Here you go, a “real” source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there’s still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?

  • astronaut_sloth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Things can be anomalous and abnormal and not be nefarious. Abnormality isn’t evidence of criminality. So, why investigate? Because the number of bullet ballots is slightly higher? A more reasonable explanation is that some people cared more about president than other down ballot elections.

    • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Why do you assume it’s not nefarious? This is literally Trump and the GOP we’re talking about, did him trying to bribe governors for votes make you trust him more or something?

      • astronaut_sloth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        A more reasonable explanation is that some people cared more about president than other down ballot elections.

        Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” There are a lot of stupid people in the United States who would vote for Trump. His campaign was directed at turning out low-propensity, low-information voters, and the type of voter who would cast a bullet ballot are low-propensity, low-information voters.

        Why do you assume it’s not nefarious?

        The past two elections are regarded as two of the most secure in history. Plus, if there were actual malfeasance, I very much doubt that Trump, knowing his famously insatiable ego, would not allow his popular vote to get below 50%.

        In the end, investigate away, but nothing will be uncovered, just like in 2020.