Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cheating in elections is as old as–well, as old as elections. Cheating in elections using paper is as old as the use of paper in elections. Are we supposed to just assume that cheating in elections using computers is going to be much younger than the use of computers in elections?
I have now come to believe that it is more likely than not that there was electronic cheating in the 2020 election, but this is a defeasible conclusion — meaning that my reasons for thinking this could easily be refuted.
Despite its eventual inevitability, it still comes as a jarring paradigm shift for me merely to entertain the idea that such a thing might be true. I knew America had problems, but I didn’t think one of them was that our elections are so bad as all that. But there is an argument that it is true.
A very simple argument, but also, once again, defeasible: The electronic side of America’s elections is so terribly insecure that it’s difficult to say concerning a close election whether electronic cheating didn’t nudge the winner over the finish line; in this terrible state, it only takes a little evidence to render it more likely than not that this is just what happened; and, unfortunately, we do have a little evidence.
Before Going into Detail, Let’s Outline that Argument Again
The place to begin is not a pleasant one: We have to recognize that we know next to nothing about our elections. It’s not that we know there was electronic cheating. The tragedy is that we don’t know that there wasn’t.
Ockham’s Razor does not apply here. There’s no default setting here that says, “It didn’t happen.” The default setting is: We’re blind and in the dark with little or nothing to go on. Odds start at about 50/50. And in this situation, even a little bit of comparatively weak evidence nudges things one way or the other.
We may only have a little evidence. But we do have it. So it’s more likely than not that it happened.
So Why Do We Know Nothing?
Read my recent post, “The Voting Machines Need To Go,” for a more detailed commentary on the backstory. Briefly, there are three things wrong with the voting machines that destroy trust by destroying trustworthiness. But that’s only the rotten fruit of the problem. The poisoned root is that we don’t know what’s going on in these machines.
They count votes using ratios–56% Trump to 44% Biden with 100 votes . . . or maybe with 113 votes.
They use secret code.
They have online connectivity.
Let’s zoom in on that last one.
A report from a Michigan Senate committee clarifies (see page 22). Many–but not all–of the voting machines do connect to the internet. It’s for reporting results fast, and the modems are supposed to be switched off during the vote count.
Seems safe enough, except for a point made by Father Brown in the writings of G. K. Chesterton: A reliable electronic system needs to be used by an unreliable system–a human being, the most unreliable of all systems.
This, of course, is why we’re supposed to have processes to make unreliable people into reliable people. Courtroom rules and processes. Ways of fact-checking used in history and science and journalism. In elections, witnesses and transparency and clean, documented chains of custody.
So are there rules in 50 states specifying that the vote count cannot begin until a Republican observer, a Democrat observer, and a government official have all signed on a dotted line specifying that they checked to confirm that the dang modem was switched the heck off?
If there were, would we not have heard about it in every goshdarn fact check since November 2020?
Instead, we heard the myth that the machines don’t connect to the internet at all.
Without those processes, we know nothing. We begin as Socrates. We stand in a windowless room with the lights off. We have no evidence that none of the machines were hacked. There are neither rules nor processes to make the system trustworthy. Our elites and officials tend to be untrustworthy people, but that doesn’t mean they’re lying–they don’t know anything either! Hardly anyone has even a glimmer of clarity except for the ignored bureaucrats at the Election Assistance Commission advising us to get rid of these machines and some people in Michigan who added a footnote on page 22 of a Senate Oversight Committee report explaining the purpose of the modems in the voting machines.
The long and short of it is this: Trusting the electronic vote count means assuming, with no evidence, that no razor-thin margin in a swing state could have been affected because someone, whether through fraud or incompetence, simply left a modem on. That’s a weak assumption. Just as if it were the morning after a one-party machine in Philadelphia announces that ballot boxes opened at 3 AM handed an election to the Democrats with no Republicans or cameras present, Ockham’s Razor tells us nothing.
The odds of an electronically stolen election start at about 50/50, not because we can calculate them to that number but because in this ridiculous state of affairs we just know basically nothing.
So What Evidence Is There?
There are at least two lines of evidence which, as far as I know, are still standing. You can look up the details in Chapter 9 of the big post here (or, for off-Ricochet, here). The gist is, simply, this:
There are (at least) still claims from nerds that the computer data show disappearing Trump votes and that statistically impossible vote ratios occurred in the vote updates.
(Hey, you want some citations? The part about disappearing Trump votes is from computer nerds who looked at some information in some computer logs and presented it to the Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections. This Epoch Times piece introduces the topic. A briefer intro here. Scott Adams has some interesting commentary here. Here is a June 2021 video on Gab going over a number of such incidents in multiple states. This guy comments on other candidates than Trump who also had some disappearing votes. For the part about the statistically impossible vote ratios, see a Rumble video called “Unmasked: The Truth About The 2020 Election”. A blog post from Just a Mom here introduces the same sort of material, focusing on data pertaining to North Dakota. Or . . . click on the big post linked above, and spend some time in Chapter 9!)
I am incapable of classifying this evidence as decisive in and of itself because I lack the ability even to understand the computer talk and/or to check the data. So this evidence, at least as far as I know, carries only a little bit of weight in and of itself—maybe just enough to tip the scales.
What carries more weight, and what has for the present persuaded me, is this: Apparently no one has refuted these claims; but if these claims are wrong, then someone probably would have by now.
Accordingly, my working opinion on this topic is: Until such time as someone should refute the claims of the nerds about these phenomena or present some explanation for these phenomena other than electronic election fraud, it is likelier than not that electronic election fraud occurred in the 2020 election, and that it, in coordination with other shenanigans documented elsewhere, flipped swing states.
As I said, very defeasible: Show me the refutation, and I reckon I’ll go back to thinking all that happened was all the other election corruption and folly–rather a lot of it, unfortunately.
This line of reasoning does have one other notable vulnerability. It relies on the premise that someone probably would have refuted these claims by now if they were not true. That seems likely to me–not least because there are many who are eager to refute such claims, who often try, and who sometimes (as far as I can tell) succeed.
But it might not be true. It might be that the people who are responsible for finding the refutations of these guys are just too unintelligent, uninterested, or lazy to do so. Given the dismal quality of our journalists, government officials, and experts these days, this certainly seems possible. Looking past the journalists at the whole country, it’s the same problem. Too many of us are strung out on porn, drugs, internet rage, and video games. Too few of us can read sentences with an advanced grammatical construction, fit a premise to a conclusion, or recognize reality when it stares us in the face–which reminds me, what is a woman?
So I could be wrong. But the logic has changed my views to what they are now, and they can’t change back without better logic or new evidence.
So consider yourself invited to change my mind: Do you know of a refutation I don’t know of?Published in