The latest news about Amazon hypocrisy ought to infuriate you
If there was one thing that contributed to Biden’s entering the White House, it was the mail-in voting that Democrats initiated by crying “COVID.” According to Democrats, voting in person in 2020 was tantamount to murdering citizens. Mail-in voting, though, is an invitation to old-fashioned ballot fraud. That’s why it’s maddening that Amazon is now insisting that a unionization vote in Alabama must be conducted through in-person, not mail-in ballots, to ensure “vote fidelity and timeliness of vote count.”
Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and the richest man in the world, bought the Washington Post in 2013. Under his aegis, the paper went from being a left-leaning outlet to becoming the official paper of Washington’s Democrat party. As such, the Washington Post strongly advocated for mail-in voting during the 2020 election.
For example, in August 2020, Bezos’s Post insisted that President Trump’s concerns about the risk of fraud because of states that had switched entirely to mail-in voting were “without evidence,” as was his claim that “ballots would take too long to process.” The article then pointed to all the countries that rely on mail-in voting, whether exclusively or primarily.
The article ignored the fact that, as Harmeet Dhillon wrote in June 2020, mail-in voting (which is distinguishable from absentee ballots) is widely acknowledged to lead to fraud:
Democrats would flood the postal system with unused ballots and open the door for bad actors to manipulate the election. Nevada estimates that 90% of ballots mailed to inactive voters will be returned as undeliverable. From 2012 to 2018, there were 28 million ballots mailed but never returned.
Expanding vote-by-mail systems takes an immense amount of equipment, time, staff and funding, yet House Democrats want to impose universal vote-by-mail mandates on every state this fall.
Widespread voting by mail also risks severely delayed election results. Processing mail ballots is time consuming, particularly in states that have low levels of voting by mail.
Finally, mail voting is less secure than in-person voting. Voters, particularly in vulnerable populations such as the poor or the elderly, can be coerced to yield their ballots because there is no ballot secrecy. Voters’ ballots can be lost, delayed or thrown out by election officials without the voter knowing. Ballot harvesters can spread COVID-19 while also pressuring or manipulating voters.
Let me reiterate the official Bezos/Amazon viewpoint when it comes to mail-in voting for the most consequential national election since 1860: It’s all good, timing is not a problem, and no one needs to worry about fraud, especially in a time of COVID.
Things are a bit different, though, when it comes to Amazon’s own business – specifically, it’s Alabama warehouse. In that case, Amazon asserts that mail-in voting regarding unionization creates way more problems than Amazon should be forced to risk, especially in a time of COVID:
The company Thursday filed an appeal to a decision by the National Labor Relations Board, which is allowing a mail-in process due to Covid-19 risks instead of the in-person elections that are typical in such unionization votes.
Amazon declined to comment on its appeal but has said it believes the best approach to an election would be conducting it in person, saying it “provided the NLRB with a safe, confidential and convenient proposal for associates to vote on-site, which is in the best interest of all parties—associate convenience, vote fidelity and timeliness of vote count.” (Emphasis added.)
To repeat: When it comes to America, Amazon is fine with a system that is entirely vulnerable to fraud, difficult to manage, and drastically delays vote counts. When it comes to a large leftist company trying to avoid unionization, lest it be forced to pay its employees a living wage, suddenly Amazon is excessively concerned about timeliness and fidelity and urges the same in-person voting that Trump and his supporters insisted was necessary for an honest election.
I don’t have anything pithy to say here. I’m so choked up on my own anger at this hypocrisy that I’m at a loss for words. Here’s one suggestion, though: If you can, don’t buy from Amazon. The only exceptions are if you need to buy from Amazon or, as Sarah Hoyt notes, you’re using Amazon to support conservative content providers. And while you’re boycotting your economic and political enemies, try not to buy anything from China either.