What if those late night vote dumps for Biden are actually legit? Wait, keep reading, there is a point to this thought experiment. Suppose that the Democrats with the help of Big Tech™ and Social Media™ have really cracked the code for achieving Soviet levels of turnout (90% plus) at least in a limited targeted area like Milwaukee or urban Atlanta. We know that Mark Zuckerberg personally gave 300 million dollars to a get out the vote non-profit. Maybe the data scientists and psychologists at Facebook used all the information they have combined with all the data the Democratic party has to both identify and target the 30% of registered voters who don’t actually vote. Then hit them with a concentrated campaign of social media influence and old fashioned shoe leather work sufficient to get most of them to cast a vote. Presumably a campaign like that would be very expensive and therefore only practical to apply to a small fraction of voters (say 1%) but exquisitely targeted for maximal effect. Given all that Silicon Valley knows about us, this is at least plausible, yes?
Accepting the premise, I would be both relieved and angered. Relief in that despite all the intentional security flaws introduced, our elections are fundamentally honest. An honest election is an election I can win. I don’t like losing, and I doubly don’t like losing when basically the reason is that a bunch of software engineers (guilty as charged) found a way to hack (legally) the system. But, hacks can be counter hacked. Democrats turned Orange County blue two years ago by legally harvesting votes, but the Republicans flipped two of those seats back by playing their own harvesting game (in among other places gun stores!).
I would be angered because the massive gas lighting campaign to cover up the very anomalous results of this election would not be to hide a crime, but merely to protect a get out the vote strategy. The Democrats would drastically increase the risk of real political violence (not the amateur hour rushing of the capital) just to preserve their ‘secret’ GOTV weapon. If my alternate theory is true, decent Democrats should just do what the really want to do and brag about it. Laugh in the faces of Republicans and show us how you used your ‘superior intellect’ to flip a Presidential election and beat that nasty Trump fair and square. Enjoy the gloat and help deescalate the political tension that is running so high. At least then Trump voters could believe that they have a chance to win in the future which the vast majority do not believe today.
5 replies on “What if…”
I’m no math scholar, but the odds of a 100K plus batch of votes coming in being 96 or something % for Biden and 4% or so for Trump is astronomical.
The “coincidence” of swing states all knocking off (supposedly) around the same time with no forethought is also pretty high odds.
The historical stats of 4 key states won by a single candidate has ALWAYS resulted in that person becoming Pres. not bearing out in this election is also statistically impossible.
If the courts in said states wanted to preserve voter confidence, they would have at least allowed the evidence to be presented (heard). They didn’t. What are the odds of multiple courts not even allowing the evidence to be presented/heard?
It would be nice if they have a secret method to getting more votes legally (I watched a documentary on various Chinese backed org’s doing just what you described).
Still doesn’t cover most of the “anomalies”.
What is frustrating is that the integrity of the system is testable. I can’t speak for other states, but where I am from you have to sign a log book next to your name to vote in person and you have to provide a signature when voting absentee. There is a signature on file for ever last person who voted. An auditor could, in the anomalous precincts, collect a random set of signatures weighted in the same ratio of main in and in person votes, say 10,000 total (even a typical survey size of a 1000 might be adequate). Under the observation of both parties a disinterested group of signature checkers could compare those to the signature on file for that voter (ID is required in my state and your driver’s license has your signature). Typical rejection rates run at about 1% I’ve read. That doesn’t mean 1% of the votes are fraudulent. If you would see my slovenly signature you wouldn’t expect it to ever pass muster. If there was fraud at the level of changing the outcome of an election, then the signature fail rate would be more like 20% to 30%. I don’t think there is enough time or resources for anyone to reasonably forge with even remote accuracy something like 100,000 signatures.
At the same time an auditor could do a complementary test. With that same sample, contact every voter and ask them just a few simple questions:
If there is significant fraud, then again 20% to 30% will respond that they did not vote. Even if the word gets out that if you are called about voting you should say yes, question 2 (and 3 for those claiming absentee) will catch out the liars (they only have a 50/50 chance of correctly guessing how the ballot was supposed to have been cast). Another way to test the liar hypothesis would be to call a sample of registered voters in the contended precincts who did not vote and ask them.
At this point, the election results can’t be overturned, but we can still establish whether the vote was honest but very anomalous or whether it was fraudulent. The test I propose could have been done between election day and now. The fact that it wasn’t is telling but not conclusive.
Don’t forget, though, they want the division and tension. They’d never sacrifice a power grab just so they could laugh at the other side.
If the issue galvanizes the right it works against them. If it leads to significant unrest it works against everyone. A dangerous game to play…
True. I wasn’t until a couple of weeks ago but now I’m convinced there are enough who are through putting up with leftist B.S. to get the country back. Probably take years but the fight will be well worth it.