Effects  of Technological Development on Universal Suffrage 8 30 2026

The only answer to the big money in the media propaganda industry is to not play along with it.  Candidates, in particular the more capitalist ones,  keep spending more and more money to fill cable tv and radio with messages favorable to capitalism.  This year for the midterms it is adding up to something like a billion dollars, mostly for attack ads.

What can be done about this?  Well there are several options, including ad block technology, or simply disconnecting from cable tv and gong internet.  But the most radical is probably the easiest;  completely reject television and radio advertising.

When it is clear the only political message on TV is the Republican bourgeoisie, people will know what to expect when they turn on commercial television. A slick product engineered to make a profit for the producer of the Republican propaganda  if it brings in campaign contributions. The more sophisticated it gets the more chance of complete rejection of cable tv, ushering in the internet and streaming services.  That is where the ad block technology comes in.

The ads can be blocked on your apple computer.  It is not hard to download, and can be effective, although not completely.  

That is where a new idea comes in; paying for the internet services you use like youtube.  The latter charges 15$ a month for no ads.  It also pays for google, resulting in less pressure from google to defeat ad black technology.

The Washington Post and New York Times are also worth subscribing to, and with an adblocker are free of political advertising.  Again, selling space on the papers is replaced by direct payments by the consumer, resulting in less pressure to rely on propaganda ads for revenue. 

The idea the only television and radio political advertising is the republican bourgeoisie would be most powerful.  It would save tens of millions of dollars for the independent, or democratic socialists, running for office.  It was effective in Michigan, Abdul el Sayed  is running for Senate as a Democrat, and he used the political attack ads by his opponent in the primary she spent tens of millions of dollars on as an example of her questionable ideas about how to reach people, drawing a sharp contrast  to him in the primary.  In all he raised something like 7 million dollars  for his campaign, and defeated the big money democrat. 

It can work.  Francesca Hong got  close in Wisconsin, so close Republicans were attempting to fool people into thinking she was making ads, by running ads “for her”.  Really slimy….

We have gotten several people identifying themselves as socialists elected, like  Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York.  A socialist mayor in the big city was an accomplishment, it shows seats can be won in suffrage,  

But the unfortunate reality continually faced by the Democrats is the supposed need for the big money.  Well, the big money works for Republicans, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars every big election on television and radio advertising. Democrats have fewer large donors, yet there are some who pay into the party, which corrupts them.  They get convinced the only way to win is to counter the attack ads with their own.  

I don’t need to go into detail how ugly this becomes, everybody has seen it.  It worked for Donald Trump.

But a new path forward is gaining momentum, totally reliant upon technological progress.  The internet and artificial intelligence is changing everything, from applying for an absentee ballot online, to publishing articles on your website.  It is an example of a struggle for free speech, causing revolution.  

The old means of communication like FM radio, and cable television still have followers.  But it is going the same direction as AM radio; all Republican and nobody really listens to it.  

The Democrats need to make a choice of if they want Mamdani or Bloomberg.  The big money does not always win.   We saw this with Judge Janet, when the richest man in the world spent tens of millions of dollars to influence suffrage for our supreme court.

We sent him packing.  He’s not done with, he is spending hundreds of millions of  dollars to support the republican bourgeoisie, and it may not  be so openly but some of it no doubt comes here too.  But it showed the power of the workers to get  a seat in the court.  It also created momentum , and Justice Crawford was later elected to the court, also less bourgeois than her opponent.

One person, one vote.   It comes down to that, Trump knows it, and has to try to stop absentee ballots. He votes absentee in Florida. Apparently it is only the wealthy and powerful Trump believes should receive an absentee ballot. We have bad news for Trump, in most of the west, in states like California, everyone is sent a ballot. Trump attempts to stop the Post office from sending them out.  As if it is the Post Office’s responsibility to stop absentee voting. Trump is flailing, the harder  he pushes against absentee voting the more like a Hitler he looks like.

Complete rejection of television and radio advertising.  No more paying tens of millions of Chevron’s billions of dollars to the pipeline politician to drown out the voices of the workers. This can work, the technology is here, ad blockers and paying for the paper.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic  Republic 

8 30 2026

Suffrage for Justices to the Supreme Court. 3 24 2026 

As we again take the opportunity to engage in suffrage for the supreme court in Wisconsin, it is important to digress on this phenomenon.  To begin with, it should be noted the United States Supreme Court is not subject to universal suffrage,  Rather it is appointees of the president, rubber stamped by the upper house of Congress.

What this means is twofold:  One, the president is not always in control of a majority, yet was still appointed.  We have seen this repeatedly in the last 25 years; George II was appointed without a majority, then Donald Trump was appointed without a majority.  It seems to be the Republican bourgeoisie who do this, they call it the “electoral college” method of dictatorship.  They then appoint the  Supreme Court justices for life; then generally last decades. Trump did three this last time when he was appointed.  

Secondly, Congress goes along with this.  The Senate approves the candidates, giving their rubber stamp of approval in the upper house.   

The Senate is appointed by two senators a state, which gives massive amounts of power to the large scale landowners, who till much of the rural areas.  They benefit by states like South Dakota having the same power in the Senate as Illinois, home of Chicago.  The same is true for New York and LA.  The power structure is the same, the founders, Virginia plantation owners, did this for a reason; they feared British industry would force change in the slave owning aristocracy.  They chose equal power for large scale landowners to industry by having 2 votes per state in the upper house.

It is basically a miracle the big cities ever win control of Congress.  And the stakes are enormous, state assistance to large farmers in 2025 was 40.24 billion dollars according to google.  It is allocated by the acre, which  results in it being of little help to small farmers, who more intensively cultivate this land.

Nationalization of large farms would help greatly, but instead of just buying land with the 42 billion dollars, the  Republican bourgeoisie just gives away this money to large landowners, who all benefit from the subsidies.  Basically all large farmers get money; it is part of the land tenure arrangement.

The state is not going to buy land and give it to cooperatives. We would have seen attempts at this by now.  No, the state assistance is going to support the Republican bourgeoisie, the state does not purchase land for cooperatives.

If the land was going to be nationalized, there would be no price tag.  And it would not be the worst soils that the cooperatives would be farming on.

Anyhow, that is the picture generally.  What this has to do with Wisconsin is this:

Supreme Court justices are subject to universal suffrage every 10 years.  This may seem like a long time, but compared to the United States Supreme Court, it  is brief.  Wisconsin justices serve  as long as they command a majority, which differs from our appointed counterparts who serve without a majority. 

Short of having a politburo, there is no alternative to universal suffrage for the judges on the supreme court.  The levels of bold faced white collar crimes the supreme court is involved in, with rulings like Citizens United, should show us WIsconsin has the answer; the Wisconsin supreme court is not electing because they are small,  rather this is a movement that is logical, and able to be followed on a larger scale, like selecting United States Supreme Court justices for 10 year terms.

We saw last election for supreme court Elon Musk giving away the million dollar checks to his republican bourgeois supporters to vote against democrat Susan Crawford.  DC meddles in Wisconsin elections, even though it is only residents of the state that can vote. 

No matter, Citizens United and Musk feel no shame in involvement in Wisconsin’s more radical system of universal suffrage.  

Incidentally Musk and his Republicans lost the election.  Musk hardly even got a slap on the wrist for his million dollar checks, even after explaining they were vetted to be most likely to be Republicans.

The latest suffrage is between Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar are going at it.  Lazar was Scott Walker’s lawyer.  She is a Trumper, and will be a yes woman for Trump.  

Chris Taylor has“..a legislative voting record full of support for unions and public schools, and endorsements out of the gate from the four sitting liberal justices..

“She worked as the public policy director at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, and then spent nearly a decade in the state Assembly…”

WPR 3 24 2026

Lazar, on the other hand:

“During the administration of Governor Scott Walker, Lazar worked as an assistant attorney general in the Wisconsin Department of Justice where she handled litigation in support of Walker’s signature anti-labor law, 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, and then in defense of new security rules implemented to crack down on statewide protests against it. Lazar later took on the job of defending a Republican redistricting law that implemented one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in the country.”

Wikipedia Maria Lazar

The choice could; not be put in starker terms.  Ten years of Lazar would be a return to Scott Walker. 

“As an assistant attorney general, Lazar defended Republican-drawn legislative maps from gerrymandering claims along with laws on voter ID, abortion and Act 10, which restricted collective bargaining rights for most state employees.”

WPR 2 23 2026

So it should be interesting to see where this goes.

“Brad David Schimel (born February 18, 1965) is an American attorney, former judge, and Republican politician. He most-recently served as interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, from November 2025 until March 16, 2026, when his interim appointment was not extended by the district court judges. The Department of Justice, however, has announced their intention to appoint Schimel to a senior staff position in the U.S. attorney’s office, leaving him as the de facto head of the office. “

Wikipedia Brad Shimel

So here we see what Trump does when he loses an election.  Shimel was appointed leader in federal court even though he did not command a majority.  I guess Trump doesn’t mind losers as long as they are yes men.  Shimel is now appointed without suffrage, the power struggle between DC and Wisconsin could not be more pitched this election.  Clearly the republican bourgeoisie is doing DC’s bidding.  

The date suffrage will occur is April 7.  It is one to watch.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

3 24 2026