10 Reasons to Question the Election
It's frustrating to hear people on the Right, including some who should know better, claim there's "no evidence" of significant, possibly outcome-changing fraud in the last presidential election — even as the forensic audit in Arizona uncovers multiple discrepancies.
Clearly, they're confusing "evidence" with "proof."
No, there may not be absolute, incontrovertible proof of election fraud — yet. But there is plenty of evidence, good reasons a rational person might question the outcome. Here are ten that come to mind, in no particular order:
Eyewitness testimony. Since November 3, hundreds of people have come forward to report that they personally witnessed various irregularities in the vote-counting process: ballots run through tabulating machines multiple times; "pristine" mail-in ballots; ballots that appeared to have been printed on different paper or filled out by machines — the list goes on.
Two questions come to mind. First, what would these witnesses stand to gain by making knowingly false claims? Many submitted actual affidavits, subjecting themselves to potential legal liability. Second, could that many people simply be mistaken? It seems unlikely.
Our own eyes. Actually, the eyewitness testimony confirms what many of us have since seen for ourselves, via security camera footage: cases of ballots being pulled out from under tables in Fulton County, Georgia, right after observers were told to go home for the night. Vans pulling up to TCF Center in Detroit, with dozens of boxes unloaded in the dead of night.
Are there innocent, plausible explanations? Perhaps. But I have yet to hear any. Mostly, we're just told, "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here."
Statistical anomalies. Some of the most persuasive evidence comes from mathematicians like Edward Solomon, who have conducted in-depth statistical analyses and concluded that the reported election results are highly improbable, if not impossible. Documented anomalies include repeated percentages that could not occur naturally and number sequences that appear to violate Benford's Law, governing the standard distribution of first digits. Both are considered valid indicators of fraud in criminal cases.
Expert testimony. Along with Solomon, we also have other internationally recognized experts like Jovan Hutton Pulitzer who have put their reputations on the line — in Pulitzer's case, by devising a method of forensically examining ballots using computer imaging. These are people who have little to gain from taking an unpopular position. That they do so openly, for no other reason than that they value the truth, speaks volumes.
Credible proponents. When pressed to choose between two sides of a controversial issue about which I'm unsure, I typically look at the proponents of the opposing views. If one side appears more honest, rational, and credible than the other, I tend to lean that way.
Beyond the experts, there are many election skeptics whose opinions I respect. Some are friends and family members; others are national figures like Garland Favorito; Matthew DePerno; and especially David Clements, on whose Herculean efforts much of this information is based.
Constitutional questions. For me, one of the biggest issues is whether or not the election was conducted in accordance with the Constitution. It appears that, in several states, it was not.
The Constitution expressly cedes authority for conducting elections to state legislatures. But in Pennsylvania, election laws were changed by the Executive Branch and then upheld by the Judiciary, over the objections of the Legislature. In my home state of Georgia, much of the election process seems to have been shaped by back-room deals between the governor and the "shadow governor," Stacey Abrams. I don't see how either can be constitutional.
Lack of evidentiary hearings. "But the courts have debunked all these allegations," the left cries. Not exactly. Yes, most (but not all) of the lawsuits brought so far have been dismissed, mostly on technicalities. Very few courts have actually taken time to hear the evidence.
This brings to mind the old philosophical conundrum about the tree falling in the forest: if you have actual evidence, but the courts refuse to hear it, does it make a sound?
Democrat obstructionism. Despite all those "wins" in court, and amid absurd claims that this was "the most secure election in history," Democrats seem oddly reluctant to allow for investigations. In fact, in Arizona and elsewhere, they appear to be in a state of abject panic, willing to do almost anything to disrupt, discredit, or delay audits.
Why, if there was no fraud, are they so adamant? Approximately half the country questions the election. Why not allow the audits to proceed and put those doubts to rest?
Big Tech propaganda. Whether or not actual fraud occurred, there's no question Big Tech had its thumb on the scale — promoting false narratives that helped Biden (Russian collusion, the "good people" lie, accusing Trump of downplaying the pandemic) while suppressing factual reports that might have hurt him — in particular, the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et al. have essentially admitted as much — and they continue propping up the Biden administration to this day, using the same tactics.
That, folks, is propaganda—and I'm not aware of any situation in history where propaganda was necessary to promote the truth.
The smell test. Finally, there is this: the whole thing just stinks to high heaven. A sitting president earns more votes than any sitting president in history; he increases his vote totals among Blacks, Hispanics, and women; he wins 18 of 19 "Bellwether Counties," along with Florida, Ohio, and Iowa — long the guarantors of presidential victory; his party picks up seats in the House; and he still loses?
That makes no sense. I might not be able to prove it isn't true, but I'll tell you this: I don't believe it for a minute.
Image via Pickpik.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.