Doubling Down, Part I: Abortion in the Crosshairs, Again

There was a time, and that time was not all that long ago, that Donald Trump tried to keep the abortion issue at arm's length. A big chunk of his base (mostly evangelicals) is fanatically anti-choice, and he needs those folks. But the rest of the base is either moderate on the issue, or is pro-choice. And, of course, independents skew very pro-choice. Put another way, it's tough to win elections, except in very red places, solely on anti-choice votes.

It would appear that a rather substantial change in approach is underway, with the White House leaning hard into the anti-choice side of the issue. Late last week, it was announced that the administration plans to ban VA physicians from performing abortions in nearly all circumstances. Rape and incest would not be enough; abortions would only be allowed "when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."

The effects of this policy change are entirely predictable. First, experience has already shown that "only when the life of the mother would be endangered" is vague enough, and the professional consequences of a "premature" finding are severe enough, that physicians are compelled to err strongly on the side of not performing the procedure. As a result, a decision comes too late (or not at all) for some women. So, some patients will die needlessly. On top of that, some women will take a pass on a military career, or will leave the service early. And finally, there are plenty of push factors that must have many VA doctors thinking about an exit; this decision will add to the list.

So, women soldiers are a little less safe, America is a little less safe, and veterans will get lower quality care. Regardless of one's position on abortion access, these consequences are indisputable. The question is: Are the benefits of the new policy worth it? Well, actually, that is what the question SHOULD be, in a nation with good governance. But one cannot seriously believe that the administration is thinking about public health, the well-being of the military, or the lives of fetuses. No, the administration is thinking about pandering to the base, which is... not the best basis for a consequential decision like this.

Meanwhile, for several hours yesterday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Finance Committee, and to deliver a heaping helping of his pseudoscientific quackery. On the whole, the testimony was largely what you would expect. The Democrats on the Committee were full of fire, particularly on the subject of vaccines. The Republicans on the Committee were actually also critical of Kennedy, particularly on the vaccine issue, and yet seemed to be completely unaware of who might be responsible for putting Kennedy in his current post, or who might have the ability to remove him. Kennedy, for his part, was cranky and defiant.

The one portion worth noting, and that fits in the context of this item, is that Kennedy hinted that he might be planning to target the abortifacient mifepristone. His basic, tinfoil-hat contention is that the Biden administration cooked the books to hide evidence that the pill is unsafe. This is nonsense; there have been over 100 studies, spanning 3 decades, affirming that the drug is safe.

Based on this news, not to mention the stories covered in the next two items, it suggests that the White House is developing its battle plan for the 2026 elections. Trump's approval rating is in the toilet with everyone except Republican voters, and there is little possibility of a rebound. So, he looks to be doubling and tripling down on ginning up the base, to get them out to the polls in droves next year. If Democratic votes can be muted at the same time, through gerrymandering, reductions in polling places and voting hours, voter ID laws, etc., then all the better.

This might be the best available strategy for the administration, but that does not mean it's a good strategy. Trump has shown no particular ability to get people to the polls when his name is not on the ballot. Further, voters who are happy with the way things are going tend to get complacent, while voters who are furious tend to be motivated to get to the polls. That means that the things meant to light a fire under MAGA voters could very well light an inferno under non-MAGA voters. This won't hurt Trump directly, but it could have a big effect on control of Congress. (Z)

Doubling Down, Part II: White House Wants to Nix Gun Ownership for Trans Individuals

And now, another story about what's meant to be a big, juicy piece of red meat for the base. It's not a secret that, for Trump and other right-wing politicians, transphobia is the gift that keeps on giving. Not only are most Republicans anti-trans, to a greater or lesser extent, but so too are many independents and Democrats (especially older independents and Democrats, and older people are more likely to vote).

This being the case, Trump and his team are always looking for new anti-trans angles to exploit. After all, you can only get so much mileage out of the dozen or so trans girls who play high school sports. And so, in a move as predictable as the sun rising in the east, the administration is trying to glom on to the recent shooting in Minnesota. The shooter there was ostensibly trans, and there is a well-established belief on the right (and, sometimes, not on the right) that trans people are mentally ill, and that they are unduly prone to commit violent crimes (and, in particular, mass shootings). Taking all of this into account, the Department of Justice is considering a new rule that trans people cannot own guns, based on federal law that bars gun ownership for people "adjudicated as mental defective[s]."

Ripping something like this to shreds is like shooting fish in a barrel, but let's start with the assumptions underlying this line of thought. First, it's not entirely clear that the Minnesota shooter should even be considered trans; Robin Westman certainly wrestled with gender identity, but it's not entirely clear where Westman was at in the final days and weeks of life, and there is some evidence that Westman no longer identified as trans. Even if you do count Westman, then there's that incident, and the 2023 Nashville shooting, and... that's pretty much it for mass shootings from trans people. Two incidents do not a pattern make, and there is abundant evidence that trans people are not disproportionately likely to commit acts of violence (though they ARE disproportionately likely to be VICTIMS of acts of violence).

Now let us move on to the pragmatic aspects of such a policy. It's not like trans people have a scarlet T emblazoned on their foreheads, or they have to wear a trans-flag patch on their clothes to identify them among the members of the general population. Pete Hegseth might think those sound like swell ideas, but that's not how it actually is. So, it would be none too easy to deny guns to trans people, because how can anyone who is selling a gun be sure? The only option would be to haul a trans person into court and, consistent with the law, get a judge to deem them mentally defective. If they are actually mentally defective, then such a judgment may be forthcoming, but that's already the case, with or without a new directive from the White House. And if a U.S. Attorney, like Jeannine Pirro, tries to make an argument for mental defectiveness solely on the basis of the person being trans, well, the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM-V say that being trans is not a mental illness. So, that argument is not going to fly in court, even if the trans person in question threw a sandwich at someone. Alternatively, if someone else tries to assume the power to "adjudicate" mental deficiency (say, the Kennedy-led HHS Department), that opens many, many cans of worms that will end up in court.

And finally, the politics of the policy. It's true that a lot of non-trans Americans are leery of trans people, which is why the girls sports issue proved so salient. However, that also triggered people's instincts in terms of fairness and a level playing field. Targeting the roughly 1½ trans shooters may read a little differently; it may be too obviously an act of political theater. It might also cause some folks to wonder: If we are going to impose gun limits on high-risk populations, why aren't we putting limits on single, white men? Unlike trans people, that group IS disproportionately likely to commit mass shootings.

That leads to another political issue here, the one that is most likely to be a deal-breaker for the Trump administration. The Second Amendment zealots do not like the idea of gun limits of any sort, seeing them as a slippery slope. In this case, they may even be right about that, as it would be pretty questionable to target trans people and not, say, militia members, or people who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. We suspect that the gun lovers' love of guns far outweighs their dislike of trans people, and they would react badly to such a policy.

For all of these reasons, then, we imagine this proposal will not move past the vaporware stage. That said, given that Team Trump is looking everywhere for gin-up-the-base opportunities, we're not surprised that they at least trial ballooned it. (Z)

Doubling Down, Part III: Trump Wants You to Know He's Young, Virile, and Strong

If you're going to be a strongman, well, you pretty much have to be a... strong man. This is why most strongmen wear military uniforms, and surround themselves with reminders of their wealth and power, and claim to have accomplished amazing or superhuman feats.

Part of the secret of Donald Trump's political success is that he managed to present himself as ultra-macho, a real man's man. He can't do the old trick of wearing a military uniform, ideally with lots of medals and BIG epaulets, since he never served, and if he tried it, it would make everyone think "bone spurs." But he most certainly loves to surround himself with flags and gold ornaments and military leaders and other reminders of his wealth and power. Meanwhile, there isn't a huge gap between Kim Jong-Il bragging about all his holes-in-one and Trump bragging about the golf trophy he won at HIS club, or Idi Amin anointing himself the last king of Scotland and Trump anointing himself the next king of Greenland.

There is a pretty big problem with the whole strongman bit, however. Trump isn't a very strong man anymore. He's nearly 80, first of all, and Father Time is undefeated. He's also led an unhealthy lifestyle for more than half a century. His body is showing the signs of physical decay, from swollen ankles to bruised hands to a shuffling gait to hair that's getting even thinner than it was. It's enough to give rise to the conspiracy theory last week that Trump was either dead, or incapacitated. The "remain out of public view, so the people can't see how you have aged" bit worked for the first two dictators of the Kim family, but it doesn't work so well for a president who is out in public nearly every day.

Since Trump will never again be a strong man, and since he's struggling to project the machismo that he was capable of summoning in years past, it's not unexpected that he and his underlings might try to find alternate ways to project strength. For example, most readers will have heard, at this point, about the Trump-ordered strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat.

The details are still sketchy and the White House hasn't settled on a claimed legal justification for the action, but on Tuesday, the President ordered the military to strike a speedboat off the coast of Venezuela, which was carrying 11 people. The boat was destroyed and all those on board were killed. The boat was headed in the direction of Trinidad. Secretary of Defense Pete "I swear I'm not drunk" Hegseth said it was carrying drugs and posed a "threat" to the U.S. Even assuming that's true, there is no domestic or international law that allows a country to use its military to summarily execute people under those circumstances. Typically the coast guard and the DEA will interdict the vessel and seize any contraband. The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, but Trump's rhetoric, along with moving destroyers and other ships into the Caribbean sure looks like he would like to change that. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said these executions operations will continue. Hmm, starting a war to distract from political problems—we've seen this movie before. The officers carrying out these orders need to be careful. Following illegal orders carries consequences.

That brings us to a second news item, one we think is very much related. Yesterday, the administration announced that it will "rebrand" (could there be a more Trumpy way to describe it?) the Department of Defense, returning the name to "Department of War." Trump had already hinted at this; last month he said "As Department of War, we won everything. We won everything" and "Defense is too defensive." Sometime today, he'll formalize his plans with—naturally—an executive order.

And now, a very brief history lesson. It was the Department of War for 158 years, until 1947. In that year, a number of prominent folks—President Harry S. Truman (a World War I veteran), General of the Armies George Marshall, and General of the Armies Dwight D. Eisenhower most notable among them—concluded that the era of "Big Stick" diplomacy was over, and that the U.S. would need to focus on advancing its goals through diplomacy and alliances, and not muscle-flexing. So, they proposed, and executed, the name change. Actually, it was the National Military Establishment for a couple of years, and then it became the Department of Defense in 1949 (undoubtedly following, in part, the European nations, most of whom have a Ministry/Department of Defence). Anyhow, the men who drove this change were all experienced soldiers and diplomats, and so their judgment in this matter was probably pretty sound.

(Oh, and for the record, it was the Department of War during the War of 1812, and the United States did not win that one, so Trump's claim about the DoW being undefeated is not accurate. It was also the Department of War during the Civil War, and Trump's favored side did not win that one, either.)

As you might guess, Trump can't actually rename the department by fiat; Congress has to approve the change. We do not have any idea what will actually happen, though. Such a bill would be filibusterable, so if the Republicans decided to back Trump's play, they would sneak the change into some other bill, like the budget. Maybe Congressional Republicans will deliver, as they so often do, but some of them are isolationists who recognize that a more warlike posture is more likely to lead to, well, a war. So, maybe not. It's also possible that Trump will just ignore Congress, and start calling it the Department of War, and then will dare anyone and everyone to say otherwise. You know, the Gulf of America all over again.

Maybe Trump really does want a war, or a quasi-war, with some weaker nation. Maybe Trump wants to remind MAGA voters that he is a real man. Maybe it's both of these things. But we think it's gotta be at least one of them, because we struggle to come up with any other explanations for this new, much more aggressive posturing. (Z & L)

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged, Part I: So Much Winning, It Hurts?

Every time Donald Trump and his administration pursue a policy of dubious legality, we write that the matter is going to end up in court (if you would like proof, re-read the above items, where we make that prediction more than once). Usually (easily more than 90% of the time) we are right about that. Part of the problem is that Trump & Co. like to push the boundaries of the law very aggressively, often to the point of absurdity. Another part of the problem is that even when the law is on Trump's side, he and his underlings lack the patience and/or competence to actually do things correctly, in accordance with established law and/or procedure.

We're about 200 days in and, in a repeat of Trump v1.0, the court defeats are already piling up. Just as proof of concept, we went through the list of recent items that appeared at the bottom of yesterday's page, looking for all the items about court defeats. That's 50 items over the last 8 days, and six of those 50 items were "Trump administration legal setback" items (see here, here, here, here, here and here). Fully 12% of our items are about this administration losing in court! And although we did not compile exhaustive statistics (the staff statistician was out with the staff mathematician last night), we don't think that this is a particularly unusual run.

Yesterday, as is the case most days, the administration lost in court, again. Twice, in fact. In the first loss, the conservative Fifth Circuit held that Trump unlawfully used the Alien Enemies Act to bypass immigrants' due process rights to speed up deportations. The AEA authorizes the president to arrest and deport in a time of war. The Court found that there's been no invasion by a foreign country that would justify invoking the law. "A country's encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States," wrote Leslie H. Southwick, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

This is the case that prompted SCOTUS to weigh in after midnight to stop busloads of Texas detainees from being flown out of the country. The high court stopped those deportations until the Fifth Circuit could weigh in on the merits, which it has now done. The Supremes will now be faced with the substance of the issue. Between this case and the use of the Posse Comitatus Act, the Court is going to have to think very carefully about how much power to give this president. We are concerned—actually concerned, not Susan Collins concerned—about where they might come down on that question.

The second loss, meanwhile, involves recissions, the clawing-back of budgeted money after the fact, which we had an item about yesterday. Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee (born in—gulp—Canada), ruled that the White House's plans are illegal. "There is not a plausible interpretation of the statutes that would justify the billions of dollars they plan to withhold," he wrote.

Ali's decision has already been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is likely to rule quickly. The issues involved are pretty basic and the likely conclusion is pretty clear, and this is actually already the second go-round for this particular case. The Supreme Court already addressed the matter, and kicked it back to Ali to deal with. Once the Court of Appeals rules (again), then the matter will presumably be appealed to SCOTUS (again). Whether they accept the case again, and what they do with it, is anyone's guess. Even the other federal judges don't have the faintest idea (keep reading). Meanwhile, there surely have to be at least some Trump supporters wondering when all the winning that he promised is finally going to commence. (Z & L)

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged, Part II: Judges Trying to Ward off Disaster

It would appear that our own (L) is not the only member of the legal profession to think that something is very wrong in the state of Denmark if, by "Denmark," we mean "the Supreme Court of the United States." Yesterday, NBC News published a very interesting item based on interviews with 12 federal judges, some of them Democrats, some of them Republicans (including at least one Trump appointee). The judges are... not happy.

All of the interviewees were granted anonymity, in part to protect from potential professional blowback, and in part for the judges' safety. Most of them have been doxxed, or swatted, or have otherwise had their safety threatened by people unhappy with their rulings. The specific thing that the judges and NBC talked about was the Supreme Court's use (or overuse) of the shadow docket, resulting in hasty, poorly explained rulings.

The first reason the judges do not like this is pretty obvious: It makes it difficult-to-impossible for them to do their jobs properly. If they have to deal with a case about citizenship, or deportations, or government spending, or who can/cannot be fired, or whatever, and all they've got is a brief, poorly explained Supreme Court decision, then the lower-court judges are left up the river without a paddle. Keeping in mind that every case is different, it's not so easy to use a decision in [CASE X] to decide similar-but-not-identical [CASE Y] if SCOTUS does not fully explain its underlying reasoning. "Too often today, sweeping rulings arrive with breathtaking speed but minimal explanation, stripped of the rigor that full briefing and argument provide," one of the judges told NBC.

This leads to a second, related complaint, namely that the Supremes are undermining the authority and the dignity of their lower-court colleagues. After all, if a lower-court judge's ruling is basically just a guess, and if it's subject to being tossed out with a snap of Clarence Thomas' fingers, then that lower-court judge isn't too important anymore, are they? Several of NBC's interviewees said they felt like they were being "cut off at the knees" and "thrown under the bus" and that the justices "don't have our backs."

And finally, the lower-court judges worry that in addition to undermining the integrity of the inferior courts, SCOTUS is also undermining the entire judicial branch by making themselves look like water-carriers for the Trump administration. One of the judges said that SCOTUS appeared to be doing the bidding of Stephen Miller, in particular. And the judges are all aware that in 4 years, the Biden administration asked for 19 emergency interventions from the Supreme Court, and was successful on 10 of those occasions (batting average: .526). Meanwhile, considerably less than one year in, the Trump administration has had 19 asks resolved (one more is pending), and is 17-for-19 (.895).

Some of the judges were at least somewhat sympathetic to the tough position that Chief Justice John Roberts & Co. are in, and a couple also said that the courts are sometimes too reflexively anti-Trump. But even those interviewees who qualified their remarks joined with their colleagues in worrying that permanent damage is being done to the third branch of government, and that their life's work is at risk of going up in smoke. Undoubtedly, they hope that the interview gets back to Roberts and his band of merry justices, and that maybe they start to think about how they could be a little more institutionalist and a little less MAGA. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Marshall Fields

Last week's puzzle was a little different. Our first hint was: "the correct answer is golden—or, at least it was last year" and the second was: "Being 'dead from Los Angeles' won't help you at all. On the other hand..."

And now the solution, courtesy of reader J.N. in Zionsville, IA:

List 1 is missing Rudolph, the most famous reindeer of all
List 2 is missing The Miller, from the first section/fragment of The Canterbury Tales
List 3 is missing Salmon P. Chase, from President Lincoln's original cabinet
List 4 is missing Hall, a room in the game Clue
List 5 is missing Kobe Bryant, among Lakers whose numbers have been retired by the team
List 6 is missing Morgan Earp, Wyatt Earp's only other brother
List 7 is missing Rock, of the game Ro Sham Bo
List 8 is missing Charles Duke, of the Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon

Together, these appear to be Saturday Night Live cast members:

Maya Rudolph
Dennis Miller
Chevy Chase
Brad Hall/Anthony Michael Hall/Rich Hall
Aidy Bryant
Tracy Morgan
Chris Rock
Robin Duke

And Saturday Night Live is about to start its 51st season, hence being golden last year.

Yep! Ben Marshall, from this headline, has just been added to the cast. And the counterpart to "dead from Los Angeles" is "live from New York."

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts M.J. in Oakdale, MN M.Y. in San Jose, CA D.E. in High Springs, FL S.G. in Durham, NC G.W. in Avon, CT J.M. in St. Lawrence County, NY W.M.H.B. in London, England, UK J.N. in Zionsville D.D. in Carversville, PA M.M. in Charlottesville, VA A.C. in Kingston, MA D.O'N. in Tucson, AZ J.L. in Sterling, MA T.K. in Manchester, MO E.B. in Avon, IN E.S. in Providence, RI R.P.E.H. in London, UK P.A. in Redwood City, CA S.K. in Ardmore, PA H.B. in Croydon, England, UK H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada I.H. in Occupied Washington, D.C. D.B. in Pittsboro, NC K.L. in Sterling, VA

J.D. in Pasadena, CA K.J. in Paw Paw, MI M.C. in Nashville, TN W.M. in Istanbul, Turkey M.B. in Albany, NY D.H. in Clancy, MT W.V.D.B. in Amsterdam, The Netherlands G.K. in Blue Island, IL J.H. in El Segundo, CA T.K. in Salem, MA M.M. in Dunellen, NJ D.K. and M.G. in Marseille, France D.C. in Chicago, IL B.N. in San Rafael, CA J.S. in Huntington Station, NY B.F. in Nashville, TN J.R. in Orlando, FL P.W. in Tulalip, WA D.B. in Glendale, CA B.M. in Chico, CA M.S. in Canton, NY B.D. in Hood River, OR B.F. in Madison, WI M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL

The 50th correct response was received at 6:51 a.m. PT on Saturday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the category Sports, and we decided not to include the abortion item (so "Doubling Down, Part I: Abortion in the Crosshairs, Again" is NOT part of the game). For a hint, we'll say that this is one of those themes inspired by the day's events (specifically, what was on TV while we were putting the theme together yesterday). Hopefully, readers who don't get it won't spit in our face.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line September 5 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: CNN's Gotta Love This

Actually, it's not just CNN. It's anyone who is a fan of right-wing-propagandist on right-wing-propagandist violence.

Earlier this week, fresh off settling one of the voter-machine lawsuits in which it was the defendant, Newsmax decided that it might like to try out being a plaintiff. And so, the right-wing, low-viewership cable outlet filed suit against... Fox, on the basis that Fox has engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices.

We are not antitrust lawyers, so we're not exactly qualified to judge the merits of the suit. However, reading over the briefing, it sure seems like Newsmax has a case. Most obviously, Fox has reportedly told cable providers, in effect, "If you want our channel, you have to relegate Newsmax/OAN to the boondocks, or to drop them entirely." In addition, Fox has allegedly made liberal (no pun intended) use of the old late-night-talk-show trick: "If you appear as a guest on their network, you can't appear on ours."

Fox has already fired back, of course. Their counter-argument, in effect, is that Newsmax's problem is not that it is the victim of anti-competitive practices. No, the network's problem is that... it sucks. Ipso facto, it's not Fox's fault that Newsmax can't attract any viewers, it's Newsmax's fault.

We do not know what the ultimate ruling in the court case will be. But we do know who wins when two obnoxious cable channels get into an ugly and expensive legal fight with one another: Everyone. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: That Green Energy Sure Is Purdy

We don't mean to go to this well too often. However, there is a lot of coverage of this particular issue, for obvious reasons. The planet is getting warmer, the weather is getting more extreme, and Donald Trump is aggressively denying those realities. Well, actually, it goes beyond denial. He's not just sticking his head in the sand; he's taking steps to try to turn the energy clock back to 1970 or so, when oil was king and solar/wind were the province of a few, wild-eyed latter-day-hippie pinkos.

Domestically, by virtue of the pliant Congress and the BBB, Trump is having some success. Investors in the United States foresaw that he might possibly win the 2024 election, and many decided not to put their money into projects that might be wrecked with a flourish of the presidential pen. Consequently, American investment in renewable energy in the first half of 2025 dropped by 36%. A further decline is expected in the second half, although probably not as steep as 36%.

Globally, by contrast, Trump's side of the issue is losing bigly. A new analysis from BloombergNEF (née Bloomberg New Energy Finance) reveals that global investment in renewable energy in the first half of 2025 was a record $386 billion. That is a slight uptick from the second half of 2024. And the main thing that is making it possible for the upward trend to continue, despite the American retreat, is dramatically increased investment in China.

Here's a look at renewable energy investment, globally, over the last 10 years:

The lesson here seems very clear to us. Trump and his political party can try to resist, but they are largely screaming into the void. Green energy is ascendant, whether the Republicans and their Big Oil benefactors like it or not.

And actually, let's put a finer point on it. The three biggest polluters among the nations of the world are China, India and the United States. Two of those three have gotten very serious about renewable energy, either because of environmental concerns, or because renewable is a better economic choice, or both. The third of the three has gotten serious in places (the blue states), and at various times (the Obama years, the Biden years), and will eventually be under the leadership of a president who will reverse the backwards-looking policies of the Trump administration. In other words, the world may not be able to reverse global warming entirely, but there's an excellent chance that everyone will eventually start pulling in the same direction, and that the damage can be limited, and the worst outcomes can be avoided.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger