A Bumper Crop of Democracy

Bringing in the sheaves, one dropbox at a time

If the reader might bear with me for a moment, I’d like to tell you all a mystery story. There was once a country that was having an election. Going into this election, one party - the party in power - was unpopular, trailing in the polls, and led by a president with abysmal approval ratings and who is widely understood to be senile. This party’s policies had resulted in widespread economic damage to the nation, creating rates of inflation unseen for forty years, doubling gas prices, and harming the broad middle of the country financially. Further, this same party was pursuing social policies that created a widespread backlash against its radicalism and had already been contributing to electoral problems for it in previous local and off-year elections all across the land. Even in swing states, this party’s candidates were behind in the polls and the widespread expectation from all quarters was that it was going to suffer a wideout in the upcoming election.

Yet in a baffling and practically inexplicable turn of events, when the day of the election came, this party became the beneficiary of an astoundingly fortuitous chain of events that rescued it from certain peril! Voting machines curiously broke down or otherwise became inoperable in precincts where the other party made up a majority. Meanwhile, in swing state districts which this party coincidentally happens to control, voting didn’t end on election night, but box after box after box of ballots kept coming in, being counted by officials in secret with no outside oversight. In one state, in a race in which two ladies were running for governour, the one lady who belonged to this party (and who also happened to be in the office that oversees elections), benefited from the mysterious breakdowns and never-ending counting that was carried out in an especially cryptic manner, allowing her to certify herself as the winner. By this same formula, the party in question managed to eke out narrow wins in basically every contested governourship and senate race that they needed to retain their political control.

And lo! Even though the other party had consistently led by several points in the generic House polling, and in fact had won the popular vote by roughly 4.5 million votes nationwide, control of the House was still up in the air. What made this more perplexing was that the other party - the one who had four and a half million more votes - is a rural and suburban party for the most part, meaning that they weren’t just running up the numbers in a relative handful of cities, but instead had genuine popular support across most of the nation. Yet this other party somehow, against all statistical odds, made a pitiful showing against the heroes of our story.

Of course, the average person is expected to simply to go along with the great mystery, accepting it in all of its inscrutable glory. But, as René Daumal once wrote, “Each time dawn appears, the mystery is there in its entirety.” And as we all know, mysteries beg for an answer.

Except in this case, it’s not really a mystery what happened in this past election. Indeed, the answer is pretty obvious - and that answer is called “ballot harvesting,” as well as the broader fact that wherever Democrats hold power, there will be shady, fraudulent goings-on that always seem to benefit in one direction.

So what is ballot harvesting? Basically, it’s a system that exists to game the mail-in voting that most states have adopted, especially since the covid plandemic. In theory, mail-in voting is supposed to be a way for people who are unable to vote in person to still be able to cast their ballot by having someone they trust take their filled-out ballot to a drop off point where it may then be collected and counted on election day.

However, how it often tends to work in practice is that local Democratic Party operatives at the precinct level will “request” ballots for people in their neighbourhoods, and these ballots are then “harvested” from the addresses after they are sent, are filled out, and stored for election day (often the “voter” doesn’t even know this has happened). When election day comes, these ballots will then be mixed in with the legitimate mail-in ballots cast by actual voters so that they can’t be distinguished from the real votes. Because the norm is now for the vote counting in large Democrat-ran districts (e.g. Maricopa County, Fulton County, Clark County, Philadelphia, etc.) to extend over days, the combination of this with no outside supervision means that more and more boxes of these “fortified” votes will be opened and counted until the Democrat candidate is able to squeak ahead by just enough of a margin to avoid a full recount and greater scrutiny.

Everything about the process in these locations is designed to facilitate this pattern. It’s why they kick out GOP election observers, why they count the votes in secret (even covering windows!), why voting machines always seem to break down at the most opportune times, why they wait until “regular” districts are done reporting so they know on a moment-by-moment basis just how many votes they need to break out to put them over the top. I mean, even the news media get in on the action by “predicting” weeks in advance that “the process of counting all the votes may not be finished for days!” As it turns out, Atlanta’s “burst pipe” on election day in 2020 wasn’t a fluke but was a template for the future. From here on out, unless something drastic is done about it, expect to see 2020 repeated indefinitely - go to sleep on election night seeing the GOP with large leads everywhere only to wake up to find that those leads evapourated completely. So while the Democrats may not be very good at winning the vote on election day, they basically have a lock on the post-election voting.

A lot of folks probably think this would never happen. Tell that to this guy in Nevada who found out that he “voted” multiple times without actually knowing about it,

I suspect this story could be repeated by MANY people if they took the time to check their balloting histories.

Even apart from the anecdotal evidences and the sketchy behaviour every election week, the results we’ve seen simply don’t make sense from a mathematical standpoint. Let’s look at the polling that came out of several similar races versus the results that have been reported. In the Nevada senate race, the Arizona governour race, and the North Carolina senate race, we saw that the actual professional polling (i.e not media or university affiliated) prior to election day all had Laxalt, Lake, and Budd leading by roughly the same margins (2-4%). Ted Budd in North Carolina ended up winning his race against Cheri Beasley by 3.5% (i.e. right in line with the polling). Laxalt and Lake, on the other hand, somehow saw these leads disappear and ended up being edged out. The reason for these disparate results is not that math and statistics somehow work differently in North Carolina than they do in Nevada and Arizona. Rather, it’s that elections work differently between these states. North Carolina has a number of safeguards put into place to prevent ballot harvesting and ensure the integrity of elections, while Nevada and Arizona do not.

I know that it’s pretty standard for conservatives to naysay the quality of polling, but to be fair, the professional work conducted by competent pollsters such as Rich Baris is usually pretty accurate (within that 95% confidence interval, of course). And in states where you don’t have the ballot harvesting these pollsters were pretty close to the mark. But the problem for pollsters in the states where ballot harvesting does take place is that it’s going to be extremely hard to poll those states moving forward. After all, when a big chunk of your voters are people who don’t even know they’re voting, that makes it hard to ascertain the opinions of likely voters.

Now, there are other explanations being floated for the Republican disappointment last week. One is that it was “all Trump’s fault” and that he acted as a drag on Republican candidates. However, Trump-backed candidates in non-ballot harvesting states did well enough; it was only in the select swing states that things went off the rails for him. Candidate quality has been suggested, and as I noted in my previous post, there were a few GOP candidates who could have been vetted better. However, many of the candidates who “lost” due to ballot harvesting were perfectly fine candidates who would have indeed won their races had there not been shenanigans afoot.

Yet another proposed reason was that Republicans were massively outspent by their Democratic opponents. On its face, this may have some merit. After all, the Democrats have unfettered access to the money-laundering pipeline through Ukraine that we’ve recently learned about with the exposure of the FTX crypto exchange. US tax dollars go to Ukraine, which then launders a portion of these funds through FTX back to Democrats (as well as select establishment Republicans) who then use the funds to support Democratic candidates who will then support more taxpayer monies for the “freedom fighters in Ukraine.” Republican “leaders” also receive a portion of this, which explains why there is bipartisan support for continuing to throw money down the Ukrainian rathole, and also explains why principled conservative patriots such as Joe Kent in Washington were targeted by ballot harvesting efforts.

It’s a great gig if you can get it

But still, if money alone were the key to winning, the Democrats wouldn’t need to bring in the crops, so to speak. In many cases, the Republican candidate was outspent four or five to one yet would have won if not for the fraud.

Keep in mind that the ultimate end game for the Democrats here is not just access to laundered monies or to push any particular policy goal. Rather, these systematic efforts at manipulating procedural outcomes with our elections are for the purpose of establishing an eventual and effectively one-party state. As I’ve noted previously, the Democrats are not in a position (yet) to formally outlaw all political opposition and impose a Soviet-style one party system. But if they can game the system to permanently deny the Republicans effective control of anything consequential, then they’ve basically done the same thing while still maintaining the outward appearance of legitimacy that supposedly derives from elections. And as Stalin noted, it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes. Even the Soviets went through the motions of holding elections periodically to give an appearance of “democracy” to their monopolar system. In the face of all this, it doesn’t matter how many voters the GOP get to the polls on election day. Their get out the vote efforts will never be able to compete with the Democrats’ print out the vote schemes.

If there was one thing politically that I wish normie conservatives would understand moving forward, it is that “our sacred norms” have long since gone out the window. The days of playing Robert’s Rule of Order while we all sit around and make our best arguments and leave it up the voters on election day are thoroughly passed. The Right needs to adapt accordingly, which means (in the short term) playing the game and gaming the system ourselves. But that’s really just a stopgap because, formally speaking, the goal should be to operate our electoral system as it was originally intended to be ran. However, you have to use what power you have to get the power you want, and it is in the interest of every decent person in this country who cares at all about the good of the United States of America to use whatever power we have to deliver power into the hands of Republicans who actually care about and love the people of this country (which is not the current GOP leadership, by the way). So if we have to game the system to get the power to reform it, then people had better embrace this post-haste before even that option is taken away.

So ultimately, whenever and wherever they can, Republicans at the state level need to be rolling back whatever they can - mail-in voting, lax ballot harvesting rules, low standards for election day voting counting, imposing photo ID, everything. This probably means that one state at a time will have to be taken back as fortuitous circumstances allow. But it’s something that needs to be done, and it will put the Democrats into the position of either having to choose to accede to the rollbacks (less likely) or forcing them to destroy their legitimacy even further by nakedly abusing institutional controls to maintain their advantage (more likely).

Ultimately, the long-term fact is that collapse in the United States is going to happen regardless of whether anyone wants it or not. There will be decentralisation, there will probably be civil violence to a greater or lesser degree, and there will be a new order established in the aftermath. The main question right now is whether the Right will be able to exercise power to channel this order into the direction we want it to go or whether the post-collapse state(s) will be dominated by the same set of oligarchic communist looters that currently run things in Washington DC.