A new poll just released suggests that more than one-third of Americans not only believe the last election cycle was flawed but flawed in such a serious way that 35% of Americans believe the results should be overturned. That so many believe the results should be overturned is a pretty hard position, likely smaller than those that just think the election was tainted or rigged. Only 39% of those polled thought the election was free and fair. Thus, almost two-thirds of Americans polled thought it was an unfair election.

At first considered a fringe thing to question the election, the Election Integrity Project, seems to be entering the mainstream of political discourse.

Opponents of election integrity suggest there never has been a problem, but if there is, don’t fix it because it is racist to do so.

This was particularly an odd position for Democrats to take since the last time they accepted an election without challenges was 1988.  They challenged Bush versus Gore in 2000, and they claimed the 2016 election was stolen.  Almost one-third of House Democrats refused to attend Trump’s inauguration because they said he was “illegitimate.” Even within the last few days, Stacey Abrams, who has loudly said the Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen from her, has been campaigning with Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. And, the whole “Russian collusion” hoax that plagued the Trump Administration for four years was basically an argument for election integrity.

Much credit we think goes to the brave Arizona Republicans in the State Senate and their audit, with many other states now thinking of auditing their process as well.

Therefore, both the polling and the political action seem to suggest that the once-dominant narrative, that there was nothing wrong with the past election, and that even to question the outcome is to wreck “our democracy”, is being supplanted.

The public smells a rat, they have just not been able to locate the stinking carcass.

As we see it, the arguments tend to break down four ways.

The first position, and that supported by the Democrats, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Arizona Republic, is that nothing at all was wrong with the election process.

In Arizona, we saw the peculiar position taken by the dominant daily, the Arizona Republic. As the audit proceeded, they ran multiple stories critical of the State Senate, suggesting they were all conspiracy theorists, and they were particularly critical of Cyber Ninjas, the firm chosen by the State Senate to conduct the audit. However, when it was announced that the audit found that the was no substantial difference between the machine count and the audited hand count, they immediately said the process they had long decried as biased and inept was immediately accepted as professional and definitive.

See, there was no problem and the very people we have criticized have said so! Of course, they ignored other findings of the audit which said there were substantial problems.

For those who remain skeptical, their arguments fall into three categories, which are not mutually exclusive.

Some maintain that there are statistical anomalies about this particular election that is so striking, that they strongly suggest voting fraud. A very good rendition of that thesis can be found here, in the magazine Chronicles.

A different position is that the election was not so much stolen but rather bought. That is the theme of the new excellent book “Rigged” by Mollie Hemmingway. She focuses a lot on the “Zuckerbucks” issue, the $419 million paid by the CEO Facebook to influence the election and the election process. Facebook was not alone in doing this, just the most prominent.

Many are asking how the heck the administration of elections got outsourced from government elected officials to private companies, who in turn were funded by so-called shady “nonprofit” organizations. Also, many who take this position note that many changes were made in election laws and procedures, that were borderline illegal, but still within the lines. In short, Republicans may well have been out-funded and out lawyered. So far, about four states have outlawed “Zuckerbucks” and more are likely to follow.

The last category is those that feel actual campaign laws were violated, that it is not so much the election was bought by tech giants, but that it was stolen by breaking election laws. They want to see more prosecutions for criminal activities.

If you follow the news, there have been a number of people criminally charged in various states, but most of these so far appear low-level and isolated actors, not the prosecution of high-level political conspirators.

As suggested earlier, these last three positions are not mutually exclusive. One can believe the evidence shows that the election was both bought and stolen for example and that those actions explain the statistical anomalies. However, none of the last three positions can cohabit with position one, which is to say there was no problem with the election.

We think the argument for the statistical anomaly is pretty compelling. Read the article from Chronicles. It is one of the best short articles we have seen on the subject.

We think Mollie Hemmingway’s thesis in “Rigged” is quite strong, and we urge you to buy and read the book.  We know Facebook and other players spent hundreds of millions interfering with the election.  We do know the tech giants suppressed speech and political activity.

The Arizona audit fell short of proving criminal activity and to date, has not resulted in criminal indictments.  But such action may be forthcoming so we remain open-minded that criminal activity could be proven.

The problem of course with proving the election was stolen by violations of the law is that those in charge of the investigations and prosecutions are part of the power structure that committed the fraud. Judges, in particular, have been hesitant to take cases and investigate the political structure that they themselves are part of. That is also true of prosecutors. Pennsylvania is a good case of this conundrum.

However, there are enough at least fair-minded or right-leaning Attorney Generals, that they might make some headway, and in so doing, enhance their own political careers.

The American constitutional genius of power-sharing, and pitting one political interest or branch of government against the other may be able to finally get to the truth. But it makes it far more difficult when much of the Republican Party itself is not on board favoring full-throated election reform.

We don’t understand that position.  One can disagree with Trump on any number of issues, even dislike him, feel slighted by him, and still feel honest elections are important not just for Republicans to have a chance to win, but for the benefit of the country as a whole. If elections are rigged, then the entire democratic process is in trouble.

An example of how this structure of separation of powers can be frustrated is when Republican elected officials such as the Country Recorder and the Maricopa County Supervisors, stand in the way of the audit process, fighting their own Republican Senate, restricting access to documents, appearing on left-wing media, and slow-walking the process.  For an opposition party to play its role in the process, it must be in opposition to the other party, not a whimpering puppy.

There is also the possibility that some in the press will finally do their job and investigate election fraud and quit sucking up to the Democrat Party. This might occur when it becomes evident the leaking ship they have attached themselves to is sinking.

What gives one hope though is that even without the participation of the news giants, a vigorous free press speaking truth to power, is able to operate and the public is hearing the message.  We at The Prickly Pear are glad to be part of this historic development.

So, to answer our own question of “where are we in the process?”, we would have to say, the project is making progress.