Early Wednesday morning and it looks like Kari Lake – who had been polling well ahead of her opponent, Katie Hobbs, for governor of Arizona – will not be governor of Arizona. The appalling Gretchen Whitmer and Kathy Hochul will remain as governors. And “Incitatus” – John Fetterman – will be in the Senate.
Call it the Bolsonaro’ing of America.
The reference being to the loss at the ballot box of someone who appeared to be far more popular than his opponent and certain to win. Just like the Orange Man.
Until the votes were counted.
The Bolsonaro’ing of Lake being especially similar and even more suspicious in that her opponent was more than just her opponent. Katie Hobbs is also, conveniently, Arizona’s secretary of state, which means she is the state official who has legal oversight and so power over . . . Arizona’s elections. Including her own. This being kind of like having your estranged spouse’s attorney handle your divorce settlement. For this reason, Hobbs will never be acknowledged as the legitimately elected governor of the state, by millions of people in the state – even if a majority of people did vote for her rather than Lake.
This being catastrophic for “our democracy,” if those who say that cared about that.
What was on the ballot yesterday – and not just in Arizona – was the legitimacy of the system itself rather than who was running for office. The Left may have succeeded in diverting the “red wave” that had been predicted – and which in some cases, as in AZ, seemed certain. But it did so in such a way that the results will only further heighten suspicions that the fix was in, again.
Kari Lake wasn’t just ahead of Katie Hobbs in every poll. She was well-ahead of Hobbs in every poll taken since early October. How does a 3-4 percent lead (in the polls) become a 2 percent loss? Maybe because the polls were wrong. Or maybe because the votes weren’t right. Even if they were, many of those who didn’t vote for Hobbs will never believe the votes were right because of the fact that Hobbs was in a position to assure they were “right.”
Similar uneasiness percolates generally. With reason.
One goes to vote and instead of a paper ballot that can be correlated to the voter if there is any question about the vote, after the vote, the voter is directed to a computer screen and taps an icon that supposedly records the vote.
But who could tell? How would they tell?
The machine says so many votes for X and not-as-many for Y. But there is no way to establish whether the votes for X (or Y) were legitimate votes because there is no correlation on paper between the numbers in the machine and the number of voters. We are expected to just trust a computer – one under the control of private companies over which, the voters, have no control – with no way to verify the computer’s trustworthiness. It is not “denialism” to question this trustworthiness. It is due diligence. Those afraid of that often have something to hide – and something to gain by hiding it.
Why this numinous, inscrutable manner of voting? Why is it being handled by opaque private companies rather than via some method of public oversight out in the open?
Cui bono, chico?
What is wrong with paper ballots that can be correlated with actual voters, so as to assure – if there are questions – that they have been answered? Would that not end “denialism”?
The other problem with voting is this business of mass absentee and early voting. What is wrong with having Election Day – as we had for 200-plus years – and everyone who wants to vote showing up to vote on that day? The votes counted later that day. Not for days afterward.
Absentee balloting was – formerly – a thing used to enable people in the military, who could not be at the polls on Election Day, and others who could not be present on that day and at the appointed place for good reason (which had to be substantiated) to exercise their rightful franchise.
Thus was born the phenomenon of mass absentee voting – and ballot dumping. Crates of “votes” just appeared – and were counted. And when people raised questions about these “votes,” they were sometimes re-counted. But never were they vetted before they were counted – or re-counted. Ergo, re-counting them simply served to re-confirm the prior result.
Not whether the result was legitimate.
Ironically, the man singularly responsible for the transformation of Election Day into Election Months and for mass absentee balloting is the Orange Man. It is ironic, because Kari Lake’s (and many others’) candidacies were inspired by the loss of the Orange Man in 2020. Who may have lost the actual vote, too – but we’ll never know, either way – because of all that mass absentee voting he allowed to occur while he had the power to prevent it, but didn’t.
Instead, he set the precedent for it.
And now it has become practice, as inevitably happens when a bad precedent is established. For that reason, it may no longer be possible to use the vote to un-Bolsonaro America.
In the meanwhile, Incitatus heads to the Senate. One whinny for yea – a hoof stomp for nay.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)