Author Archives: Christine Niver

What Unites Us and What Divides Us

1 Reply

In Honor of Flag Day, Sunday, June 14, 2026

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog , June 12, 2026.
Created September 16, 2022

The 30 by 34 foot Star Spangled Banner Flag that inspired the lyrics below when it flew above Fort McHenry in the 1814 Battle of Baltimore. It is on permanent display in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.

Please allow me, courtesy of Wikipedia, to begin with all of the stanzas of Francis Scott Key’s Star-Spangled Banner, including the fifth stanza added by Oliver Wendell Holmes Senior in 1861. For I believe that these lines most truly express what unites US:

“O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation.
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

When our land is illumined with Liberty’s smile,
If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory,
Down, down with the traitor that dares to defile
The flag of her stars and the page of her story!
By the millions unchained, who our birthright have gained,
We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained!
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
While the land of the free is the home of the brave.”

Would you be surprised if any American would object to anything said in the Star Spangled Banner? The song has conveyed our bravery, our love for liberty, and that we acknowledge our protection by God. Well, yes, that last part about God, at least three out of ten Americans today would say “Whoa!” to that one. In fact each of the two political parties in the US are led by people who claim that God is on their side, and they’re nowadays likely to claim that the opposition is not aligned with the Almighty. So far, then, we are divided by our disagreement as to whether God is on the side of Republicans or Democrats.

How silly. Any Being worthy of being called God would not choose sides among Her children. And if my Theory of the Conscious Universe happens to be right, we are made out of Her, and represent Her, with what we think of as our self actually being The One Self, combining all opposites, all deviations, all avatars, all of us.

But from the standpoint of this article, so far, we have identified one factor (God) which has been used divisively lately. Let’s continue the analysis.

Freedom, Liberty, Individual Agency without unnatural restrictions. We all want that, right? I don’t hear any objections. Freedom is something we all want.

Willingness to fight and die for what we believe in. Troublemaking as it is, yes, it is in the core of our being, here on the continent that revolted from the old ways. We have always been fighters. Balancing that with also being better diplomats – in the class with Franklin and Jefferson – might be a good thing.

In the era of Locke and Montesquieu, imagining what the optimal organization of government might be, Jefferson and other Founding Fathers became impressed by the way the Native Americans governed themselves via a “stacked-government” model, giving tribes autonomy yet coming together as a federation of tribes for accomplishing larger missions, such as increasing sediment yields to the Delaware River basin. This idea became known as federalism. We still practice it today. We fought a Civil War over it, and that system’s inability to agree on a slavery policy. States’ Rights are a second factor dividing us. Or is it?

There is no question as to the power of the States today. It is an established fact. So long as there is true unrigged, unobstructed, unweighted voting by all, if someone does not like what the voters decided, they can move to another State. Although there is talk of changing the Constitution, States’ Rights are in no visible danger, so far as I can see. If it’s a factor that seems to be dividing us, we ought to agree publicly that we are not actually divided on that one point. What we may actually be disagreeing about are the ways in which free voting needs to be protected for the benefit of all citizens.

And we might also benefit from similarly scrutinizing what else appears to be dividing us, because in many cases we shall emerge from the process with a more specific set of disagreements, smaller and more controllable than the general animosity would suggest. If we can speak civilly to one another about such matters again I predict we will find that there is much less disagreement on specifics, and once we do that, our minds can creatively collaborate to find a synthesis in those areas of true dispute. We owe it to ourselves to attempt this and to doggedly pursue the process, point by point, until at least the hypnotized part of the divisiveness goes away.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior, son of the poet and physician of the same name who added the final stanza to the National Anthem, the son being the most famous of the Supreme Court Justices, and an intellectual thought leader who, a Republican, influenced progressives such as FDR. His 1881 Common Law is the history and logic of how the law evolved. According to History.com:

“He emphasized both that the ‘life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience’ and that the law develops according to the ‘felt necessities of the time’ rather than according to any set of deductive premises.”

Thus doth the Law rest upon “the felt necessities of the time”.

That would be worrisome if our necessities are always changing. But they are always the same, or they wouldn’t be necessities in the first place. We shall always want our freedom, and most of us would want our equality. But there that equality thing – that’s a third divisive item (after God and States’ Rights). Or is it?

It’s possible to think “I myself must be treated like an equal by everyone” and at the same time say “but I work hard for my money, and I don’t want one of my equals to be a person who gets a handout out of the money I pay for taxes”.

Transfer payments are definitely a divisive factor. I first wrote about that in my 20s, suggesting that we invest in developing people with our transfer payments, with an eye toward gradually reducing the need for transfer payments.

If not the best answer, at least it suggests that we might get creative.

Those divisiveness factors we’re reviewing – God, liberty, equality, free speech (the latter item covered below) – are not meant to be an exhaustive list, so please think further and identify other causes of division.

Please do use this method of speaking civilly and peeling the onion to find where true disagreement lies (if it is there at all) and to try for solution directions to take together.

So far, the list has been pretty rational and cognitive. How about that larger part of ourselves? The subconscious, emotional, non-rational part that makes 95% of our decisions, according to Harvard don Gerald Zaltman?

The possibly biggest divisiveness factor is not a rational thing. It’s more of an animal-instinctive feeling: “These people are not for me at all.” Right now, that’s how we are sorting ourselves into these two groups (Red and Blue), while the rest of us are trying to bring us all back to the table as citizens of the USA.

Metacognition, which humans apparently do better than the other species, although the jury’s still out, is the art and science of watching what is going on in your own mind and inner theatre of feelings, and understanding the why of it. Here’s how metacognition applies to this situation.

We can actually turn the tide on this divisiveness thing by catching and neutering that automatic response of being repelled by a perceived “Other” group. Hold that automatic response with your will and your mind, like a dangerous squirming toad, and inspect it. What did it feel like? Who did it remind you of? When in life did you start to feel that way?

Don’t accept the feeling of being repelled by a person. It’s more of an alarm signal about you than about that other person. Meditate on what it is in you. In less than a week, you shall definitely have a deep intuition about it.

Who said, “I do not like that man. I must get to know him better.”

It was Abraham Lincoln.

We are all in this together and are collectively losing the game. This shocks game theorists. Why would there be just losers? How could that even be?

The weaponry stacked around is certainly enough to make this a dead planet.

Wasn’t WWII bad enough?

We have to accept each other.

We need to be able to cooperate or none of us may survive.

Give up the “bad guy” idea. (Don’t stop incarcerating criminals convicted by due process of law, whether seditionists, murderers, rapists, or whatever. No one should be exempt from such accountability to justice. It’s more useful to think of them as being psychologically diseased/unbalanced than as “bad guys”. The “bad guys” construct triggers autonomic emotional reactions that are pragmatically obstructive to solution finding. We can think more effectively and creatively without that construct.)

Then we can easily talk the rest of this out so that each tribe can be satisfied. But not if we can’t talk to each other without negative emotion flaring up. Master your selves. Talk civilly and respectfully to all.

Free Speech, the Right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, became a divisive factor when the enormous megaphone called the Internet happened.

We felt that we were given license to say anything we pleased, true or false, whether it would hurt someone else’s feelings or not. Not all of us activated that. But many tens of millions got into it as if they had been holding it in since kindergarten. And they are now a bit stuck in it. If they try to back out of it too gracelessly they will be attacked from all sides.

The people are still walking around in rage. Stop avoiding them. They need help. Have infinite patience. They will be blessed by it. You will be blessed by it. Use this post as a study guide to prepare for such meetings with your own ideas about what are the divisive factors and how can we peel each one away like an onion so that we can see reality together, agree on what we see at that moment, or do further research on any areas in which we cannot agree. But always civilly in recognition of the seriousness of the situation in which we had all better be on one side, the side of the human race, or we are quite literally doomed.

Love to all,
Bill

 

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On LinkedinVisit Us On Youtube

Release Your Self From the Hypnotic Power of Words

Leave a reply

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Created June 5, 2026

Listen Watch Speak Obey Reaction Control

Some of you have read my book Mind Magic. The Seventh Edition is soon to be released, and it will contain Mind Experiments at the end of each chapter, games you can play with your mind that will have positive effects on your effectiveness in navigating through life. To give you a feel for the way the text of Mind Magic and the Mind Experiments will work together, in most of our posts starting here, we will serialize the beginning of the new edition. Hope you enjoy it!
All my best, Bill 

The Human Heritage: Word Pollution

Because words are so powerful, we tend to believe them rather than assimilate our own experiences.

Word intoxication: All words hypnotize to some ex­tent.

Where did words come from? From the depths of our soul. They were discovered inside us, not invented.

The evidence of similar-root-noises-for-similar-concepts across separated peoples, attests to this. We all discov­ered something like the noise mama for mother. Even apes apparently make similar sounds for the same concepts as we.

It is as if we were all discovering the same master lan­guage, distorted into various different directions by the effects of different genetic/environmental conditions.

Words just became important recently.

We came down out of trees over 1,000,000 generations ago. (1)

  • “Generation” = 20 years

For 999,750 of these, humans used or heard only a few words each day. Over just the last 250 generations, this has increased to tens of thousands of words going through the average human head each day.

Words have tremendous programming power.

Words are not arbitrary sounds we can choose to ignore. They are tailored by physical (pre-human interference) nature to fit our sensori-cognitive biochemistry.

Like a key in a lock: words were discovered from inside of us. They can be used by a talking head to a separate listen­ing or reading head, and when they are so used, they tend to exert a behavior-impacting influence on the listening/reading head.

When the ancients talked about spellcasting, it wasn’t just their superstitious ignorance at work. They were recogniz­ing the hypnotic power of communication, lifted to a new level by the use of words.

How do words compound the power of communica­tion?

By making it far easier for conceptualization to occur. Conceptualization is the structuring of individual percep­tion-items (percepts) stored in memory, into association-clusters with specific “relationship bonds” between per­cepts associated. Like making a tinker toy.

Your concept of freedom, for example, is a tinker toy of all of the specific words, pictures, and feelings you have stored inside, associated with the retrieval-keyword “freedom”. Until words were popularized, people tended not to build such elaborate tinkertoys in their minds. Associations among percepts tended to cluster into “attraction” and “repulsion”, without many finer breakdowns. This meant that we tended, when we wanted an effect, to repeat all of the “causes” which we associated with that effect.

This is undoubtedly how the program of throwing salt over the shoulder, the program of blessing people for sneezing, and all other “magical” programs first arose: they had happened in the “first instance” and were there­after regarded as causally essential.

Our magical phase preceded words and was pushed out by words. Words gave us the power to more easily separate things into parts. We didn’t have to conceptualize only with wholes anymore. We could put a word-label on a part of an event, to more easily trace whether or not that part always went along with the event or not.

Words appear to have kicked off a phase of developing the left lobe of the cortex, which handles data sequentially–analytically rather than holistically. When we were con­centrating on our right cortex, we were able to achieve certain effects of persuasion, “getting our way”, etc. we didn’t understand at all—but we knew they worked and we used them.

Childhood is a time through which each of us has the opportunity to re-experience the whole evolution of the race, firsthand, in microcosm. As children, we do have “magical” means of getting our way through gestures and moods that somehow work.

So, the race has always wielded a lot of right-brain power it never understood. Then it took up words, wielding vast

left-brain power, which the race also used with only faint understanding.

As words can hypnotize,

they can also dehypnotize.

Out with the bad air,

in with the good air.

Mind Experiment

  1. World without words

Imagine that words had never been invented. Catch your tongue in your mouth. Use your eyes. Breathe.

Words cannot come into your head. Those that others speak are meaningless and are whisked away before they reach your ears.

At some point, you will remember having read the above description, and although you will not remember the words, the state they describe will come over you: your mind will, for a moment, give up its attachment to words.

You will look around you and see in a new way.

Your mind will look at issues and see deeply into them—without words. In this state, remember to look at the important issues.

Whenever you are confused by a situation, go into this “world without words” state and let the situation sink in.

Love to all,
Bill

Misrepresentation of God May Be the Greatest Sin

Leave a reply

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Created May 29, 2026

My interpretation of heaven and hell is more of a gradient than a black-and-white situation.

I’m pretty sure that none of my readers fit in the category of needing to read this column. What I’m hoping for is that you all realize what I’m trying to do and agree with the notion that if everyone who sees this column posts a link to it on social media, we could make a positive difference. It will, through going viral on social media, penetrate all the news bubbles and some of the minds that DO need to see this and to correct the error of their ways.

Today, there are most noticeably tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people who call themselves Christians and yet propagate hate, who call themselves Muslims and do the same thing, and who call themselves Jews or Hindus or many other denominations and yet mirror these unkind behaviors.

This misrepresents what their own religions preach.

In my Theory of Everything, this is going to result in their being “left back” when the rest of their class graduates. What I mean by that is that when they reincarnate, it will be into a remedial classroom situation, as compared to the relatively balanced classroom situation we have here on Earth. Others of us who practice kindness and behaviorally (not just verbally and performatively) seek the good will graduate into a higher classroom, even more like “heaven” than this one.

This is my interpretation of heaven and hell. It is more of a gradient than a black-and-white situation.

Those who refuse to learn will need to be more strictly guided for their own good, and for the good of the Universe.

“Sin” means “missing the mark” – essentially, it means error.

However, stubbornly proceeding with sinful behavior earns the word “evil” if it goes too far. Extreme error. Requiring extreme remedial lessons. What the individual consciousness might consider to be a hellish situation.

Those are my interpretations of reality and meaning.

What does the Bible say in support of the idea that misrepresentation of God may be the most grievous sin?

While the Bible doesn’t explicitly rank a single action as the “number one worst sin” (outside of the theological discussions surrounding the “unforgivable sin” or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit), a powerful scriptural case can be made that misrepresenting God is treated with a unique level of gravity, wrath, and consequence.

When humans distort who God is, they create a false idol, twist His truth, and actively drive people away from salvation. Here is how the Bible supports the idea that misrepresenting God is uniquely grievous:

Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain (The Third Commandment)

In the modern day, people often think the Third Commandment (“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” — Exodus 20:7) just means using God’s name as a curse word. However, in the ancient Near East, to “take” a name meant to carry it or represent it—much like a wife taking a husband’s last name or an ambassador carrying the name of their king.

To take His name “in vain” means to claim to belong to Him or speak for Him, but to do so in a way that is false, empty, or malicious. God explicitly adds a terrifying caveat to this commandment: “for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

God’s Wrath Against Misrepresentation (The Story of Job)

Throughout the Book of Job, Job’s friends spin complex theological arguments to explain Job’s suffering. They confidently claim that God is punishing Job for some secret sin, framing God as a cosmic vending machine of strict, mechanical retribution. They thought they were defending God, but they were actually misrepresenting His justice and counsel.

When God finally speaks at the end of the book, He doesn’t vent His anger at Job’s messy, raw venting. Instead, He turns on the religious friends:

“My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.” (Job 42:7)

God required a blood sacrifice and the prayers of Job just to turn His burning anger away from them.

The Severe Penalty for False Prophets

In the Old Testament, sins like theft or property damage required restitution. But misrepresenting God by claiming to speak for Him when He hadn’t spoken carried the ultimate penalty:

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name that I have not commanded him to speak… that prophet must be put to death.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

God viewed spiritual forgery—signing His name to human opinions or lies—as a capital offense because it poisons the spiritual well-being of an entire community.

Millstones and Severe Judgment for Teachers

In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles reserve their harshest words not for broken sinners, prostitutes, or tax collectors, but for religious leaders who misrepresent God’s heart.

  • Jesus on Stumbling Blocks: In Matthew 18:6, Jesus warns that if someone misrepresents God and causes a “little one” who believes in Him to stumble, “it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
  • The Condemnation of the Pharisees: In Matthew 23, Jesus hurls a series of “woes” at the teachers of the law because their legalistic misrepresentation of God’s character shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.
  • Strict Judgment for Teachers: James explicitly warns, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)

Paul’s Curse on Distorting the Gospel

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, he discovered that false teachers were distorting the true nature of God’s grace, making salvation about human works instead of Christ. Paul’s response is incredibly severe:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!” (Galatians 1:8)

Paul uses the Greek word anathema (devoted to destruction). To warp the message of who God is and how He saves people is to invite an apostolic curse.

Summary

Why is this sin treated so grievously? Because we cannot love a God we do not accurately know. When people misrepresent God—portraying Him as a cruel tyrant, a weak and passive bystander, or a transactional judge—they paint a monstrous caricature of the Creator. This drives hurting people away from the only source of true life, which is why Scripture guards the truth of God’s character with such fierce jealousy.

What about people who properly quote the bible but nevertheless do not act in the ways that the bible advises?

When people perfectly quote Scripture but fail to live by it, the Bible doesn’t just call it a minor lapse in consistency—it addresses it as a dangerous spiritual delusion and a severe misrepresentation of God’s character.

Scripture has a lot to say about this exact gap between theological literacy and moral obedience. Here is how the Bible frames it:

Deceiving Oneself (The “Mirror” Metaphor)

The Apostle James addresses this head-on, arguing that knowing the Word without doing it is a form of self-delusion.

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.” (James 1:22–24)

In this view, using the Bible merely as information to repeat—rather than a truth that transforms your behavior—makes your faith completely useless.

Causing Others to Blaspheme God

When someone claims to speak for God or know His law, but acts wickedly, the outside world doesn’t just blame the individual; they blame the God that individual claims to serve. The Apostle Paul fiercely confronted the religious elite of his day for this exact hypocrisy:

“You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?… As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'” (Romans 2:21–24)

By quoting the law but breaking it, they became walking anti-advertisements for the Kingdom of God, driving people away from the truth.

The Danger of “Demonic” Faith

James takes the critique a step further by pointing out that even the forces of evil possess flawless theology. Merely intellectualizing or reciting biblical truths doesn’t make someone holy.

“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:19)

The implication is stark: if someone’s “faith” consists entirely of correct information and zero obedience, their spiritual state is no better than that of a demon.

Christ’s Most Terrifying Warning

Perhaps the most sobering passage in the entire New Testament deals with people who perform religious acts and speak the right spiritual language, but do not actually submit to God’s will. Jesus warns:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” (Matthew 7:21–23)

Notice that Jesus doesn’t dispute their credentials or their correct vocabulary. They called Him “Lord.” But because their hearts were far from Him and their actions were lawless, He rejects them entirely.

The Biblical Verdict

In the biblical narrative, Satan himself perfectly quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptations in the wilderness (Matthew 4). Therefore, accurately quoting the Bible is never treated as a badge of righteousness.

Without love, humility, and obedience, quoting the Bible is viewed as a form of religious weaponization—using God’s own words to hide a heart that refuses to submit to Him.

What does the Koran say about this subject? And what do the scriptures of India say about it? The full white paper containing all this is available free here.

The Ultimate Point of Agreement

If you distill all of these scriptures down to a single behavioral thesis, it is this: True spirituality cannot be separated from morality. All of these traditions agree that God is not impressed by empty rituals, loud prayers, or flawless scriptural recitation if the person performing them is cruel, dishonest, or unjust. In the eyes of the Divine, the ultimate validation of your faith is how you treat your fellow human beings.

Love to all,
Bill

 

Live chat with my avatar

How Do We Protect Our Elections and Voting Rights At The Same Time?

1 Reply

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Created May 21, 2026

The question of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections is a major point of public discussion. Extensive data, recent state-level audits, and nonpartisan research show that verified cases of non-citizen voting are vanishingly rare, representing a minute fraction of a percent of overall votes cast.

When state election officials conduct extensive audits using federal immigration databases (like SAVE) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records, the initial lists of “suspected” non-citizens routinely shrink drastically upon investigation. This is usually because the data relies on outdated status reports (e.g., individuals who were green card holders when they got their driver’s license but have since become naturalized U.S. citizens).

The Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) and recent state reports provide the following official figures:

Note: “Potential” or “Suspected” means the individuals were flagged for review; subsequent checks usually reveal many are actually naturalized citizens who simply haven’t updated their DMV profile.

The conservative Heritage Foundation maintains a national database tracking verified instances of voter fraud. Going back to the year 2000, their database documents fewer than 100 cases of non-citizen voting across the entire country. Given that hundreds of millions of ballots have been cast in that timeframe, the percentage is statistically close to 0%.

A landmark study by the Brennan Center analyzed 42 jurisdictions during the 2016 presidential election (tabulating 23.5 million votes). Election officials referred only 30 cases of suspected non-citizen voting for investigation—amounting to 0.0001% of the votes.

Why It Happens (When It Does)

Data shows that the microscopic number of non-citizens who do successfully register or vote are almost exclusively Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) rather than undocumented immigrants. These cases are usually driven by administrative errors (such as being automatically prompted to register while getting a driver’s license) or honest confusion about eligibility rules, rather than intentional fraud.

Recent data from major polling operations, including the comprehensive PBS News/NPR/Marist Poll and federal tracking data, outlines where the public stands:

High Bipartisan Support for Specific Stricter Laws

When polled on specific legislative proposals—such as photo voter ID mandates or proof-of-citizenship requirements—supermajorities of Americans consistently voice support.

  • Voter ID Requirements: Between 81% and 84% of Americans support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote. This includes roughly 95%–98% of Republicans, 79%–84% of independents, and 67%–70% of Democrats.
  • Proof of Citizenship: Approximately 75% to 83% of Americans favor requiring proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote for the first time.
  • The SAVE America Act: A White House data release tracking public sentiment on federal election security legislation shows 71% overall support for tighter federal restrictions on voter registration eligibility, including half of rank-and-file Democrats.

Fraud vs. Access: The Public Divide

Despite broad consensus on IDs, the public splits significantly when asked about the core philosophy governing election laws. The Marist Poll reveals a sharp divide over whether the priority should be stopping fraud or maximizing turnout:

  • The Primary Concern: 59% of Americans believe it is more important to ensure that everyone who wants to vote is able to do so. Conversely, 41% say the bigger concern should be ensuring no one votes who is ineligible.
  • Partisan Splits: This question is highly polarized. 70% of Republicans prioritize stopping ineligible voters, while 86% of Democrats and 53% of Independents prioritize maximizing voter access.

Perceived Threats to Elections

When Americans are asked to name the single biggest threat to safe and secure elections, voter fraud ranks high, but it shares the spotlight with other anxieties:

  • 33% cite voter fraud as the top threat.
  • 26% cite misleading information (including concerns about AI-generated misinformation).
  • 24% cite voter suppression (worrying that strict laws will turn away eligible voters).

Notably, 57% of Republicans view voter fraud as the top threat, whereas 41% of Democrats view voter suppression as the primary threat, and a plurality of independents worry most about misinformation.

In summary, the percentage of Americans who want stricter laws depends heavily on how the question is asked. If asked about voter ID and citizenship verification, support sits overwhelmingly at 75% to 84%. However, if asked whether tightening laws to prevent fraud is more important than protecting voter access, only about 41% of the country prioritizes fraud prevention above all else.

When forced to weigh election security against voter access, a clear majority of Americans prioritize ensuring that eligible voters are not locked out of the system.

According to the comprehensive PBS News/NPR/Marist Poll on Election Security:

  • 59% of Americans state that their primary concern is making sure that everyone who wants to vote is able to do so.
  • This concern is heavily driven by partisan lines: 86% of Democrats and 53% of Independents prioritize maximizing voter access over stopping potential fraud.

Fear of Voters Being Turned Away

Anxieties regarding specific voting rights being taken away or restricted at the ballot box have hit a multi-year high:

  • 58% of Americans believe it is likely that people will show up to the polls only to be told they are not eligible to vote.
  • This represents a striking 16-percentage-point jump from when the same question was asked in 2020. Among Democrats, this fear rises to 74%.

Concern Over Gerrymandering and Vote Dilution

While broad polling generally measures “gerrymandering” through the lens of overall trust in the political process, the sentiment that the system is being rigged to minimize the effect of certain votes is incredibly widespread.

  • Threats to Democracy: In the February 2026 Marist Poll, 78% of Americans stated that they believe U.S. democracy is “in jeopardy” or “under serious threat.”
  • The “Voter Suppression” Threat: When asked to isolate the single largest threat to a safe and fair election, 24% of Americans specifically point to voter suppression (the intentional restriction of voting access).
  • Lack of Confidence in Fair Elections: Driven heavily by the ongoing “arms race” of mid-decade redistricting across states like California, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia, public confidence that state/local governments will run fair and accurate elections dropped to two-thirds (66%)—a 10-percentage-point decrease from late 2024.

Data tracking from organizations like the Pew Research Center confirms that large majorities of Americans intuitively favor electoral fairness and believe that extreme partisan gerrymandering actively undermines confidence in whether their individual vote actually matters.

What do these facts tell us? Despite the incidence of voter fraud being close to zero, 41% of us want stricter laws preventing it, outweighing in their minds the risk of citizen voting being made so much more difficult or diluted that “one person, one vote” no longer applies, and minority rule can take over America.

How can we explain this?

Possibility #1: 41% of us are racists.

Possibility #2: 41% of us are unaware of the near-zero factual threat of voter fraud to date.

Possibility #3: 41% of us simply want the Republicans to win, regardless of the issues or consequences.

Possibility #4: 41% of us fear the perceived weakness of the Democrats more than they fear anything else.

Possibility #5: 41% of us fear that the elections are going to be rigged from now on, because of the actions now being taken by the government, and they want stricter anti-fraud laws to protect us against that. (However, the laws that we need to prevent that are not being strengthened, in fact the weakening of voter rights strengthens that.)

Possibility #6: all of the above to varying degrees. This is the likely real answer.

What should we all do?

  1. Take action to make sure the facts about voter fraud statistics are known by as many people as possible. We can all do this in social media. Let’s make social media socially a positive force for a change.
  2. If you do not see yourself as weak, run for office, or help someone you see as strong and wise run for office. Socrates and George Washington agreed that wise and morally strong people must be willing to accept the role of governing, even if they would prefer to do something else with their lives. Unfortunately, the public votes for strong over wise, so if you are in any way involved in politics or are willing to become involved now that our country needs all of us to become more involved, and you are a combat veteran or simply a strong person, hear and take the call now.

Happy Memorial Day Remember and Honor May 25, 2026

Love to all,
Bill

 

Live chat with my avatar