Conventional wisdom says that if you see one cockroach, you probably have many more. If you stomp on a single roach, instead of believing you’ve killed all your roaches, you should assume that you have a larger roach problem and take measures to get rid of the infestation. The same thing goes for mice. Ask any farmer and you’ll hear that once you see a mouse, you probably have many more mice living in the same area.
In 2018, an outbreak of Salmonella in the United States sickened 22 people. An investigation determined that the source of the tainted eggs was a single farm in Indiana. Assuming that if there were a few bad eggs there were likely many more, the farm voluntarily recalled and destroyed 206 million eggs.
Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles because, after nearly eight years of trying to prove that he used performance-enhancing drugs, they finally did. Who received his titles? No one, because the governing body decided that drug use was so rampant during the years Lance won the races that it would be impossible to find someone who hadn’t been doping.
Let’s say that you take a coronavirus test and test positive. The assumption is made that you were not only exposed to COVID-19, but also that you were infected with COVID-19 (an assumed 100% infection rate). Further, they assume that everyone you came in contact with was also exposed (an assumed 100% exposure rate) and that all of those people are infected with COVID-19 (an assumed 100% infection rate). The assumption is that a single positive test indicates many other undetected cases.
All of these are examples of cases where the detection of small number of bad things leads to the assumption that there are a large number of similar bad things yet undiscovered. The leap in logic from one-to-many is made because, quite often, it’s an accurate leap to make. These are just a few examples of this type of thinking in action. If you stop to ponder this for a minute or two, I’m certain you’ll come up with more examples of your own.
So, you’d think that this logic should also apply to election fraud, right?
There are numerous examples of election fraud having been committed, or voting irregularities having been found, in the 2020 election:
- A video of an Ilhan Omar supporter harvesting ballots.
- A video of Raquel Rodriguez explaining and demonstrating how she gets paid for harvesting ballots for Democratic candidates.
- A Texas social worker has been charged with 134 counts of voter fraud by registering 67 assisted-living residents to vote.
- Voting software in Michigan incorrectly gave 6,000 of Trump’s votes to Biden.
Since we’ve already found these cases of election fraud, logic tells us that there are likely many more cases of election fraud that we haven’t yet discovered. It would be irrational and foolish to assume that we’ve identified all of the cases of election fraud that there are. Yet, for some reason, just over half the country seems to ignore conventional wisdom and believes that, instead of being the tip of the iceberg, these cases are merely “isolated incidents”.
In 2015, the Patriots played the Colts for the AFC Championship Game. The Patriots beat the Colts 45 to 7. Prior to the game, the Colts notified the NFL that they suspected the Patriots were under-inflating footballs but could provide no specific information to support their claim. At halftime, the score was 11-7 in favor of the Patriots. Officials inspected the balls and determined that one or more of them were not properly inflated. Somehow, the media found out about the story and went into a feeding frenzy. Sports fans everywhere (except perhaps fans of New England) rallied against the Patriots, immediately assuming they were guilty. Because if there’s one thing that American’s hate, it’s a cheater.
The investigation found no definitive proof that the Patriots cheated but a conclusion was still drawn that the balls had likely been deflated before the game began but after the officials had checked the air pressure. Further, while they had no proof, it was decided that Tom Brady was more probable than not “generally aware” of the situation. The penalty was a 4-game suspension for Brady, which he appealed. Eventually the issue appeared before a federal judge who sided with Brady and vacated the suspension. The NFL appealed the decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the NFL, and Tom had to sit out the first four games of the 2015 season.
An accusation is made, the media demands answers, an investigation occurs, innocence or guilt is determined and the guilty are punished. Exactly how things are supposed to work.
Or so I thought.
There have been accusations made by President Trump of election fraud. He’s been predicting it for months. But, unlike “Deflategate”, there is actual proof of wrongdoing and many people don’t seem to care. They defy conventional wisdom and are convinced that what we’ve seen are isolated incidents and that there is no more fraud to be discovered. The media, which should be demanding an investigation, is either silent or claiming that the allegations are “baseless”.
If you have proof of one roach, you can assume that there are many more that you can’t see. We have proof of election fraud so we can assume that there has been much more that we haven’t found. Everyone should be demanding an investigation to ensure the accuracy of the vote count, and because Americans hate cheaters. Furthermore, by applying the generally accepted Deflategate logic, we should assume that Joe Biden, like Brady, was more probable than not “generally aware” of the cheating going on.
You may disagree with my logic but I hope you can agree that it’s sad when about half of the people in the U.S. care more about the legitimacy of the outcome of something as inconsequential as a football game, than they do about the legitimacy of our election process.
