What we need is an independent means of testing the electoral result.

The traditional way of doing this is, of course, to assume legitimacy, then gather anecdotal evidence of vote-cheating, promote that to sworn testimony through court proceedings, and hope for a conclusion from the adversarial process this generates.  That’s how we now know, for example, that Stevens was falsely prosecuted and Coleman beat Franken.

Great.  Except that both Franken and Begich hold office, both voted for ObamaCare, and both will get generous federal pensions.  Basically, the traditional approach may be effective, but it’s also politically pointless…and inappropriate in today’s context anyway, given that we need something a whole lot quicker.  We need something, in fact, that can give us a clear result in time to decide whether there’s a case to be made for asking the college of electors to overturn the nominal result when they vote on December 17.

One idea that might work would be to compare the results of an honest poll to the nominal results obtained in the election and then decide what the odds are that the differences, if any, reflect electoral fraud.

Given that there have been hundreds of polls, the most public of which roughly predicted the reported electoral outcomes, this may seem like a dumb idea.  But it may not be so dumb…

Continue reading →