The grand old American experiment in self-governance, that rambunctious and often glorious affair, has always had its share of bruised knuckles and hurt feelings.
But we may now be witnessing something far more sinister than a mere political nosebleed.
There is a growing and deeply troubling chorus of voices, not from the usual rabble-rousers, but from number-crunchers and data analysts—folks who speak in the cold, hard language of statistics—who are suggesting that the fix was not just in, but that it was in with a vengeance.
These experts aren’t pointing fingers at the usual ghosts of dictators past, but at the very machinery of our own creation.
Consider the work of Nathan Taylor and his colleagues at the Election Truth Alliance, a group of concerned citizens who have taken it upon themselves to stare into the digital abyss of our voting data.
What they claim to have found is enough to curdle the milk of human kindness.
In North Carolina, for instance, they point to a staggering discrepancy of some 297,000 votes—a yawning chasm between the votes cast for president and those cast for other races on the same ballot.
Now, in the normal order of things, a voter might walk into a booth, pull the lever for their chosen candidate, and then, perhaps out of sheer boredom or a sudden attack of conscience, skip the comptroller’s race.
But hundreds of thousands of them? All in one fell swoop? It stretches the long arm of coincidence to the breaking point.
It’s a pattern that seems to repeat itself like a bad dream.
In the quiet precincts of Rockland County, New York, a lawsuit is making its way through the courts, armed with affidavits from voters who swear on a stack of Bibles that they voted for one candidate, only to have their ballots recorded for another.
The numbers tell a story that defies logic: whole districts where voters showed up and dutifully voted for a Democrat for the Senate, yet, when it came to the presidential race, suddenly developed a collective amnesia so profound that not a single one of them pulled the lever for the Democratic presidential candidate.
The eggheads over at Yale, Harvard, and MIT tell us that split-ticket voting on this scale is about as rare as an honest politician.
So, what are we left with? Mistake? Or malice?
Investigators say, “the amount of potentially manipulated votes required to change the 2024 election outcome is likely smaller than many Americans may realize.”
And then there’s the curious case of the blank ballots out west.
A congressman from Arizona has formally requested the Department of Justice look into reports that at a facility in Maricopa County, boxes of pristine, unvoted-upon ballots were somehow, some way, mingled with the real, live, voted ballots that were being prepped for counting.
The company involved says it’s impossible, a procedural impossibility. But the very fact that the question is being asked, that a shadow of a doubt has been cast over the integrity of the vote in one of the nation’s most pivotal counties, is a sign of just how sick at heart our system has become.
They say they have nothing to hide, and they invite oversight. A wise man once said that a man with a clean conscience is usually too busy to be constantly inviting folks in to admire it.
Of course, the moment such questions are raised, the guardians of the status quo emerge from the woodwork, wringing their hands and warning us that to even ask is to be unpatriotic.
We are told that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has given the election a clean bill of health, that the system has never been more secure.
We are told that the election was “the most secure in American history.”
We’ve heard that particular lullaby before, and it did little to soothe us to sleep the last time.
The same experts who now assure us that the trains are running on time are the ones who seem perpetually baffled that the American people have lost faith in the timetable.
The most telling detail, the one that would make a seasoned riverboat pilot chuckle before he spat into the muddy Mississippi, is the sudden silence from the victors.
Before the 2024 election, the air was thick with cries of “cheating” in Philadelphia, of lawlessness in Detroit.
The airwaves were filled with promises of a vast conspiracy to steal the White House.
The moment the smoke cleared and the man from Mar-a-Lago was declared the winner, the cries stopped.
Vanished. Not a peep. It was as if the great fraud-detecting machinery, so sensitive before the vote, suddenly needed a tune-up.
If the cheating was so rampant, so pervasive that it required law enforcement to descend upon Philadelphia, why is it that now, with the prize secured, the streets are quiet and the allegations are as dead as a doornail?
As any schoolboy could tell you, if you spend four years screaming that the dice are loaded, and then you win the game, it doesn’t suddenly mean the dice are fair.
You either admit you were lying about the dice, or you admit you were in on the fix.
Trump would have been convicted of illegally trying to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election – which he lost – if he had not successfully been re-elected in 2024, according to Special Counsel Jack Smith, the man who led the aborted prosecution.
The failure to promptly start the criminal probe is one of the most obvious shortcomings that validate why Americans might have rejected Vice President Kamala Harris, but experts who are analyzing the election results suspect that there’s another factor at work.
The people behind these models, these statistical red flags, are not the usual conspiracy theorists selling pamphlets out of a suitcase.
They are asking for forensic audits, for a simple hand-count of the paper ballots. They want to look at the physical evidence, the very paper trail that was supposed to be our salvation from the black boxes of electronic voting.
They are met with shrugs and lawsuits that drag on for months, not to overturn anything, but merely to have a look.
John D. Rockefeller was once asked how much money was enough. He replied, “Just a little bit more.” It seems the same holds true for power.
When you have all the power, the one thing you cannot abide is a question about how you got it.
Spineless Senate Democrats have been silent on this evidence of widespread cheating as well as the deployment of military force in US cities, but that is little comfort.
These inert party leaders have ignored such polemicists as Greg Palast, who claimed, “Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.”
“None of these are foolproof, but each makes it significantly less likely that an attack would be successful,” said Michael Specter, a Georgia Institute of Technology assistant professor, speaking about election security systems designed to catch discrepancies.
There are reasons to be suspicious
The Republican Party has a history of employing controversial tactics, from voter intimidation to disinformation and attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.
Republicans allegedly sabotaged Vietnam War peace talks in 1968, prolonged the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980, and engaged in the Swift boating of John Kerry in 2004.
When a notorious cheater facing prison, who threw a tantrum when he lost the last time, not only wins an election but prevailed in the popular vote in every single swing state, it’s reasonable to have some doubts.
Sophisticated methods for sniffing out fraud have raised new concerns that deserve more attention than they are getting.
If President Donald Trump cheated his way back into the White House, it only reinforces the fear that he has no intention of leaving.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.