Real populism is governing in public interest, not a small knot of elitist governing in their self interest

Real populism is governing in the public interest and not governing in the self-interest of those rich, politically connected, and the billionaires. One form of populism is economic. Another is techbro populism. Sadly, another form is racist. All are at work in America today, and more than one might dwell in the hearts and minds of some voters at the same time.

Economic populism is an easy concept to grasp. Recent articles in the Atlantic magazine have been focusing on the influence of the techno bros, the chiefs of high-tech industries, who are the recent drivers of anti-democracy fascist like influences in the White House and pubic policy. It explains why these newly minted oligarchs love Putin, Orban, and CPAC, as their businesses flourish when government is shaped to support their economic well-being.  The only population they consider is their own and not the rest of us.  

One of the characteristics of populist movements in the past, the Tea Party, and even MAGA has always been a resentment of elites controlling their lives and making their lives, working class and even many in the middle class, economically difficult.  This is largely based on economic concerns... especially since consumers are the ones who feel the pain. 

Techbro populism is another matter. The Atlantic's recent article by George Packer fingers the culprits as those who surround and influence Trump, such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and others. (JD Vance is a protege of Thiel. Musk, a native of South Africa, echoes the racist and elitist makeup of fascists of the 1930's and the apartheid supporters of the last century. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/06/david-sacks-crypto-ai-venture-capital/686941/

  This new techbro populism is the polar opposite of economic populism: These techbros want a government that helps their businesses and serves their interests, led by a small group of elites who run the government to advance their self-interested goals. However, another element has been part of the techbros mantra. It is anti-elite: extreme libertarian and "keep the government out of my business." However, it has recently changed. It is a new realization that government action is okay "when it helps my business through favorable tax and administrative policies". Libertarianism is a long-held populist concept held by many. "The best government is the least government" is their frequently uttered mantra. There is a strong anti-elitist streak in its followers.  Brotech populism is self-contradictory: it is both elitist and anti-elitist at the same time.  The impact, though, is anti populist and elitist. Techbros often do not care, or may not even grasp, what it is like to be on a budget for individuals and families. 'What's a few cents if gas at the pump rises?  They just do not get the uproar.

Such governance by rich elitists contains the seed of their own eventual destruction and will eventually be brought down by those whose needs are not met, as the rich and a ruling oligarchy become richer and those whose needs are not met become poorer. A lot of time and pain have to flow under the bridge before it dawns on the masses. It certainly happened to Viktor Orban in Hungary, as popular resentment of his oligarchical and corrupt rule resulted in economic pain. It became so strong that the masses of ordinary people overcame even Orban's suppression of the free press and political gerrymandering and took to a whisper campaign, quiet organizing, and the ballot box. Orban was defeated.

A few MAGA-ers have awakened to this challenge against their own interests. It is close to how the Trump administration is operating now, a rule by the rich, characterized by those techbro s who sat directly behind Trump when he put his hands on the bible for his second term. Trump's lust for respect by accumulating power and wealth is similar to the tech bros' goals. That is Trump's peer group, only he adds just the Mar-a-Lago type, very wealthy, who never have to worry about a budget, and Putin, rumored to be the richest one in the world, who he is influenced by and influences a loyalist group of oligarchs, too. 

Why do most MAGA turn a blind eye to Trump's peer group oligarchy and his attempt to Orbanize America? They shouldn't, logic dictates. What MAGA and liberals have in common is the ability to rise up through democratically protected peaceful means, such as through the ballot box or peaceful street demonstrations.  Preservation of democracy and a government that rules in the public interest, rather than the elite wealthy, should be and are common values, even if they are not yet realized or under threat. So what else is driving much of the MAGA if not economic populism?

I have a theory based on some observations: There is another streak of populism: racist populism. I suspect it is more powerful than economic populism in deep red states.  It has been characterized by Trump's appointment of white nationalists in key administrative positions and their obsession with the destruction of DEI, the continued use of racist dog whistles, and the reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision that gutted the civil rights era Voting Rights Act. This decision, pronounced with the piety of promoting fair elections by negating protections against racial gerrymandering, has accomplished the opposite. This decision instead is opening the floodgates to racial gerrymandering as Louisiana now works to eliminate Congressional districts represented by African Americans.  Now, under the cover of the SCOTUS decision, the former slave states' white-dominated legislatures rush to redistrict before and even during the campaigns for November 2026 and 2028. The estimated result is 22 African American congresspeople losing their seats while claiming racism has nothing to do with these actions. How stupid or naive do they think Americans are? 

 Those who get it and agree with the hidden messages in the dog whistles and racist redistricting remain quiet or find some other reason to support the racist intent of their representative in state legislators. They are, in a way, part of a populist movement. They show their consent by remaining quiet or voting for redistricting that is geared to remove as many African Americans from Congress as they can. while still voicing support for their white legislators. Racism as an openly touted value is still politically incorrect, but winks and nods masked in a variety of dog whistles are right there up front, conveying it in other ways. Their silence is deafening. and actions speak louder than words. Silence says as much as anything. Silence is a form of consent.

What are dog whistles? a simple explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8_fgJQHkOc.   

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/state-redistricting-battles-intensify-following-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-voting-rights-act

https://apnews.com/article/trump-inauguration-tech-billionaires-zuckerberg-musk-wealth-0896bfc3f50d941d62cebc3074267ecd

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/02/white-christian-nationalism-has-taken.h

All politics is local, so national views on gerrymandering I have seen do not differentiate views based on race, but on politics.  Nonetheless, here are nationwide views. In short, most people are not well informed even on political gerrymanders.  https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/52740-large-majorities-americans-say-gerrymandering-major-problem-unfair-should-be-illegal-redistricting-texas-california-poll  

The gerrymandering games have just begun: how much is this is racial?

 The gerrymander games have just begun. The sport is to see how many congressional districts can be lopsided in the perp's favor. Texas is making it no secret that the purpose of redrawing district boundaries is to eliminate competitive or blue-leaning districts and replace them with sure-fire majorities for their party, in fear that the 2026 midterms will flip Congress from red to blue. The Supreme Court has taken the position that gerrymandering for political/ partisan gain is ok and not in their purview. However, they are still bound to consider racial gerrymandering due to civil rights laws and constitutional amendments. As major large state Democrat governors are going to go and do likewise to gerrymander to offset the Texas GOP strategy to try to distort the power the GOP has in Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. California is calling this fighting fire with fire.. Their greatest weapon Democrats have against Texas is to point out that this is not political gerrymandering, but simultaneously racial gerrymandering that results in watering down the power of districts once represented by a racial minority member. The case in point is how Texas plans to split up the Austin (more blue) area with mostly blue dominated districts into fragments that reach out like wheel spokes to suburbs...and result in making what used to be the minority race with the majority voters, now become a minority within districts dominated by the white majority. This may still end up in Trump's Supreme Court.

Rucho v. Common Cause - Wikipedia

The antidote to this is to have every state divide Congressional (local house) boundaries through an independent commission whose job is to strike a balance representative of the makeup and registration of their voters. The purpose is to avoid situations like Wisconsin's state house, which had overwhelming GOP domination in the state house because they controlled so many districts due to gerrymandering, when the popular vote went the other way in presidential elections. If legislatures alone draw boundaries, whoever controls the local state house always get their way.  Taking it out of the legislature and giving it to an independent commission, though legislatures usually have a final role in approving what the commissions propose.  Colorado has such a system, but states that have, in good conscience, adopted the independent system, but are unable to participate in the gerrymander games. The answer is to require all states at the same time.

Per Supreme Court makes major announcement 

Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. use the commission system to get the problem solved on an equal footing to avoid such games.

Oct. 15, the Supreme Court will hear a case that may be relevant to the Texas atrocity 

The demise of Jim Jordan's attempt to be Speaker: the threats by bullies failed ,updated 10/25/23

 10/25/ 23 Ken Buck buckled. He just voted for a GOP House speaker who was an election denier and was not in support of more Ukraine aid, the very two issues he gave for opposing Jim Jordan. Here is the package plan he voted for, not only regarding being an election denier who helped shape the elector scheme in 2020 and regarding Ukraine, but Johnson is a religious conservative supporting an abortion ban and is anti-LGBTQ rights and opposes gay marriage. This should also provide a nation wide campaign slogan adapted to district races: Turn the House blue; end MAGA control, I can see those attack ads now. GOP Incumbent House members, either from swing districts or red ones, can now be painted with the same broad brush. They bow to MAGA When the chips were down they voted for a Speaker who was an election denier and architect of the electoral college scheme, a hard core anti choice, anti gay rights and marriage, , anti climate change advocate. The only way Buck can differentiate himself from his support of Mike Johnson is by voting on any of these issues that are brought to the floor or in the committees in which he serves. There is fodder now for some Democrat to give him a serious challenge in the general election. Buck's district is not as red as it once was. https://www.theguardian.com/.../who-is-mike-johnson-house...

CPR.ORG

All of Colorado’s GOP Representatives line up to help Johnson win speaker gavel

This is the first time the delegation’s three Republican memb

 Imagine this: the 2024 election, a presidential year, could be determined by a House that either believed the 2020 election was stolen (with no evidence found in 3 years) or who would likely be bent on sabotaging it if Trump looks like he lost.  So far, the only candidates left standing have passed the MAGA litmus test of having voted against certification. Tom Emmer, who voted to certify the 2020 elections, became another victim of Donald Trump's intervention, withdrawing his candidacy. The MAGAs are laying the groundwork to sabotage the results of the 2024 presidential race if Trump loses again, destroying trust in the most fundamental purpose of democracy, the vote.

•  We must recognize the fight to keep democracy has become central to the 2024 race, and the worst outcome imaginable would be to have a MAGA party trying to overturn an election that they lose are still in control of the House.   The fight for 2024  has started now in this House mess. and the GOP is laying the groundwork to give Trump a second term even if he loses the vote of the people.,  

  It is not only the MAGA laying the groundwork to disrupt the 2024 election by manipulation and lies that is a threat to democracy, it is its use of political violence that is used by its most extreme devotees. This GOP internal fight is a testimony to the distortion of democracy by political and racial gerrymandering and the power of physical, political violence that has been the chief tool of MAGA  led by Trump's technique of using fear of retribution to those not loyal to him. It gives new meaning to "whip" votes in Congress, not by the usual horse-trading of favors, but by using fear and threats by outside media and encouraging political violence  MAGA offers chaos, government dysfunction, subverting national security interests, and a Congress that is whipped into compliance by threats and violence, fearful to reflect the best interests of their constituents. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208373493/political-violence-democracy-2024-presidential-election-extremism

https://apnews.com/article/house-speaker-jim-jordan-threats-54eeecef0188edfcb9903e45019f190f  “Bullying don’t work,” said Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican centrist who has led the opposition to Jordan’s  nomination .... His wife slept with a loaded gun near her bedside one night." 

The demise of Jim Jordan's attempt to be Speaker: the threats by bullies failed. The 22 House GOP members who dared to go public to vote against him were subject to death threats and, in Ken Buck's case, (R-CO), more. In addition to Buck, however, there were more than 21 opposing Jordan. A fearful 90 more undercover of a secret ballot in the GOP caucus voted against Jordan's continuing his attempt to be Speaker. Why, how, and is this the end of the reign of terror of a minor, radical right-wing minority? For the sake of democracy, we should hope. We do not need to wait until 2024 for democracy to be on the ballot. It is now 2023. Democracy is already hanging in the balance in the House at this very moment. The same GOP actors in Congress are still in office in November 2024 and during the presidential election vote count. 

The time to vote any MAGA out was in 2022, and it almost happened, giving the GOP only a 4-vote advantage. All but a few (14) are from "safe" districts. Fear of losing the next election by a legitimate vote of its constituents is a guiding factor for only a few thanks years of gerrymandering. Nonetheless, there are still enough  GOP members from swing districts to defy the MAGA threats of violence and retribution to keep the MAGA from getting their preferred choice. It would be another nightmare a la 2020, but worse, if MAGA controls Congress bent on denying and decertifying another election result if Trump loses in 2024. That is why it is critical that whoever the GOP caucus supports for Speaker is not an election denier whose absolute allegiance is to Donald Trump and not to the Constitution and the institutions that keep it viable. 

Enough GOP House members opposed Jordan's advance to a third ballot, but only when they were given a chance to voice their natural preference in secret.. House Republicans are back to the drawing board after they dumped Jim Jordan for Speaker (nbcnews.com). They became brave enough to vote no under the cover of secrecy. That, unfortunately, is a testimony to the effectiveness of threats of political violence and "being primaried in a gerrymandered district." Bullying has worked in MAGAland until now. Why? What changed? 

 Ken Buck (R-CO) and the other twenty-odd anti-Jordans endured a barrage of FOX and Breitbart threats and calls to " violence to families and staff" and threats of being "primaried."  Republicans who voted against Jordan for Speaker say they've been threatened and harassed - ABC News (go.com). Having a Speaker who would use fear and threats to force them to vote against their political interests also raised some hackles; the bullying could have backfired as the desire for GOP incumbents to win the next election in one of those 14  districts that voted for Biden became more important than the fear factor ginned up by the MAGA media.

 This GOP internal fight is a testimony to the distortion of democracy by political and racial gerrymandering and the power of physical, political violence that has been the chief tool of MAGA  led by Trump's technique of using fear of retribution to those not loyal to him. It gives new meaning to "whip" votes in Congress, not by the usual horse-trading of favors, but by using fear and threats by outside media and encouraging political violence. In this rare instance, the bullies failed, and Trump's hand-picked candidate, Jordan, had to bow out of the race. There was also speculation by pundits that there were those who had supported Scalese or others who wanted no more to do with the House crazies who ended McCarthy's speakership. They resented being forced into another leadership crisis by an unreasonable and disruptive minority.

The argument raised by some in the GOP blaming the Democrats for their dilemma is silly and laughable. They blame the Democrats for not voting for the GOP nominee to break the log jam of failing to reach the 217 needed. Say what? During this battle, any GOP member who urged bi-partisanship or wistfully hoped for a few Democratic votes was immediately shot down as a traitor to the GOP.   Democrats have enjoyed painting the GOP as incompetent fools and crazies, true. But they claim no one ever asked them for their votes. Now, as it has been clear there is an impasse, and aid to Israel and Ukraine and a looming shutdown are at stake, that may give the impetus for a few Democrats to ride in on a white horse and save the GOP from themselves. It is right now the most likely outcome if an election denier is a looming possibility of becoming Speaker.

 My speculation of what motivated these other 90 who had voted publicly in the two prior House floor votes for Jordan could vote differently in private is, well, speculative. And several. Many feared subjecting themselves to primaries since most came from gerrymandered safe districts. Others likely had personal animosity toward Jordan's  "bomb-throwing" and attack dog, take-no-prisoners, uncompromising modus operandi. He was not a legislator; he was an obstructionist who caused chaos instead of being a leader in passing legislation. Speaker's job is to pass their party-favored legislation, by definition, and serve third in line to the presidency. Jordan needed to be more suited for both positions.

The defeat of Jordan in his quest for Speaker is a positive step for those like me who support the continuation of the form of democracy we have enjoyed for 250 years. Admittedly, I have my own antagonism to autocracies since I have experienced them and their aftermath. Jordan's participation in January 6 and promoting the big lie and alternative slates of electors were well known, including his refusal to testify to the January 6 committee about his actions and communications with the White House on January 5 and 6. That Jordan had no respect for following the rule of law regarding January 6 would subvert the intent of the oath of his office.. Jordan is a slavish supporter of Donald Trump, who promised to turn the presidency into a single executive power form of government and a tool of his retribution and tearing up parts of the Constitution. It is a disquieting thought. Jordan taking an oath of office to protect the Constitution would be a meaningless gesture, a third finger raised in the face of being third in line with his pledging political support to other ani-democratic politicians.  

The unintended consequence of the past two weeks may be the marginalization of the extremist right-wing influence. It may happen if some line conservative supporter of the House's institution gets the nod. One possibility is someone like Tom Cole of Oklahoma. His name cropped up early after McCarthy resigned and then again recently. Cole represents the most ruby red and secure seat in the nation. He could survive any attack by the crazy right for his working bi-partisanly to get the House operating again. (Cole or someone like him has always been on my radar; I disagree with him on many public policy issues, but. he has the natural ability and respect by his peers and for the institution needed to be a successful Speaker and bring order and calm to the chaos). GOP majority whip Tom Emmer, who voted to certify Biden's win in 2020,  is emerging as a centrist candidate, too. Trump Won’t Support Latest Frontrunner in House Speaker Race (msn.com) Democrats benefit from the House looking like a clown show, true. There are more critical agendas, like preserving democracy and the process that has kept it viable despite its warts.  It is critical to democracy that the GOP speaker at least pledge his allegiance to the Constitution and the process we have respected for 250 years, designed to avoid chaos and violence that had plagued so many regime changes in history.

 What could have motivated Buck to be defiant, a member of the Jordan-founded freedom caucus of ultra-conservatives? Buck was hardly an outlier of ideological,  traditional conservativism. Possibly, taken as his public word, he opposed Jordan publicly on two public policy issues: Jordan's participation and support of January 6  before and after as an election denier and Jordan's pledge to end aid to Ukraine. Other factors could have been at play. Overtly, the 22 who revolted mostly came from districts Biden won in 2020. Their re-election in 2024 would be in peril with their constituents if they were too closely linked to MAGA. This is a tribute to the few House districts. It is not gerrymandered to purely GOP majorities and is still competitive in a general election. In Buck's case, once nearly entirely rural and very conservative, his community had become more "front range," urban, and liberal after recent districting by an independent commission. It is still not a swing district,  but Buck felt the shift, and his public policy positions were popular across bi-partisan lines, including opposing election denial and funding Ukraine. Jordan took the opposite place on both of these issues. Still, that does not totally account for Buck's upfront opposition to  Jordan, and it obviously resulted in the threats on his life and eviction from his district office by a disgruntled landlord. Whatever it was, Buck did not buckle.

  .https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_districts_represented_by_a_Republican_in_2022_and_won_by_Joe_Biden_in_2 .

Republican candidates for speaker sign unity pledge to back eventual nominee

• 22h
• Like
• Reply

• Active

  Felicia Muftic

  Republican candidates for speaker sign unity pledge to back eventual nominee (msn.com) A unity pledge is being ing used as an identifier of who is a real MAGA and who is not. The only way that will be shot out of the water will be Democrats who will supply enough votes to put a centrist GOP speaker over the top. The problem is, what will be the price Dems demand for their intervention. Frankly, the answer is not to try to negotiate a deal, but to back a candidate who better represents the center since those in the GOP who dare negotiate will be bullied as being traitors. Democrats should not put them in additional jeopardy...That is far more important than trying to make a deal. Just do it. Just supply votes for one candidate who is not an election denier t )who would jeopardize the 2024 integrity of the election, and who would support aid to Ukraine and Israel) which have wide bipartisan support and popular support as well. This strategy needs to be conducted quietly.Trump Won’t Support Latest Frontrunner in House Speaker Race (msn.com)
• The problem this presents is that any successful centrist candidate will have to deal with MAGA, a large chunk of the House GOP caucus,. This means the Dems may have to keep up the strategy of a coalition government as issues come to the floor for a time. 
• 
  
•  

.

Democrats still need to link voters angry over Roe v Wade to House elections

Update 9/14/22:  Sen. Lindsey Graham has just handed blue states a legislative litmus test for Democrats to use to put GOP House candidates on the spot on the issue of abortion.  It is a gift to Democrats   Lindsey Graham’s national 15-week abortion ban probably won’t help Republicans in the midterms - Vox   The flip side of this is for voters to ask if the candidate would support making Roe v Wade the law of the land?

Thanks to that old partisan technique of drawing district borders to make as many congressional districts "safe" for one party, there are few districts left that can swing one way or the other.   There are enough swing districts, however, still in the contention that both parties have a chance to control the House.    The keys to winning a swing district are two: public policy issues that motivate greater than average turnout and the "quality" of the candidates. For Democrats, the determination of winning swing states will be the position of the candidates on the codification of Roe v Wade and fear of a Trumpist takeover of the government, the end of democracy. Those are their top two issues per a very recent NBC poll.  For the Trump GOP, it is the economy, stupid, and absolute loyalty to Trump and Trumpism.   Where Democrats are falling short so far is connecting the young and suburban voters with their opposition to the overturn of Roe v Wade to their own district congressional and state legislative candidates. One way to make a link is to ask, "how will the candidate vote if elected to make Roe v Wade the federal law of the land".   Putting that question directly to candidates for Congress should be very revealing and pertinent to the position to which they are being elected. It is more than "what side are you on" on abortion rights. It is easy to demagogue that answer.  

 NY Times compilation of Democratic party ads re: choice   Recent polls show 57% of all Americans opposed the overturning of Roe v Wade and 52% of states with restrictive laws on women's choice.  PP_2022.07.06_Roe-v-Wade_REPORT.pdf (pewresearch.org)     Saving democracy is the single top issue for 21%; jobs, economy, and cost of living combined are still top.  Since Roe v Wade overturned, Democrats, closed the enthusiasm gap signaling the issue is will motivate Democratic turnout in November.     NBC August Poll shows increase concern for democracy   https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/after-redistricting-heres-how-each-party-could-win-house     

 The strategy Democrats take also will vary from state to state. Where to put the campaign money and attention is important.  Wasting money on a lost cause district is not wise, but in a swing district, efforts count more.  Tying the issue of Roe v Wade legislation connected with political party affiliation is also helpful because, given the usual diminished attention to individual congressional campaigns and the prohibitive expense of TV advertising, voters tend to vote straight tickets for congressional and down-ballot candidates if they are uncertain who they are and what policy positions they favor.  The fewer Senate and state-wide races will get the media exposure since the cost is spread out statewide with more moderates, unaffiliated, and swing voters voting in general elections than in primaries. Due to more and more states using non-partisan commissions to draw boundaries in 2022, gerrymandering is not as determining a factor as it has been in the past in the midwest. States in the south, having their state legislatures draw the district boundaries, are the most gerrymandered, but in the West, with wider use of the independent commissions to draw boundaries (as in Colorado), the outcome was little change.  For example, in southern states, only 10 percent of congressional districts are swing,  lower than the national average. Still, in the midwest, there are more swing districts than there were before this year's redistricting (a process after each census year),  enough to offset the southern states' gerrymandering efforts by Republicans.  Both parties have a path to winning a majority in the House this year per the Brennan Center. .https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/after-redistricting-heres-how-each-party-could-win-house     

 

Rephrasing the advocacy message means avoiding political science jargon

Better messaging is needed on terms like gerrymandering, vote stealing, fair and free elections, and other political science and legal terms. Plain English would help. 

Have you noticed that both public officials and journalists tend to get into a rut using one or two technical words to substitute for common English?  They wrongly make the assumption that audiences will understand how it will affect them, It is particularly a problem when abstract political science concepts are at issue. Often foul is called if a rule or law is broken, but that requires a brief legal case to be made instead of a sound bite. Frequently the point gets lost in the weeds of technical legal Iand hair-splitting definitions. Just claiming something is undemocratic is also too vague.   For better advocacy,. there are some terms that can be retooled by walking in the shoes of the audience and helping them understand how it affects them. The operative alternative word to "against the law" is being " fair", because most people like to think they are fair or want to be treated fairly as others are treated.  What the bad guys are doing may be fair to themselves, but not to anyone else.    It might need a short phrase to explain it, or even simply ditching the jargon word and replacing it with a plain English phrase.   "Fair and free elections" could be "counting your vote the same way as all others are counted". Basically," the the bad guys do not want so many votes opposing their opponents to be counted or even cast." " Fair is not their goal; winning if losing is".   Elections are " stolen" when all votes are not counted. Elections can be called " unfair if who controls the counting is one party or one candidate ". .   The term "voter suppression",  assumes you get the point, and the bad guys are those who do not want you to vote. . If you are a victim of it, you get it, but if you are not, why should you care?.  It might be called "making it harder (more inconvenient, more expensive) for certain people to vote for the candidate they want"  "Gerrymander" is another jargon word, as well.  Voters may think it is a bad thing, but how it affects them is not very clear..  .  For "gerrymander", an explanatory phrase would be"drawing district boundaries to reduce the numbers of certain targeted peoples'  representatives in government".  

The subpoints of example to illustrate the unfairness of elections can follow the plain English phrase  with examples, and relate them to "fairness".  For example, removing ballot drop boxes for mail in votes and in person polling places from areas you suspect will vote for your opponent is not fair.  Locking up paper ballots or counting machines so only candidate loyalists and supporters can do the counting is not fair.   Those may be good examples of voter suppression, but they are above all not fair. Giving rural areas with lower population or one racial group than urban ones with another racial group more representative districts in the legislature is gerrymandering and unfair. Those practices may break the law or may not, but they are unfair.  

 There is an old preacher rhetorical trick that works well, too. First you tell them what you are saying, then you make your point with examples , and then close with a word of what you said. Here is how it could uld done in a short comment in plain English:: "It isn't fair for just my opponent's loyalists to count the votes. True story: A clerk in Colorado locked away the paper ballots and the vote tabulators in a room so only those loyal to her candidates could count them. Not only did that break the law and the rules, that is not a fair election that makes sure are votes are counted and no elections are stolen." .   Another sound bite:",An equal ability for all to vote is fair. True story in another state: Polling places and mail in ballots drop boxes were removed from precincts expected to vote for an opponent, but not in precincts expected to vote for another candidate.  That is  called voter suppression, but it isn't fair.  Drawing district lines to favor one party and to give them more representatives in the legislature than another party is not fair. True story in Colorado: An opponent running against the governor wants to change district boundaries to the legislature so that all urban counties with most votes  are put in one district and rural ones with few voters are divided up into more districts.  That may or may not violate a law, but it is not fair.