Biden and Harris win election in the wild and crazy year of 2020

 

Prior to this year only nine incumbent presidents had lost re-election bids. Given that record, a win against an incumbent isn’t really unusual. Donald Trump, President 45, may be the tenth one, and if so, this one is unusual.

Highlighting the list of oddities of the November 3rd election is pollster Patrick Basham. He is the founding director of the Democracy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC and London, UK.

“First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection,” Basham wrote in the American edition of The Spectator. “He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.”

“Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him,” he continued. 

“We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.”

Basham goes on to note that winners in presidential races, particularly if they are challengers, usually have candidates riding their coattails down ballot.

But Biden did not. “The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level,” he explained.

“Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics,” Basham wrote. “The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.”

“Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era,” he wrote. “But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record.” 

So, in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election, the non-polling metrics have never been wrong.

“Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not,” he said. “Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time.”

Basham told Mark Levin on Fox News’ “Life, Liberty and Levin” that such an outcome is "not statistically impossible, but it's statistically implausible."

Quoting from the Spectator article, Basham lists nine peculiarities that lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers.

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions.

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures.

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election.’

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing.

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes.

8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law.

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

It is stunning that these many irregularities — some that are crimes — do not bother so many people. The breaches of federal and state constitutional mandates in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — where state officials, not legislatures, changed voting processes — don’t seem to matter.

Will votes cast illegally be allowed to stand? We may never know how many illegal votes there actually were, or what the totals really were.

The 2020 election demonstrates the strong need for election reform

Whether you voted for Joe Biden or Donald Trump for President of the United States, or whether you believe that Trump was defeated by a more popular candidate or by election errors and dishonesty, you should want sensible and secure election systems in place to assure the results reflect the decision of the American people.

Few things are more deserving of absolute security than elections, especially when we are electing the president. And elections are a prime area for problems, as we have seen this year.

The pandemic of 2020 threw everything into chaos, including the election. Efforts to protect people led to a movement to send unrequested ballots — universal ballots — to every voter in several states, some of which had never done this before. That led to more chaos.

As a result of the craziness of the 2000 Bush v Gore controversy, the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform — known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission, named after former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker — was formed.

The Daily Signal explained that the commission “was created to address voting and election integrity issues raised by the tumultuous 36-day postelection battle of 2000, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that resulted in awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.” 

The commission studied the election processes, and in 2005 released a report with 87 recommendations. The Daily Signal reported on this study and noted that “had Congress and state governments adopted many of the panel’s recommendations, the 2020 post-election mess between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden might have been avoided, said Carter-Baker Commission member Kay C. James, now the president of The Heritage Foundation.”

James said that “simple protections against fraud, like voter ID and updated voter registration lists, make perfect sense if we truly believe that every vote must count. Election officials should take another look at the commission’s recommendations and make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect the integrity of our elections.”

While several state legislatures did respond to the commission’s recommendations, Congress was reportedly unenthusiastic about them.

The Commission offered seven recommendations that are relevant to the 2020 election. They include:

* Voter ID - “To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005. The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. 

“This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an [Election Assistance Commission]-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.”

* Mail-in and Absentee Voting Risks - “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. State and local jurisdictions should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service, or other legitimate shipper, or election officials. The practice in some states of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”

* Election Observers for Integrity - In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, Republicans have complained that qualified election observers have been prohibited from watching the counting. The Carter-Baker Commission report stressed the need for election observers to maintain the integrity of the ballots. 

“All legitimate domestic and international election observers should be granted unrestricted access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the electoral process, and respect the secrecy of the ballot,” the 2005 report said. 

* Reliable Voting Machines - Voting machines have also been a significant issue in 2020, particularly in Michigan, as one county there flipped from Biden to Trump after a hand recount showed the machine count to be inaccurate. 

The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that machines print out paper receipts for voters to verify their vote was accurately counted. “States should adopt unambiguous procedures to reconcile any disparity between the electronic ballot tally and the paper ballot tally,” the 2005 report says. “The Commission strongly recommends that states determine well in advance of elections which will be the ballot of record.”

* Media Calling Elections - “News organizations should voluntarily refrain from projecting any presidential election results in any state until all of the polls have closed in the 48 contiguous states,” the report states. “News organizations should voluntarily agree to delay the release of any exit-poll data until the election has been decided.”

The other two recommendations were to avoid duplicate registration across state lines, and to prosecute voter fraud. Both, particularly the latter, should be required.

The Carter-Baker recommendations are sensible ones. It’s too bad that Congress and more states did not have the good judgement to implement some or all of them.

Today, the country is paying a high price for their failure to do so.

We may not realize the degree to which free speech is under attack

Free speech is under attack across the country. The censoring of conservatives on Google, Twitter and Facebook is one form, and another form of censorship occurs in the news media when many of the nation’s largest and most read newspapers, and most watched and listened to broadcast media, report only some of the relevant news.

This bias of selecting some news over other news is dishonest and dangerous. It creates a situation where millions of Americans are quietly forced, through their reading, listening and watching habits, to make a wide variety of often significant decisions with only some of the important information they may need.

Free speech is also under attack at many of America’s institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities once were the places where the expression of a variety of ideas was highly regarded and encouraged.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) recently released the results of what it called “the largest free speech survey of college students ever performed,” consulting roughly 20,000 students at a variety of institutions. 

The 55 colleges involved were chosen “to represent a variety of colleges in the United States, including large public universities, small private colleges, religiously-affiliated colleges such as Brigham Young University, and Ivy League colleges.”

The results are not encouraging.

Sixty percent of students said they could not express an opinion because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. This position was held by 73 percent of “strong Republicans” and 52 percent of “strong Democrats.”

Black students are most likely to report an instance where they censored themselves, with 63 percent taking this position. Here are three examples from survey participants on self-censoring:

* “I was in a class where the professor pretty much made you feel as if your participation grade was at risk if you disagreed with them.” — Black female at Georgetown University

 

* “Whenever it is obvious that some of my professors are on the left, I felt like I couldn’t express my political opinions due to my grades.” — Asian male at Clemson University

 

* The professors within my college tend to be conservative. I worry with certain professors that my opinion would cause them to unfairly grade my projects. — Hispanic female at the University of Arizona

The survey also found that just 15 percent of students — 11 percent of females and 19 percent of males — felt comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial topic.

The FIRE report notes that “a number of questions focused on a tension between feelings, or emotional reasoning, with logical inference and deduction.” And some faculty members explained that “a number of their students place a ‘supreme importance’ on their own feelings even when what they ‘feel’ is right is contradicted by empirical evidence.” Here are two students’ responses on this:

“Just in general. You have to be very careful of your words in order to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Sometimes it is very hard to debate on topics because of this.” — Multiracial male at Northwestern University

“Nearly every day I feel like I cannot express my opinion without hurting someone’s feelings.” — White female at Georgetown University

Over the last couple of years there have been several instances of speakers invited to campuses to speak, but were shouted down and sometimes threatened. Many of those speakers were unable to complete their speaking engagement.

FIRE found that Ivy League school students were slightly more in favor of using violence to stop a campus speech. Twenty-one percent — one of every five — expressed some level of acceptance for violence in such situations.

And, on whether it is “always” or “sometimes” acceptable to shout down a speaker in extreme conversations, only 15 percent of extreme conservatives agreed, while more than 60 percent of extreme liberals agreed.

FIRE rated the universities on a numerical scale, and color-coded them for Speech Code, meaning “whether college policies restrict student speech that is protected by the First Amendment.” The codes are: Green = Best; Yellow = Intermediate; Red = Worst; Pink = Warning.

The five institutions with the highest level of free speech are: University of Chicago, Kansas State University, Texas A&M University, University of California, Los Angeles, and Arizona State University, all with Green codes.

The five institutions with the lowest level of free speech are: Syracuse University, Dartmouth College, Yellow codes; and Louisiana State University, University of Texas, and DePauw University, Red codes.

No West Virginia institutions were among the 55 that were ranked, but two Virginia institutions were included. The University of Virginia was ranked 6th on the list with a high level of free speech, and a Green code. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI) was ranked a respectable 8th with a mid-level Yellow code.

Censorship is a serious issue, one that is at odds with America’s First Amendment. Free speech is a cornerstone of this nation. 

There really is only one reason why someone or some group would exercise censorship: They are afraid their ideas will not be able to win when competing with different ideas, and therefore they will be unable to inflict their will on others. It’s about control.