957 – Transcript

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.

Clip (Eureka, episode 307)

I have to what?

Oversee the mayoral election. This is the official polling place. It’s not a big deal, Curtis.

Why can’t Joe do it?

Because Joe’s not your lackey.

The town charter says that voting security falls on the highest ranking law enforcement officer. That would be you.

Unless you promote me or become otherwise incapacitated.

The mayor’s seat has been open for over a year. The town needs a voice. This is a very important service Curtis.

How important can it be. I mean my daughter’s backing our 17 year old boyfriend for the job.

Eureka doesn’t discriminate. Some of our smartest citizens are teens.
So instead of working I have to sit here and count ballots for some doogie mayor?

No actually your sister volunteered for that job.

It’s a bad idea. Lex becomes really obsessed with politics and our mood swings are already out of hand.

Actually she’s really into it and you should be a little more sensitive. Your sister’s pregnant.

I’m Mr. Sensitive. what paper ballots?

Digital voting machines are way too easy to tamper with and campaigns get really competitive around here.

Okay I’ll do it. I’m Mr. Sensitive though.

Bob Metz: Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, March 25th, 2026. I’m Bob Metz and this is Just Right. Broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that’s not right wing. It’s Just Right.

Now you’ve got to admit that when a light-hearted comedy high tech sci-fi like our opener from the Eureka television series takes for granted that paper ballots are a necessity in keeping elections transparent and honest that something must be seriously wrong with our not so light-hearted, not so funny politicians who are doing everything possible to avoid the use of paper ballots and an open counting system. Or so I thought.

Turns out that my just assuming that something is seriously wrong was a serious understatement. With the introduction of the Save America Act, the fight for voting integrity has entered the arena of a ballot-boxing match with the right in one corner on the side of voter and voting transparency and with the left in the other corner on the side of secretive and hidden tabulation of vote cast. That such a confrontation or debate is even thinkable in a supposedly free and democratic society should be cause enough for concern.

But the reality that this simple principle of voting integrity has become perhaps the most critical and significant issue of our day is perhaps difficult for many to understand. After all, there’s the war in Iran, the capturing of Maduro in Venezuela, the rise of Islamist terrorism, the politically driven hysteria about everything from AI to climate change, the collapse of the economy, a rise in mass shootings, and a so-called legacy media that continues to push fake news, propaganda, and outright lies all in the name of what is ultimately Marxism. And even there, its advocates have to lie, hiding behind their ridiculous label of being woke.

Again, using a term that suggests awareness when its adherents are sound asleep and incapable of being aware of anything. Yet despite all of these crises, American lawyer Peter Ticktin, after revealing yet another smoking gun about electoral fraud on a scale unimaginable, is warning the world that quote, on this one issue, electoral integrity, we either get to keep America or lose America end quote. So in light of all the other issues mentioned, one might be forgiven for being skeptical about making voting the most critical issue facing America. Sure, voting integrity certainly is a critical issue, but the number one priority? Turns out the answer is yes to that evaluation.

In fact, election fraud is the issue that connects all of the dots relating to all of the other critical issues and conflicts of our day. Still skeptical? If so, see if you can maintain that skepticism after what we are about to hear today, a narrative that begins right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback at JustRightMedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform and visit us at JustRightMedia.org where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show.

Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible. Now you may have heard some variant of the statement that it’s not who votes that count, it’s who counts the vote. Or he who votes does not have the power. He who counts the vote has the power. There is apparently some controversy over whether or not either of these sentiments were originally expressed by Joseph Stalin, but if ever that adage about voting were put to the test, we’re living in the middle of that ballot battle today. To that end, Trump has introduced the Save America Act requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote, with more than 80% of Americans polled supporting it. Yet despite that overwhelming voter support for these requirements, the left remains adamantly opposed to them, which you would think is all the evidence needed to conclude that the left is highly engaged in both voter fraud and in rigging elections.

And by the way, as we’ll learn, these are actually two different things. Conducting open and transparent elections should be a no-brainer. The principles of such an endeavor are so simple and clear that to obfuscate them should be considered a criminal act. We’ll get into the particulars of those requirements a bit later on, but first, to kick off the conversation on election fraud, coming up next are some audio bites taken from the March 18 podcast of Stephen Gardner, who in turn featured his own selected audio bites of a conversation between Alex Jones and lawyer Peter Ticktin. Ticktin, who happens to be a close friend and confidant of Donald Trump, is also assisting in the defense of Tina Peters, an elderly woman who was jailed in Colorado for exposing election fraud.

Trump has already pardoned her, but the state of Colorado refuses to release her from prison despite the fact that she has committed no crime. But all this is just the tip of a horrifying scenario that once comprehended makes it clear why Trump has been referring to himself as a wartime president who wants to end that war. So, without any further ado, here’s the voice of Stephen Gardner.

Clip (Stephen Gardner podcast, March 18, 2026)
Stephen Gardner: I just finished a mind-blowing interview between President Trump’s close friend and lawyer Peter Ticktin. He’s helping legally with Tina Peters, who was jailed in Colorado for exposing election fraud. He’s working with billionaire Patrick Byrne, who exposed Venezuela rigging American elections. How he and his team now have a smoking gun of election fraud down in Bexar, Texas, where a candidate was accidentally given the bloated voter roll versus the cleaned up for the public roll. He’s going to walk you through how Democrats and foreign nations plan to rig the midterm election. It has nothing to do with the SAVE Act. It’s all about the ballots, mail-in ballots, and the machines.

Peter Ticktin: Well, where we are now, there’s a pivotal issue as to whether we keep America or not. There’s so many things that are important. There are people that are in prison that we need to get out of prison.

There are people that are walking free that belong in prison. There’s so many things like this that are going wrong. They’re all important, very important. But there’s one pivotal issue.

And when I say pivotal, that’s more than important. It means that on this one issue, we either get to keep America or we lose America. All right, so let’s talk first about voter rolls. Yeah, we all know that for ballot stuffing and so on, they use dead people. They use people that moved out of that county or out of that state. They use people that are just, they know for some reason are not going to vote.

There’s different ways of stuffing the ballot box, but this is something different. This is done by a machine. So if at first you realize this, then that’s really important. But then let’s take a look at the machines. So let’s just take a look at what these machines are. Okay, it’s the tabulators that count.

Okay, the tabulators we know from Antrim County. What happened in Antrim County, Michigan in the 2020 election, that’s a very red county. And yet, Biden won by a big margin. So when people looked at it afterward, they were able to conclude that what actually happened by talking to voters, etc., etc., they were able to figure out that the vote flipped. Those who voted for Biden, those votes went to Trump.

Those who voted for Trump, those votes went to Biden. And there’s a way Mark Cook was able to show me, in fact, on a computer with the programs. Thanks to, this is why Tina Peters is a hero, because it’s not just that she got herself in a jam. It’s that she was able to image the hard drive on the Dominion machines.

And they need her in prison so she can’t testify.

They want her in prison for three reasons. They want her in prison so that it’ll shut her up. They don’t want her out there telling people the truth about these machines. Number two, Jenna Griswold, who is the real criminal, the Secretary of State, she literally went to 62 different counties or had people go to 62 counties and wipe those complete, those Dominion machines clean, contrary to federal law, where she could do a year for each one of those 62 years.

And then later, she published the codes to hack all the machines for the next election. But I’m digressing. I should have introduced you as Tina Peters’ lawyer. We got to do a whole show on that. My God, solitary confinement killing her. This is insane.

Alex Jones: Thank you. Yes, she needs to be released. Please, Governor Polis, let’s do it quickly. And then thirdly, the reason they went after her was so that they could teach a lesson to all the other clerks in the country.

Peter Ticktin: President Trump pardoned Tina Peters. She is the one that documented the fact that they were lying about the way elections were done. And to this day, she’s still sitting in jail because Governor Polis of Colorado refuses to release her.

And they did. But those are the three reasons that they went after her. And the biggest one is the last one. They don’t want anybody rocking the boat. They want to be able to cheat in the elections without anybody blowing the whistle. But we know from these machines that they have phone chips on the motherboard. Okay. And this is something that’s been observed, photos taken and so on. We’ve got the evidence of this.

This isn’t just some hypothesis or some theory. So in other words, you now have a black box, basically. And what do I say is a black box because it’s got programming in it that was done by the Serbians for the Venezuelans. These are facts. These are the things that I’m not, we have the witnesses from Venezuela that testified to this.

Okay. So what we have, and so we know who did it, and we know Serbia. What is Serbia other than a satellite for China? So if you want to know how China has involvement, it’s two ways we know it’s involved.

Number one is because it is Serbia. Also, we know that it’s China’s involvement because China made the chips, made the phone chips and other chips that are in these Dominion machines. So they knowingly were making these chips for those machines that are running our elections. And in order to get them into our machines, they had to mislabel who manufactured them. That shows if nothing else that they knew exactly what they were doing, it was intentional. So the point is that you’ve got this programming that nobody is allowed to look at.

We’re not allowed to examine that programming because the courts all say it’s trade secrets. And it makes sense. I mean, it’s pursuant to law.

It’s not a bunch of crooked judges. It’s trade secrets. So because these are trade secrets, nobody knows what these machines do. We don’t know what that programming does. We’re not allowed to look at that program, even though we’re involved with lawsuits where people’s lives are either going to spend the important years of their lives in prison. And we can’t even look at the programming.

So we’ve got a black box that has phone chips in it. What we now know is that the election in, and there’s a fellow, what’s his name? Martinez, he was running in Bexar County. He was running for election and he asked for a list of the people that had voted, which you’re entitled to.

There’s nothing wrong with getting it. They gave it to him. And the list had all the duplicates on it. Okay. We have a smoking gun. Wow, that the machines are in play.

Do you understand what this means? They accidentally gave him the voter roll that shows multiple names with the data, all of that. And then the multiple IDs. They don’t even need dead people. They just have these bloated voter rolls where there’s modified duplicates, dead people, illegal immigrants, all of that.

Nobody wants to clean that up. And then these machines, these programs go in and they vote these dead people. It’s like having an ace up your sleeve times a million. This is why this is so important.

So what I’m saying, what I’m talking about is not just imaginary and not just something that to be fearful about. The only way that we can really do this is by changing it all together, where we get rid of the machines. That’s what’s required. We don’t even need anything. It says get rid of the machines.

We don’t care if there are machines. As long as there’s hand counting of the ballots in public. That’s what we’re advocating for. That’s what we’re pushing for. But the president has a problem. He can’t declare an emergency unless there’s one that’s perceived.

Alex Jones: Okay, really quickly. We just saw Kristi Noem, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, removed. Who was put in her place? Congressman Mark Wayne Mullen. According to Peter Ticktin, according to Alex Jones, according to Ralph Pazulo, according to billionaire Patrick Byrne, he somehow was able to overwhelm these servers in Serbia, where China and Venezuela were flipping elections through these phone chips inside of our voting systems. Now, President Trump has quietly installed him as the new head of Department of Homeland Security. And who oversees CISA and elections? The Department of Homeland Security. I think we just saw a major chess move, but only time will tell.

Peter Ticktin: You know, you can’t have a governor of a state declare an emergency for a storm that nobody can see. It’s the same thing here. We need to make this a public awareness. We need people in the public to understand that this is real.

Alex Jones: What action should we be demanding from the White House, from the DOJ?

Peter Ticktin: Well, one of the things we’re going to see, we don’t even need to demand it, it’s coming. I can assure you it’s coming is Maduro. Maduro is going to sing like a canary. He’s going to let us know what he knows, and he knows an awful lot. You can’t go wrong when you go and you get the guy that’s leading up a cartel that’s trafficking in cocaine, fentanyl, and election results. They are providing the election results to 72 different countries. And look at what’s going on in the rest of the world.

We’re the only ones left. I mean, in the United Kingdom, there’s 30 to 50 people a day that are being arrested for what they say on social media or in their own tweets, not their own tweets, their own texts. I mean, Venezuela was shipping out those results to 72 countries of which the United States is just one of them. And look at the world now. Canada, you can’t criticize your government without running the risk of going to prison. Same thing with Australia is gone. Europe is gone. We’re the only place left.

It really is scary how fast tyranny is coming in. Isn’t it?

So it’s an emergency. We have that emergency now. And the President has the power under the National Emergencies Act to dictate how the elections will be conducted. He doesn’t have the power generally.

They keep saying Trump should declare an emergency cancel the election. He has executive power. They’ve been pre-demonizing this because they’re so scared of it. Start over and explain this. Okay, all right.

Let’s just say China started to come over to the United States to take over power in the United States and they’re shooting guns, the shooting bullets at us. Obviously, that would be an emergency. And obviously, the President doesn’t need anybody’s permission to start doing whatever is necessary to do to make sure that we don’t become defeated. Right now, China is doing the same thing except they’re not using bullets. They’re doing it surreptitiously through voting machines.

They’re taking over our country. So this is the same kind of an emergency. You don’t need bullets necessarily. Bullets aren’t a necessary factor to have an emergency. There’s all kinds of emergencies. It’s confirmed. We know for this for a fact. This is no longer a theory.

Alex Jones: In closety, sir, what else do you want to impart to people with your great work you’re doing?

Peter Ticktin: Well, this is the number one thing that I’m talking about right now because this is the only thing that counts. Look, we’re going to win easily. Look, we are the silent majority by far. We have much larger part of the population than the loud minority does. The loud minority is like a nothing burger in comparison. They’re just very, very loud and very effective. So that’s what we have to do.

But the big dog, the American people have to get off the porch. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.

Bob Metz: I think that tone of frustration in Peter Ticktin’s voice at the end of that discussion said a lot more about the problem facing the right than all the rest of the facts and circumstances. His attitude reflects an experience that I myself have witnessed over and over again among those loosely defined as the right in the sense that they are definitely not on the left. And unlike the left who keep voting and supporting their Marxist causes relentlessly, win or lose, the right only gets up off their asses if they expect their party or candidate to win.

Otherwise, why bother voting, right? No, that’s right wing, which is why I have to be clear to separate myself from that kind of thinking at the beginning of each broadcast. The right wing always freaks out about splitting the vote on the right while the left never talks about splitting votes on the left. But by not voting or by voting for the lesser of a given number of evils, talk about throwing your votes away. The notion that a vote counts only if it’s cast for a winner is perhaps among the most harmful anti-democratic myths out there. But I digress, because all this is a completely separate issue given the implied consequences of the whole corrupted electoral process itself. Consider the global implications of what Peter Ticktin has outlined with respect to Dominion election machines and others.

As he explained, Venezuela was shipping out those election results to 72 countries of which the United States was just one. And look at the world now. Yeah, no kidding. And doesn’t that just answer so many questions that voters around the world have been asking about their supposedly democratic elected representatives? How is it possible that their own representatives could be their worst enemies? Remember, this isn’t about voter fraud.

That’s small potatoes. This is about electoral fraud, a complete prefix system put in place to manipulate votes in such a way as to avoid detection, especially when you’re not allowed to examine the machines or are unable to recount any original paper ballots. And when Ticktin says that on this one issue, we either get to keep America or lose America.

It’s not really about a single issue anymore, is it? So, in just connecting a few of the dots presented by Ticktin, we discover that Serbia, who has done the black box programming for Venezuela, is a Chinese satellite state. And worse, that China builds the chips being used in the vote counting machines. Meanwhile, Venezuela is exporting electronic election results to 72 different countries around the world, literally flipping actual votes that were cast and manufacturing fake, non-existent votes by simply printing ballots.

And of course, China’s role and relationship to Iran is an open book, given its oil dependency on that country. So, it’s an emergency that exists now, says Ticktin, and in so doing offers us a perspective on Trump’s greater strategy with respect to everything from Maduro to Iran. I particularly liked his metaphor, though it’s really less a metaphor than a reality, about his description of war being fought with either bullets or with ballots. When he said, quote, let’s say China came over to the U.S. and started shooting people with bullets, obviously that would be an emergency, the president would need no permissions.

Right now, China is doing the same thing, but not using bullets, but voting machines or ballots, end quote. So, Trump’s strategy is indeed multi-dimensional, so many have both cheered and jeered. But in this regard, just listen to this additional short comment about Donald Trump by Peter Ticktin.

Clip (Stephen Gardner podcast, March 18, 2026)
Peter Ticktin: Trump is, you know, so as a student with him in high school, you know, we competed, we were in the same class, we were friends, we were in the same company. I mean, he was my captain, I was a platoon sergeant underneath him. And I always knew that he was smart. I knew he was really smart because, you know, he was the top of his class.

You know, there was never a question about that. But I’ll tell you, I didn’t know he was this smart. I didn’t know that he was able to do the things he’s able to do. He’s really the most amazing president we’ve ever had.

Alex Jones: He is amazing. I just hope the Syrian thing isn’t, I wouldn’t get trapped by it.

Peter Ticktin: No, don’t worry. He’s not going to let that happen. He’s not, I’m telling you, he’s smart enough to not make that happen.

Bob Metz: Comforting words, but not so comforting on the electoral front is what we’ll be hearing up next on this side of the bumper break from Army Intelligence, from Army Intelligence veteran Captain Seth Keshel, who appeared on the March 20th edition of the X-22 report. Author of the American War on Election Corruption, the crusade to restore trust in voting, his startling observation is that election fraud is the norm, not the exception. But the good news is he has the solution to the problem.

And on the return side of the bumper, Rita Panahi, well known for her own Lefty’s Losing It podcasts, in conversation with Patrick Bet David on his March 10th PBD podcast, discusses Australia’s dysfunctional and compulsory voting system.

Clip (X-22 Report, March 20, 2026)
X-22 Report Host: Welcome to the X-22 report spotlight. Today we have a returning guest, Seth Keshel. Seth is an all American Army Intelligence veteran and analytics guru. Seth has been researching the election fraud and now he has come out with his new book, The American War on Election Corruption, the crusade to restore trust in voting. Seth, welcome back to the spotlight.

Seth Keshel: Well, as always, it’s great to be honest.

This is like the perfect time for your book to come out with all the investigations going into election fraud right now with Fulton County, Arizona. And you’ve been researching and helping and looking into election fraud for quite a while. I mean, why did you decide to put it into book form?

That was a unique opportunity to jump into this. And now with the SAVE Act out, it’s a great time. But this was an opportunity to paint the picture of what the fight for election integrity has been like. And it’s somewhat on a personal and professional level, but also detailing what exactly has gone wrong with our elections.

Has there always been election fraud? Has it been happening for quite a while?

Election fraud is the norm. And that’s the amazing thing, especially when it comes to conservatives. Most conservatives will tell you they don’t trust the government. They don’t trust vaccines. They don’t trust schools.

They don’t trust the media. But there are some that will stop short of saying that they believe elections can be rigged. Elections in America, even dating back to the 1800s, have been rigged. So it is the norm throughout not only American history, but world history. And this is proven by 34 out of 47 European countries banning the practice of mail-in voting.

Then you have other key nations like Mexico, Russia, Japan, Israel, that ban the practice. So election fraud has been around a long time. It gets conveniently memory hold if the establishment choices wind up riding into office.

The current secretaries of state of a number of decent states are sitting on top of roles that have been maintained for decades. You can look at West Virginia, for example, Oklahoma, all kinds of states are suffering under the same issues. And the more registrations you have with automatic voter registration, the worst things are going to be. That’s never been true in Georgia, where a 2016 Trump won the state with no real campaign and then added one of the greatest Republican vote gains of all time in 2020, only to lose the state for the first time in 28 years. The difference was automatic voter registration, having four years to cycle the registrations, and then a 634 percent increase in mail-in votes from 2016 to 2020. So Republicans that don’t want to rip this band-aid off probably don’t want to deal with the absolute pandemonium that would happen once it comes off.

What was one of the biggest things that you saw with election fraud? Because people, when you hear about it, you hear, oh, it’s the mail-ins. Oh, it’s the machines. Oh, it’s the fake illegals that they’re using. I mean, is it just one thing or is it many things together? What did you find?

I consider there to be eight cardinal sins of election administration. Three of them are the worst. You have automatic voter registration, universal or excessive vote by mail, and then ballot harvesting. So when the Democrats get into a state and they’re able to take control of and corrupt the voter rolls and expand mail-in voting, they cement themselves into power. This is why I found it interesting when Newt Gingrich said that he doesn’t believe elections are stolen. He thinks they’re rigged because this alludes to a greater infrastructure to making sure election results tip in a certain direction.

What is the difference between rigged and stolen? I mean, if you rig them, aren’t you going to steal them?

That sounds a little bit similar, but it’s not so much as like a flip of a switch in 2020, which everybody thinks that, bam, they paused the count and then they flipped the switch. There had been a structure that had been built for four years in 2016 to allow what needed to occur to happen. So the changing and loosening of laws is extensive planning and rigging rather than just a one-time steal.

So I just want to get this straight. You’re saying that they were planning this back in 2016. They were putting everything into place for 2020?

Well, remember how confident everybody was in 2016 that Clinton would win the election, and they went straight to work and created a system in which they could produce ballots, not votes, and make sure that Trump was a one-term president. And the only reason he’s president here in 2026 is because in 2024, he was actually too big to rig.

So with all your research and everything that you look into with the election rigging, Why is it so hard to prove if it’s running rampant and people, you know, it’s the ballots, you know, it’s the dirty voter rolls, you know, it’s the machines. Why can’t we prove it? Do they hide it? Is it, do they make it so it’s impossible? Are judges on the take? I mean, what is the problem here?

In some states, the cheating is legal now. This is the danger of allowing this to persist. Nevada has fully legalized automatic registration, universal vote by mail and ballot harvesting. You can look over in California, same Washington, Oregon, everything in the West almost is the same. The people who devised early election laws never imagined that data and sophisticated technology could be put to work in the way it is today. So the ballot harvesting, of course, the Democrats will fight to the death. Look at Mark Elias to sue people for thinking about monitoring drop boxes, even though I can go to the ATM and be right underneath the camera the entire time. So part of this is lawfare. Part of it is the corruption of courts and part of it is because it’s very difficult to catch.

So do you, I mean, you have in your book the 10 points for, I guess, election integrity. I mean, the SAVE Act, the SAVE America Act, you know, has no mail-in ballots, paper ballots, no machines, one-day voting, voter ID, voter registration with ID. What other things do you think we need?

The most important thing is to get away from corrupted voter registration or voter registration at all. We have one example in this country that I’d really like to see replicated and that’s in North Dakota. Now, not everyone, including people I like and respect, not everyone agrees with me because North Dakota is so small, but North Dakota has no voter registration. The method of voting is you show up with an ID and you get a ballot and someone writes your name, puts your name in a system where obviously you can’t come vote twice. They do have a system for legitimate absentee ballots that require identification. But the key to this is precinct sizes of a small number of registered voters in which you can come get a ballot, vote in person, and then leave.

So moving forward, I mean, what do you see as like the best scenario to have secure elections, fair elections without the ability for law fair and the deez and others to manipulate the elections? I mean, is the SAVE America Act enough?

I think you already said no, it isn’t. But what do we need to make it really, really secure that they can’t weasel their way back in and try to manipulate the elections?

It is all about transparency to make sure that the people trust election results and there’s not much of a window to cheat.

Bob Metz: Our calibre of our politicians is different. So we’ve had what you would call rhinos or in the UK, the Tories who governed like they were in the Labour Party. We’ve had that sort of conservative for a long time. So just in the last few months in Australia, we’ve had the really the main streaming of a group called One Nation who have been a political party for decades, but always a very small vote, sort of under 10%, around five, six, seven percent. Now in some of our polls, they’re winning the polling. They’re coming in ahead of Labour and the coalition, which is the Liberal and Nationals, who are supposed to be the right side of the political spectrum.

And that’s because people are just so sick of these, you know, conservative in name only who don’t actually stand for anything, who make a few noises, and then when they get into power, they let the bureaucracy run rampant and the swamp, as you call it, and just implement leftist policies. So that’s why One Nation has had this enormous surge. It’s a really fascinating time in Australia for politics to see if that’s just going to fracture the right vote and keep the left in power or whether those forces come together and actually win government. We’ve got preferential voting in Australia, which is also fairly unique. It’s not something so you don’t just vote one for your choice, you number them. So if you’ve got eight candidates in your seat, you’ll number one from eight. Oh, you’re not kidding me. Can I just put one or I have to?

I have to number them. It’s actually a fairly idiotic system when I think of it. I used to think you had its benefits, but it actually is not a great system.

You much rather have a first pass the post system like the UK does. So, yeah, so you have to number them. So if I vote for an independent as my first vote and they don’t get up, then my second preference, my vote goes into that, into their bundle and so on. So it’s a complicated system. Who else uses that system? I can’t even tell you who else uses it.

It could be a uniquely Australian flavour. I’m sure someone else would. Do you have a preferential system? No? Interesting. Not only do we have a preferential system.

Get this. We have compulsory voting. You will be fined if you don’t vote. So you have to participate in elections, whether they’re at the federal level to state or local government. So we’ve got three levels of government and you are obliged by law to participate in… You will be fined if you do. You will be fined, yes. I’ve had fines. I’ve had to write in and say, I wasn’t in the country, give me a break, but they can survive.

How much are fines? What kind of fines is it?

It’s not crippling fines, but it will be around $100, I think. Do you find you if you don’t vote? Yeah. What percentage? Three elections we have to vote in too. It’s not just the one election. We’ve got state, federal and local government.

Each of the elections you don’t vote for, you get fined. Yep.

The elections are at different times. So the federal election obviously is the whole country. And then we will have state elections and local elections, which are the local government. And again, there was a period where I thought, oh, that’s not so bad, because it gets people involved and you have greater participation rates. And perhaps the government is more reflective of the population, because everyone’s voting, so you get a more representative… Nah, that’s actually not the case, because you’ve got people voting only because of the fear of the fines.

So they’re not actually, you know, they have no knowledge. And we have something called the donkey vote, where people will just go one, two, three, four, five, six, seven on their ballot. So it’s very advantageous to be the number one on the first name, because you get the benefit of the donkey vote. You get the people who go one, two, three, four, five, yeah.

Just to do it quickly, just so I’m going to be… That’s a donkey vote, yeah. What percentage do the donkey vote?

I don’t know. It wouldn’t be that much, probably 5-10%, but that would be enough for some elections, I wouldn’t make.

So you have to vote for three elections per year?

Not per year. Federal elections, Victoria where I’m from, we have state elections every four years, and then federal elections are normally around every three years, and then you’ve got the local ones as well. The local ones, I think, are the worst to participate in, because at least with your federal and state elections, you’ve got some knowledge of who you’re voting for and the policies they advocate. The local government elections, I can even…I’m pretty, you know, pretty politically engaged. I have the time, I don’t know the names on the ballot for the local government or who they are, what they stand for, so it’s completely a absurd thing to require me to vote, but it is what it is. So yeah, we have freedom in Australia, but not freedom to refuse to vote. You have to vote.

That’s interesting. Do you require IDs when you go to vote? How easy is it to vote? Is there voter fraud in Australia? How does that work?

I think it’s pretty good. You could commit voter fraud if you went to multiple polling booths and gave the same name, because they cross off your name, but, you know, there should be checks and balances to see if the same name’s been crossed off, but I do wonder whether how thorough those checks and balances is. So it could happen, but it’s, I think, unlikely. Yeah, we don’t have…it’s a much simpler system, and the Australian Electoral Commission is pretty sound in policing it. There has been some accusations of them becoming politicised with a couple of different things over the years, but overall they’re pretty sound and there’s high confidence that the elections are free and fair, that we’re not having the sort of issues you have here. Is this true, Rob?

It says in federal elections in Australia, voters generally do not need to show…

Yeah, you need to give your name, and they’ve got a voter role with the names of people who are in that electorate. But not an ID needed. No, and if you’re voting in a…if you’re an absentee voter, I guess it’s called, when you’re voting in a polling booth that’s not your electorate, then you go to a different section and you…it’s a little bit more involved.

Interesting. Yeah. Yeah, they’re trying to do voter ID here.

I think you need it here, because you’ve got all sorts of issues here, particularly post-COVID, where you have the mass mail-in voting that isn’t so much of an issue in many other countries.

Bob Metz: You are listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. You know, it’s true what they say. If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal. And because voting is capable of changing things, when directed towards candidates and parties on the true right, that’s why the left is working so hard to make voting a wasted exercise in the face of electoral fraud. But to keep things looking democratic, they create false polarities, making sure that each side of the polarity is a left one. You know, communism on the left and fascism on the right.

Notice the absence of anything resembling freedom. Now, I honestly do not understand the whole idea or process of what they’re calling automatic voter registration. Is there such a thing as an automatic voter? If so, then that’s no democracy. And what Rita Panahi was describing as a preferential voting system in Australia, is really a bastardized version of John Stuart Mill’s single transferable vote. It also operates on a numbered preferential voting principle, but it operates within a voluntary and free voting system where the voter is not obligated to assign a number to each candidate.

The voter can vote for a single candidate under this system, which by the way, is always the best strategy to cast a ballot for your preferred candidate. But as far as compulsory voting is concerned, that is pure tyranny at its root. The country of Iran forces its citizens to vote. Almost all tyrannies or totalitarian regimes force their citizens to vote, which is precisely why it is incorrect to think of voting as a right.

All legitimate rights are accompanied by freedom of choice, and when you can’t say no to a given proposition or program, then you have no rights in the matter. So, to quickly summarize, the most essential elements for having transparent, honestly run elections are the following. Paper ballots, no mail-in ballots, no machines, one-day voting, voter registration with ID, and I would add one huge additional consideration. Just as government itself should be limited, voting should be limited, subject to never being able to vote for something that violates individual rights, whether to life, liberty, or property, that one requirement alone would effectively eliminate the left as a political force entirely, which is why I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath on that one. Now, turning our attention to the broader concept of elections and voting itself, apart from any corruption issues, the following insights of the history of voting in America may prove shocking to many. On his March 13 podcast, Stephen Crowder conducted a one-on-one interview with Rachel Wilson, who has gained some notoriety by arguing that feminism is a socialist contrivance, and that, historically speaking, most women were completely opposed to giving women the right to vote.

Clip (Stephen Crowder podcast, March 13, 2026)
Stephen Crowder: Our guest today is one-half of the Wilson’s brother-sister act. It’s a duo act. She was on Joe Rogan and a lot of people watched, a lot of people too, and then learned a lot about the history of feminism, rage for patriarchy on X, and her book, have there occult feminism, the secret history? Rachel Wilson, how are you? I’m good, how are you? Okay. Here we have your book, and hopefully you’ve been selling a lot of copies since sitting down with Joe.

It’s been doing very well. I think we cracked the top 50 in books overall on Amazon, which is kind of unheard of for a self-published book.

Yeah. I’m sure you run into this. It’s kind of old hat for you because you’ve been doing this for so long. But you must pretty often still run into someone who’s just shocked when you deliver the first bits of information, like on women’s suffrage, the 19th. So for people who may be new, and I can’t recommend the book enough, I mean, it’s pretty meticulously researched.

I know it took you a long time to do. Let’s start with this. What do you think, what’s the single biggest thing that people, and in particular women, get wrong about? Let’s start with women’s suffrage, the right to vote. Yeah. What do you think is the biggest misconception?

Well, everybody assumes that the reason there was a push to give women suffrage is because women demanded it. Right. It was a grassroots thing that women looked around and went, oh my God, we’re oppressed. This is terrible. We need…

This is a good impression of the women though.

Yeah. Oh my God.

This is terrible. Lips that touch liquor will never touch our…

Lips that touch wine should never touch wine.

Your sore riddled scurvy lips. Whatever will I do? Yeah.

Actually, a lot of the suffrage movement kind of overlapped with and piggybacked off of like a lot of the blacks rights, civil rights stuff, post-Civil War, which a lot of those people did not appreciate. They were like, why are these rich white, like urban women trying to like throw their plight in with us and act like they’re oppressed?

Oh, they always do that. That was when it was a… They’re doing it now. Prop 8 with gay marriage, they’re like, it’s just like civil rights. And I was like, don’t compare the plight, like a slavery, obviously horrible, obviously wrong. Like, I don’t mean that I support reparations, but yes, slavery is objectively bad.

Don’t compare that to friction. Yes. So it wasn’t coming from women? No. Yeah. Explain to people, because everyone thinks, well, women wanted it and men were like, you should do… No.

No. So they had a big PR problem throughout the whole, you know, first wave suffrage movement through the 1800s. They… It was not popular. It was deeply unpopular with all of America, but especially with women. In fact, in the history of women’s suffrage, Susan B. Anthony said, and Elizabeth Stady-Canton as well, they said, we’d never get this passed if it was up to women.

Right. If it was just women voting on it, we would never get it passed. In fact, they had a lot of early referendums in certain states, like in Massachusetts, they had a big one where it was like only 4% of eligible women who could vote in the referendum on whether they wanted the vote on the ballot at all, even bothered to show up. And the ones that did show up voted for it, but it was like a tiny minority, and every time they would pull or, you know, let women vote in referendums, they would say no. I mean, it was like deeply, deeply unpopular, and there was more women who were groups of members of anti-suffrage groups than pro-suffrage groups until like right before the passage of the 19th. Right. And so it took them like 75 years of nonstop propaganda to even get half of women on board with it, and they had really good reasons.

That was going to be my next question for people who don’t know why, because it shocks a lot of people as to, they go, well, why wouldn’t women want the right to vote? That makes no sense.

Yeah, and that’s because we look back at history through a presentist lens. We’re looking at things that happened 100, 150 years ago through our 2026 eyes with our, all of our preconceptions about what rights are and about what America is and what democracy looks like and all that sort of thing. But we’re talking the mid to late 1800s. Women in the United States already felt that they had kind of a privileged position over men, because a lot of states had laws in place, for example, like New York. If you were a wealthy woman and you entered into marriage, you had a lot of protections for whatever your inheritance was, whatever things you already owned. Yes, women could own stuff.

You always hear this like, oh, women couldn’t own anything. They weren’t real people. They were chained to the stove.

They couldn’t leave the house. None of them could read. They were all uneducated, totally, totally bullcrap it lies. That’s none of that’s true. So I carefully debunk all of that in the book, and I use the actual writings of suffragists at the time to prove it. So it’s not my opinion.

Right. So if you don’t like it or you think I’m wrong, you’ll have to take it up with, you know, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and all of the other prominent suffragists who were writing at the time and saying, we cannot get women on board with this because they already have everything they want, pretty much. They can go to school. There was never any prohibition on women being educated. In fact, most women were more educated than most men in this time period, because they were the ones who generally taught children. We didn’t have the compulsory public education system yet. So it was usually mothers, ladies in your hometown who were teaching the kids how to read and things like that. Whereas men, usually you’re going out to work on the farm or in the coal fields or something like this, or you’re going off to war or something like that. So boys would do like fifth grade reading, writing arithmetic.

If they can kind of sort of read signs, that’s good enough. The real support for early suffragists came from socialists. It came from polygamists. It came from people who wanted to legalize prostitution.

It came from a lot of, you know, sources that especially back then were seen as like kind of beneath most people, like down in the mud kind of thing. And so, yeah, I guess there were some things that maybe some women weren’t allowed to do, but it’s always, but nobody ever talks about it as though, yeah, that was the case for everyone. Most men couldn’t get into those programs. Most men couldn’t vote until right before most women couldn’t vote.

Can you explain that to people? Can you kind of fill people in on some of the expectations or responsibilities that needed to be met even by men in order to vote?

Well, it depended on the place because especially at this time period, states’ rights were more important. And so it depended the state or territory that you were in, like Wyoming gave women the right to vote early in order to be able to become a state. So it wasn’t so much that they were like, oh, we just really care about these broads opinions. It was more like we need the numbers.

Yeah. So same thing with Utah, with the Mormons. They wanted to keep polygamy legal, so they granted early women’s voting rights and things like that.

But most men in most states, there were restrictions. It could be anything from a poll tax, which if you couldn’t afford, you couldn’t vote too bad for you. A literacy test, a civics test, religious requirements in some states. You had to at least proclaim some kind of Christian faith or maybe even a specific denomination, depending on where you were. Age restrictions, racial restrictions. There were a lot of…

Obviously the draft. And I think some states had mandatory bucket duty, volunteer firefighter service. Yeah, you had… Just another form of draft. Yes. What was the other… Sometimes it was property ownership. Yeah, property ownership. Yeah, you couldn’t… In other words, you couldn’t just be a renter who didn’t serve your country, who paid no taxes, who couldn’t read. And there was even a period of time where some women were able to vote in certain states where they didn’t have to meet requirements while men in said location couldn’t vote.

Yeah, exactly. So we have this perception because of gender studies departments and because of women’s lib propaganda. The propaganda machine that we’re fighting here is a century and billions and billions of dollars and help from the CIA on top of it.

So it’s quite the mountain to climb. There’s a big barrier to breaking down all these myths and lies and trying to correct the historical record because I think if most people knew these things, they would just have a different opinion. Not saying they would say put all the women back in the kitchen and take away their right to vote. I’m saying they would at least have a more accurate perception of how things unfolded, why they unfolded that way. And like you said, let’s play devil’s advocate and why did women say they didn’t want the right to vote?

Well, there’s a couple of really good reasons. These women were not stupid. They were quite prescient and they said the biggest reason is they felt they had a moral high ground because when you can’t vote, you can’t be bribed, you can’t be politicized. You’re not just another voting block that politicians are going to campaign and pander to and tell you whatever you want to hear. So you’ll vote and then when they get in, they do whatever they want, which is what we always get. So back then women got prohibition passed. Terrible idea.

But they were able to do it without voting rights because they went to their people in Congress and they said, we don’t like this. This is what we want. You need to listen to us because we have this moral high ground as a political citizens. We want to be listened to. We demand to be heard. So they did have a voice, this idea that women couldn’t speak in public. So women were not like these helpless little pets that they’ve been made out to be. They never were. That’s just a historical myth.

I do want to get to this. This is important because people will say, okay, yeah, but eventually women wanted the vote. So yeah, if we all accept and you should, it’s the truth, but I’m just for the sake of argument, you know, channeling Andrew. Okay, we accept that they didn’t want it. And then at a certain point, I said, okay, we want it. What was the change because that’s still, those are still sort of the remnants that we’re feeling today, right? Is people believing whatever that inflection point was.

Yes. So first of all, even after the 19th Amendment was passed, the vast majority of women did not vote until like the 1960s. We still were voting in much smaller numbers. And now sadly, since the 90s, women are out voting men.

It’s only by a small margin, but it’s enough. I get lectured all the time on how I’m ruining things for Republicans because I’m scaring women away from voting for Republicans. But as far as like women wanting the vote, eventually they did, but it took again, a lot of propaganda of being pushed in that direction and being told repeatedly that like, your, this is the core of what we’ve done with women, how we’ve swayed them towards feminism is to tell them, if you’re not on board with this, you are stupid. You are not smart enough like us. You are, you know, a traitor to your gender.

You’re a loser. What are you going to just sit home and pop out babies? You don’t care about this nation. You’re not going to go and make your voice be heard. You’re not going to, you know, so it was a lot of propaganda to push women to this because one of the things they argued why they didn’t want the vote was that politics is dirty business, which is true. They were like, we don’t want to be down in the mud rolling around with socialists and arguing all the time.

They felt like it was kind of beneath women and women are mostly, this is another thing where I’m kind of weird. They’re usually very conflict avoidant. They don’t want to debate. They don’t want to fight and argue. They would nag.

Sure. But they don’t want direct confrontation and politics is very confrontational and they were like, are you really going to make us go out and like, debate all this stuff? And also, let’s just be honest, most women don’t want to learn all the ins and outs of economics and foreign policy and geopolitics and all that stuff. It’s kind of boring to most of them. They’re more interested in their immediate family circle. What’s going on with the kids?

How’s grandma doing? What’s going on at the church and the community center? And they felt like they were very busy with those things. They were like, we’ve got plenty going on because at the time, you know, you’ve got five kids on average. Yeah. And you’re feeling very busy and you’re like, now I got to learn about politics. I got to sit here and learn each each candidate’s whole, you know, campaign and like their platform and all the.

Bob Metz: By the way, that last comment by Rachel Wilson expresses an attitude that I’ve seen across the board, not just among women, but for the record, the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution was introduced in 1920 and consists of only two sentences. And I quote, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation and quote. Now, interestingly, notice that it doesn’t mention women. It just mentioned sex. So what I want to know is given today’s dystopian zeitgeist, does that include gender and trans? Should a person unable to discern the binary of sex be allowed to vote on the binary of left and right?

I mean, I’m just asking. One thing the 19th amendment does stipulate is that it refers to the voting right of citizens, not of anyone else. But since when does paying attention to that particular detail matter anymore? The point is voting isn’t the fundamental ingredient of a democracy. What’s important is that a government governs with the consent of the governed.

Consensus is secondary. Fact is voting is not a right. It is a privilege, one that allows the voter to join an army engaged in a conflict on the battlefield of politics. Because once you’re dealing with ballots, then you’re also dealing with the possibility of bullets. The ballot is less a means of expressing consent or even consensus than it is a weapon being used in a political war between two competing ideologies. Tyranny on the left and freedom on the right.

This is the true political polarity and it never changes. It is the eternal war in which eternal vigilance is required by those on the right. So what will be your weapon of choice? A ballot or a bullet? And in considering that choice, be sure to note that whenever the left loses at the ballot box, they bring out the bullets without hesitation.

Clip (Eureka, episode 307)
Oh my goodness, what a beautiful baby.

Love that shirt, that’s me, you know. Uh, Morven Spresso, remember, vote Vincent.

You’re doing great, they love you. I can’t believe I let you talk me into this. I hate politics.

What’s the blue that holds this town together, Vincent? It’s time we had a voice. Guys, smile here.

That’s great, thanks. Alright, now back to kissing babies.

Bob Metz: That pretty much describes my introduction to electoral politics. I started out at a point of hating politics and assumed that by not participating or avoiding it, that was an appropriate response. However, I soon discovered the inconvenient truth in the statement that even if most people aren’t interested in politics, politics is always interested in them. And particularly those not interested because they’re the most defenseless against political forces. They actually participate in their own demise and destruction because their lack of interest in politics leaves them ignorant and vulnerable. For politicians of the left, it’s like stealing candy from a baby, you might say. Which ironically makes their victims even less interested in politics because they don’t see politics as a solution to anything.

Why? Because for most of our lives, politics has been driven by the left, by Marxism, whose ideology, regardless of any other labels used to disguise it, is the source of all of the world’s political evil violence and wars. That’s why simply being able to discern the differences in ideology between the left and right would go a long way towards simplifying the task of who to vote for on the part of the voter. And that is our mission in this war, a mission on which you are invited to join us again next week, when we will continue our journey in the right direction. And until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, be right back here. We’ll see you then.

Clip (Jerry Seinfeld)
Jerry Seinfeld: Because the word left itself is always associated with negative things. You ever notice that? Leftovers are terrible. Two left feet, left handed compliment. On television, you ever see a crook named Righty? You never see that. Everything right, they make a positive thing. Right on, the Bill Rights. You go to a party, there’s nobody there, where’d everybody go? They left.