Forget fraud, Indiana Jack points out the potential ramifications of many incorrectly completed mail-in ballots being disqualified. This presumably at a higher rate than in-person voting which enjoys a comparative lack of distractions, an automated ballot review, and poll workers to assist voters:
The effect of mail-in voting on the election results this year will be interesting. Trump and many Republicans have criticized mail-in voting, and the general consensus seems to be that an increasing number of mail-in ballots will help Biden. Personally, I am not so sure. Nationwide, over 550,000 ballots were disqualified in the primaries this year because they were filled out incorrectly, and there will doubtless be large numbers of ballots disqualified in the general election as well. Minority voters are more likely than average to have their ballots thrown out than White voters are, and Democrats are far more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year.
It should not be forgotten that this has already affected elections in the past. In 2000, more voters in Florida intended to vote for Gore than for Bush, but so many Gore voters filled out their ballots incorrectly that they were thrown out, giving Bush the state of Florida and thus the Presidency.
One possible scenario is that most voters will vote for Biden this year, but that so many of them will have their ballots disqualified that Trump will win the election. This possibility seems to be worrying some Democrats.
Alrenous on a personal pet peeve, the NPC who licks boots and kisses rings, never entertaining–let alone generating–a thought that would be out of place on the airwaves of CNN or the pages of the NYT, always speaking power to truth who, despite this, imagines himself a plucky pugilist on the side of the angels sticking it to The Man:
If witch hunting is a lucrative and popular pastime, there are no witches worth a damn. If there were witches, witch-hunters would end up hanging upside-down from the tree at the crossroads with their head shrunk to the size of a baseball.
Double-dipping on the theme, Criticas excerpts from an essay by Paul Graham I recall first reading in what feels like a lifetime ago, though the subject is an evergreen one–greener now than when he wrote it in the mid-oughts:
Let’s start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you’re supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn’t. Odds are you just think what you’re told.
The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you’d also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that’s very convincing evidence.
If you’ve the time, read the whole thing. It’d be interesting for Graham, an honest leftist, to provide an updated edition. He’d surely have to revise this, for instance:
For example, at the high water mark of political correctness in the early 1990s, Harvard distributed to its faculty and staff…
Thank goodness the intellectually stifling environment of the early 1990s is in the rear view mirror!