively five microns. And five microns, to a COVID-19 virus particle, is 50 times larger. That's approximately the same differential between the two-inch separation between the wires of a chain-link fence, and a gnat," Jensen explained.

"But now what we're seeing is if we have some collision of COVID-19 viral particles with the latticework of any mask ... if you're breathing out or breathing in and the viral particles collide with the actual latticework of a mask, I think intuitively, yes, we can reduce the amount of virus particles that are going back and forth."

Dr. Rutherford said masks are essential tools for fighting COVID-19, as long as you wear them correctly. He laid out the three main reasons he believes we should all be wearing masks.

"So, we're trying to do three things," he said. "First of all, we're trying to protect the people around you, in case you are one of the 60% of people who have asymptomatic infection and don't know it. The second thing we're trying to do is to protect you. The third thing we're trying to do is, if you get infected, you'll get infected at a lower dose, and then you're less likely to develop symptoms. That's the threefer."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.