Well worth listening to:
If the “facts” presented are only partly true, they are very much worth following up. Now it may be that the story about the reversibility of some of the Dominion voting machines is Russian or Chinese disinformation or even propaganda from the right, but if a foreign power really wanted to influence an election wouldn’t this be one way to do it? I wouldn’t rely on what anyone from the left-leaning media would say about this because their answer would, in all likelihood, be to argue for its falsehood regardless of the facts. A quick internet search on Dominion voting machines shows a number of bald assertions of falsehood by both the media and the manufacturer. (What else would you expect the manufacturer, for example, to say or CNN for that matter?) The New York Times, as usual, makes the assertion of falsehood without tendering proof or any supporting documentation. Rumor Control was the only site https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol that had some thoughtful information but you will note that assertions of safety are not the same thing as proof. Trump’s legal team is, supposedly, going to provide proof, so let’s see it before dismissing it as political propaganda.
If the elections were completely fair, what do the Democrats stand to lose with recounts in critical states but a little time?
Let’s invert the argument. If Trump won by the margins that Biden did, the Democrats would be screaming that the Russians or the Chinese caused Biden to lose. This sort of info war is too important not to get right. If Trump really lost, then he lost, and a recount in critical states will prove that once and for all. The propensity of Democrats to want to include marginal and even illegal voters is on record in multiple instances and is not just a popular folk tale of the right. As an aside, I for one am not interested in having the country become a nation of snitches who report on the size of their neighbors’ parties and whether or not they are wearing masks. This will, likely, be one of the results of a Biden presidency. The larger issues of self-governance, freedom and destruction of business dynamics are larger than “the science”. Medical experts may advise the polis but politicians should not cede their decision-making to the medical profession. Science, for example, tells us that life begins at conception but millions of people voting for pro abortion candidates choose to ignore this fact. Science also tells us that sticking sexual organs into excrement is not healthy but apparently a significant segment of the population chooses to ignore this bit of science. Millions died from AIDS but homosexuals were not quarantined. Now, these same scientifically selective clucks want to quarantine the healthy.
The Three Great Hysterias of the Left are based on fears about nuclear energy, climate change and now Covid. Nobody should say that we shouldn’t be concerned about the subject matter of the Three Great Hysterias but hysteria* itself is an over-reaction.
[*A psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women.] I would also add that the notion of a majority vote containing some sort of greater wisdom than the minority vote reminds me of the negative aspect of Tim O’s Divine Right of Capital—majority or ownership simply doesn’t guarantee that truth or justice will be served. The Electoral College was designed, in part, to keep the clueless masses from electing people who would NOT serve the larger interests of the Republic, which were usually represented by the moneyed class at that time. It is probably safe to say that far too many people who don’t know how to read or write are voting, and these are some of the folks most easily swayed by demagogues on the right and the left.
There are equally people in Trump’s camp who fit this category, as there are Democrats, who so can’t stand Trump’s style that they would vote for just about anyone. The thought of Kamela Harris being a few feet, so to speak, from the presidency is almost enough to make people like myself ill. Willie Brown who is reported to have had an affair with Harris be sniggering.
The idea of doing away with the Electoral College seems, on the face of it, a simple answer for a fairer election process but as part of a system of checks and balances, it may be the last firewall against the tyranny of the majority, which was of some concern to the Founders as was the possible tyranny of large central government. See the following:
“While the specific phrase “tyranny of the majority” is frequently attributed to various Founding Fathers, only John Adams is known to have used it, arguing against government by a single unicameral elected body. Writing in defense of the Constitution in March 1788, Adams referred to “a single sovereign assembly, each member…only accountable to his constituents; and the majority of members who have been of one party” as a “tyranny of the majority”, attempting to highlight the need instead for “a mixed government, consisting of three branches”. Constitutional author James Madison presented a similar idea in Federalist 10, citing the destabilizing effect of “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” on a government, though the essay as a whole focuses on the Constitution’s efforts to mitigate factionalism generally. Later users include Edmund Burke, who wrote in a 1790 letter that “The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny.” It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859). Friedrich Nietzsche used the phrase in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879). Ayn Rand wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and “the smallest minority on earth is the individual”.
In Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance”, he said “tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery” and that “this sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested”. (As usual, Marcuse creates his own self-serving definitions untethered from tradition.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority