From Time: The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
From the Federalist’s podcast: What Time Magazine’s Bizarre New Election Report Tells Us About Corporate Media
“These people have to understand why ordinary people are completely gaslit by this stuff,” Hemingway said. “They cannot do this. They cannot, through their own warped politicized worldview, come out and say these things and, you know, at the same time shout down that everyone that questions the way that corporate America is putting their thumb on the scale in our culture and in our politics as a crazy, deranged conspiracy theorist. They can’t do this. It’s gonna lead to much more political unrest.”
And then there’s A Suppressed Video on the 2020 Election, from Gary North. Among other things, it points to the suppression of Mike Lindell’s two-hour election fraud video “Absolute Proof”, on possible corruption with Dominion Voting Systems.
From Adam Osborne’s book, Running Wild (published 1979), as related by Gary North Adam Osborne’s 1979 Warning on Computerized Voting):
Consider first the tabulation of election results. How simple it is to punch holes in computer cards rather than mark x’s in boxes. The computer cards are collected and fed to a computer. Then, presto! Hardly have the polls closed before election results are available for television networks. What’s more, the computer is spitting out enough statistics to choke the most avid sports fan.
What is wrong with letting computers count votes? The answer is that it makes a vote rigging easier.
The companies that have pioneered the use of computers and vote counting will roar to the defense of their products. They will explain how they guarantee against tampering. Computers can be run in parallel to compare the results. People can spot-check the computer results by hand counting sample ballots. I will argue with none of these safeguards; I will admit them all. I will even assume that the computer manufacturers can produce ten new foolproof safeguards against saboteurs, meddlers, or intruders into the computer counting system. But these are irrelevant arguments. The problem is the computers have vastly reduced the number of people involved in the vote counting process, and computers have removed the actual vote counting procedure from the human eye to the obscurity of a computer’s quiet speed.
In order for computer fraud to be detected, someone must detect the fraud; that is a truism. But what if those charged with detecting the computer fraud are themselves in collusion with the fraud perpetrators? What if the political power structure supervising the election is perpetrating the fraud, bribing the programmers, and supplying the verification? Now the computer is working on behalf of the crooks, with the same efficiency that it would otherwise expend on behalf of the voting public.
Opposition groups or splinter factions on the lunatic fringe are not going to manipulate computer vote counting. These people, if they wished to manipulate the ballot process, would have to do so under the watchful eye of incumbents who, if they are not actually running the election, are likely to be watching it very closely. We must watch for incumbents trying to perpetuate themselves illegally.
If the political power structure supervising an election is itself perpetrating a fraud, it can of course perpetuate the fraud with or without computers. One of Lyndon Johnson’s earliest political victories, the one that earned him the nickname “Landslide Lyndon”, may have resulted from some nonexistent votes getting added to his column in one precinct. But if this fraud did indeed occur, LBJ must have been close to victory anyway. What if he had been losing statewide by a three or four percent margin? Reading the vote in one or a few precincts to overcome such a large statewide margin would so distort these local results as to beg inquiry. But a computer could be programmed to randomly switch four or five percent of the vote in every precinct — enough to give the winner an apparent comfortable one percent margin without distorting any local count to the point of attracting attention. Ultimately the loser could have recourse to a hand recount, but when the fraud was exposed, the guilty politicians could with little trouble, claim total innocence while one computer programmer disappeared.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that computers massively increase the level of fraud that can be perpetuated per participant because computers will work just as hard for the bad guys as they will for the good guys.
The chances the computers will be used to rig election results are not very high. But if it occurs, the consequences could be very far-reaching. And what do we gain from taking these chances? Using computers to count votes makes the vote counting process a little cheaper and a little faster. Is it worth it? I think not. To give the public election results on the night of the election, rather than the following morning, hardly constitutes an achievement for which it is worth jeopardizing the security of the ballot. And counting votes by hand is not so very expensive. The ballot is the basis for democracy. Let us involve as many people as possible in the voting process, and do everything in our power to make vote rigging harder not easier. The use of computers and ballot counting must be banned (pp. 127-30).