Alleged 2020 election fraud came in three broad types: garden variety (dead people voting), unethically legal (Twitter/FB/media suppressing news and states involved in non-secure voting), and electronic.
The latter is the most interesting because it’s by far the most offensive. I can live with the rounding error of typical fraud and even of a tilted playing field but the idea that the security expert of Dominion is sympathetic to Antifa is capable of acting on that is ... painful.
Sen. Ben Sasse wrote an impassioned FB post recently in which he laid out his case against election fraud. He did not speak the name which cannot be said in polite company (“Dominion”) or reference electronic voting whatsoever. I can think of a few reasons:
1. He thinks that the idea is absurd and considers it a conspiracy theory on the same level as LBJ killed JFK therefore not worthy of mention. This may work in that it’s a pseudo-suppression of a possibility he doesn’t want to give wider circulation - like how Twitter banned Hunter Biden laptop news. But making it the “forbidden fruit” has problems of its own. It’s remarkable how resistant the refusal of anyone on the “responsible Right” to attempt to take the air out of this type of potential fraud by making vague promises to “look into” voting software. It seems electronic voting vendors have become as crucial a component of our democracy as electricity is to our welfare.
2. He believes fraud could not happen in electronic voting based on insider knowledge on the forensics and the cyber security agency. Note: he did not say this though and it seems like it would’ve been noteworthy. This absence speaketh volumes.
3. He believes fraud could happen but unless you have suspicion of it you cannot mention it due to the destabilizing impact on the country.
Which is more or less what he said in his post, that you cannot allege fraud without some suspicion and used the example of calling the college football selection committee rigged because his Cornhuskers didn’t get in.
But there is more transparency with a committee than in the machines. The committee has names and faces and is not controlled by computer code nor algorithms. The previous computerized selection process was found wanting by the scions of college football after only a handful of years. So they went the old-fashioned route: people gathering in a room with paper and pencil.
Let’s say computerized rankings are used again to determine college football rankings and the code was in the hands of an OSU grad. Wouldn’t there be intellectual curiosity? I know we’re supposed to "trust the code” because the CISA told us so but their credibility after Solarwinds seems strained.