In 2021, is there such a thing as a “margin of fraud” in elections?

With computer voting machines, it’s entirely possible that the “margin of fraud” concept has been superseded by pre-programmed victories.

One of the things I check out every day is the Morning Report by J.J. Sefton over at Ace. I have absolutely no idea how J.J. manages to process and summarize that much material but every day, there it is, all processed and summarized. What caught my eye in today’s Morning Report was this:

“Peach State election integrity is the pits!”
Georgia Election: Loeffler and Perdue Need Turnout to Exceed Margin of Fraud

Under the old system, you could assume that perhaps 2% of your opponent’s votes would be faked (cemetery votes, underage, out of district, etc.). If that 2% was correct, you couldn’t just calculate your victory to be 51% to win. Your victory would have to be 53% to accommodate the imaginary votes. The great the fraud, the more you had to up your game amongst legitimate supporters. If you fail, you end up with John F. Kennedy beating Nixon in exchange for his promise to the mob to unionize federal workers — a promise he kept.

In so many ways, that election was the beginning of the end. Unionizing federal workers opened the door to a level of corruption that even Franklin D. Roosevelt, a hard core wealth-class socialist wouldn’t contemplate.

For those unfamiliar with the problem, in a normal union situation, both labor and management have skin in the game. Both want the company to survive and both are reliant on the marketplace for money. If either gets too greedy, they risk killing the goose that’s keeping their golden eggs flowing.

In the government context, though, neither of the two parties has any skin in the game. Labor understandably wants more money and the government representative has an interest in getting more money for labor, in exchange for labor’s promise to donate to the Democrat party. (It’s always about Democrats, since JFK started this scam.) The taxpayer is not at the table. He’s just the endless piggy bank. This is how you end up with a federal labor force that’s 90% Democrat and is willing to go to any lengths to keep a reforming Republican from getting elected — and, if that Republican gets elected, will violate any laws (because they’ll protect each other) to destroy him.

JFK’s election also started our downhill slide because his assassination broke something in middle-class American. They became deeply vulnerable with that assassination and the left rushed into to fill that empty space. Part of the left’s tactic, of course, was to claim — all evidence to the contrary — that it was a right wing conspiracy that killed Kennedy. Suddenly, Republicans had the mark of Cain.

JFK’s election and subsequent assassination also put Johnson in the White House. Johnson was a much more effective president than Kennedy would have been. He ruthlessly exploited the Civil Rights Movement to Democrat ends, rather than to American ends, or even black ends. He also escalated the war in Vietnam, although Kennedy might have too. (It’s doubtful that Nixon would have done the same but who knows?)

Anyway, I’m digressing wildly. My original point is that the margin of error has always mattered.

However, if all the information about computer manipulated voting is true, there is no longer a margin of error. What I believe happened in the disputed states (and probably in most states with Democrat election management and Dominion or ES&S voting machines) is that the machines were set so that, for every one vote Trump got, Biden got 1.056 votes. The reason I offer that precise number, although I can’t find the link, is because I know I saw somewhere that Biden invariably ran 5.6% ahead of Trump in the states using Dominion voting machine. That lead is a little too perfect across multiple states. If that data is true, it sounds as if Biden’s lead had been built into the system ahead of time.

And that’s why I think that “margin of error” is an outdated concept. Whoever controls the machines wins. The vote will always come out with a perfect, pre-programmed lead for the Democrat candidate. Or as the 1871 cartoon from Harper’s Weekly about New York’s corrupt Boss Tweed says:

If you can’t read the fine print, the made up quote says, “As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it? say?” Meanwhile, the pedestal against which he leans says “In counting there is strength.” Democrats have never changed and Republicans, being fools, never learn.