Brad, it is easy to agree this point of peril is unprecedented. However, I can't make sense of this sentence you wrote.

"Thus, we have one hope left --- our last firewall against full-blown authoritarianism in this country --- this year's critical general elections."

An analogy: you have no money left in the bank, no cash on hand, and you're about to hit your credit limit. But rather than investing in food, shelter, and finding a reliable source of income, you bet on three-card monte.

More than anyone, you know what passes for "elections" have increasingly been a charade for at least 20 years.

From the way "votes" are supposedly cast and counted, and the way in which "official results" get reported and implemented, the actions citizens take cannot be shown to have an actual bearing on the outcome.

We only perpetuate the illusion. We may as well cheer louder or make bigger signs for our favorite pro wrestlers. There is zero chance of influencing who "wins."

I couldn't have imagined the BLM message cutting through and having the impact it is having, changing the fundamental dialog of the country and the world.

We must do the same about "elections" in the US.

I have no questions about your honesty and integrity, Brad. Please reflect on whether you are having the common human experience of cognitive dissonance. What else could allow you to expose the charade more thoroughly than anyone yet continue to claim "elections" are our "one hope left"?

Please know this is not an attack on you. You are in a very important position and I'm encouraging you to align the actions you recommend with what you know to be true.

In my opinion, we are where we are now because, more than any other reason, we've repeatedly given a veneer of credibility by participating in unverifiable sham "elections," then accepting the "results" reported through opaque actions and communication between "government" (election officials) and corporate owned media.

Immediately implementing hand-counted paper ballots does not currently seem like a complete solution to me because the pandemic makes it unsafe and impractical (whereas HCPB is otherwise, of course, the gold standard).

I don't know what we have to do overall, but I do know we have to stop acting and speaking as if "elections" are real and a source of hope.

Please take this into consideration as you do your part to facilitate well informed and reasoned public discussion.

Dave -

Good to see from you, amigo! I had hoped to share your note (and my response to it) on air on today's show, but breaking news (as usual) meant I had to push it off to --- hopefully --- another day.

But, my quick response here is that, no, I don't agree with you that elections are a "charade" or that "the actions citizens take cannot be shown to have an actual bearing on the outcome."

I don't feel that way now, nor have I ever felt that way. If I did, I would have quit all of my efforts long ago.

You wrote:

Please reflect on whether you are having the common human experience of cognitive dissonance. What else could allow you to expose the charade more thoroughly than anyone yet continue to claim "elections" are our "one hope left"?

Because they still are (and always have been.) I have never argued that elections are a "charade". I have argued that the public is being pushed out of them. That we are not allowed to oversee our elections, despite that being the only fighting chance for a secure election in which the public may have confidence.

Yes, elections can be stolen and gamed. That does not mean that they all are. It may even mean that none are (though we know that's not true.) My fight is for public oversight of elections, to fight like hell to do all that we can to assure our elections are legitimate --- or as much as we can possibly make them.

So, yeah. Democratic elections are our only hope left. And I think we need to fight like hell for them. I hope you will reflect on whether you've made a mistake --- or have been misguided --- into giving up hope, especially at a time when you absolutely should not.

Perhaps I'll have more to say about all of that on air, if time allows at some point in the near future, because I suspect you're not alone in your thinking and/or in misinterpreting my own.

Hey Brad, thanks for your reply. I'm not misinterpreting your thinking here. I'm owning the claim US "elections" are charades comparable to other simulated competition such as three-card monte and pro wrestling (or The Harlem Globetrotters).

I'm not claiming you ever used the word charade, but rather that you should. All your reporting illustrates the nature of the charade, even if you still want to call it an election.

This is a great thing for us to differ on, really, because it is the perfectly framed debate the whole country should have been having for the last 20 years.

If we are having real elections, what minimum criteria have to exist for us to know they are legitimate?

If we're not having real elections, what is the maximum amount of perversion the process can allow and still be legitimate?

Hope is not relevant in the same way trust is not relevant. Unverifiable means illegitimate. US elections have been gaslighting the American people and the world since at least 2000.

To make the case otherwise, you have to disregard all the reporting you've ever done. This is why I, respectfully, raise the question of cognitive dissonance.

How can you know what you know but not call it a charade?

How can you present all the evidence of "election" conditions and argue they amount to legitimate elections with a basis for confidence in the reported results?

Dave @3:

I'll hit a few pieces of your response piece by piece here, for clarity...

I'm owning the claim US "elections" are charades comparable to other simulated competition such as three-card monte and pro wrestling (or The Harlem Globetrotters).

Fair enough, even if I do not necessarily agree. Given the barriers to public oversight, I'm not surprised that you (or anyone else) feels that way. That is the core of what I have been, and am still, fighting to avoid/correct. Namely, elections that even when legitimate, cannot be known to be legitimate. That is a shameful problem with American elections --- which even most election experts cannot seem to wrap their brains around --- even in cases where every voter is allowed to vote and every vote is counted accurately!

I'm not claiming you ever used the word charade, but rather that you should. All your reporting illustrates the nature of the charade, even if you still want to call it an election.

You are certainly welcome to call it a "charade". I don't. But, obviously, I may see it differently. I believe it can be a charade (perhaps even often is), and I believe we must fight like hell, every single election, to try and prevent that, because elections, at this time, is all we've got left barring violence and war (which I oppose.) You may notice that in all my years of covering elections, there is only one that I was willing to actually report as having been "stolen". (The 2012 GOP Presidential Primary in Maine, as I recall.) Describing an election as "stolen" is a very serious charge, obviously, So, unless that can be independently verified, I do not report it as such. You, however, are not a reporter and may choose to see it any way you like, obviously.

Unverifiable means illegitimate.

Well, unverifiable means unverifiable. It doesn't necessarily mean illegitimate, even as I wouldn't blame anyone who chooses to view an unverifiable election as such. (In other words, to be clear: If Candidate X, in reality, received more votes than Candidate Y and is named the winner, that's a legitimate --- as in actual, as in mathematical --- election victory, whether that's verifiable or not.)

US elections have been gaslighting the American people and the world since at least 2000. To make the case otherwise, you have to disregard all the reporting you've ever done.

Well, I disagree with you on that last point. I certainly don't "disregard all the reporting [I've] ever done."

This is why I, respectfully, raise the question of cognitive dissonance.

I think we just see things (including my reporting) differently. And, yes, that is fine and with all due respect. I certainly don't blame you if you see it differently than I might. I report. You decide...as they say.

How can you know what you know but not call it a charade?

See above.

How can you present all the evidence of "election" conditions and argue they amount to legitimate elections with a basis for confidence in the reported results?

As I haven't described elections as "stolen" (though I do point out how they easily can be), you'll also be hard pressed to find me calling them "legitimate" anywhere either, for the very same reason. I call them "reported" victories (or losses) more often than not. Whether you or me or anyone else has "confidence" in those results is very much a personal matter. And, I suspect, you and I can both agree that is an outrage and exactly what we have both worked to try and correct for many years.

Hope that at least clears up how I see things and why I don't see it as "cognitive dissonance" at all.

Brad, I see both of your responses point out you do NOT describe elections as "stolen." Perhaps it went unnoticed that neither do I. However, what you've mentioned about this word seems to illustrate a key distinction in our thinking.

It seems you are looking past the close of polls on "election" night as the time when judgment can be formed about the legitimacy of an election.

In contrast, it looks to me like we can see in advance "election" conditions preclude the possibility of legitimacy.

To me, that argument can begin and end with the impossibility of verifying reported results. We further add insult to injury by all the other ways conditions guarantee inherent uncertainty about the outcome.

This speaks to your point that even if a reported outcome is actually and mathematically correct we still wouldn't know and be able to prove it. This is a priori systemic illegitimacy.

It does not depend on the candidates, the voters, the media, political parties, history, or anything other than the "election" conditions themselves. We seem to agree about what those conditions are, yet reach different conclusions about the implications of those conditions.

This disagreement can be an important opportunity to frame the national and even global discussion.

If, for example, the general public were to come to the same conclusion as me, we might stop rushing headlong into a no-win situation (a win being a knowable and verifiable result).

On the other hand, if the general public were to accept your conclusion, we'll continue to see the equivalent of Charlie Brown trying to kick a football Lucy pulls away every single time.

No amount of voter registration, voter turnout, campaign ads, debate performances, or anything else will influence the outcome and we'll never be able to prove what does.

With my interpretation, we stand a chance of changing how things are done. With yours, we can only continue to look back and say we're getting screwed yet again. Leopards can't change their spots, and elections can't be deemed legitimate because of who apparently wins.

It is shameful and sad how the US got to this point, and worse every time we allow it to perpetuate.