The Information Sieve

Why Election Integrity requires more than evidence

Democrats say “Where’s the evidence?” every time claims of election fraud are made. You could hand them evidence, literally in their hands, and it would disappear in a barrage of “But where’s the evidence?”, “This was adjudicated!”, “What’s your source?”, “This isn’t peer-reviewed!”, “It’s too late for this, find something new!”

Never mind that all those questions are answerable. The point is that regardless of the type of objection given, the effect is the same: like water poured through a sieve, none of it is retained, as if it had never been in the sieve at all.

I have felt as if something like this was going on for the last couple of years, but couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Maybe because I tend to interpret things so literally that I assume that when someone asks me for evidence, that they actually want evidence.

It makes sense that some people cannot comprehend certain types of evidence, but from what I’ve seen, either every single person in a position of power and their supporters lack this ability, or they’re putting us on somehow.

Criminals and their significant others can be like this. The criminal himself is motivated to deflect away from the evidence every time he is asked about it. His significant others and friends are motivated by their trust in the criminal to follow his lead, even if it sounds a little suspicious, out of an instinct to protect a member of their brood.

At this point, it may as well be admitted: election integrity arguments do not hinge on the presence or quality of evidence. Abundant good quality evidence has existed for years. That evidence has been in the right hands and has been shown to the right people. Rudy Giuliani’s roadshows around swing state legislatures in 2020 should have been enough.

The reason it wasn’t is that evidence was never the problem. The problem is that the people it has been given to are incapable of listening, paying attention, or responding appropriately. They may as well have been hypnotized to see old copies of TV guide when shown evidence of election fraud.

Then, their claims that “this isn’t evidence!” make sense. The same goes for the histrionic emotion expressed when they say it.

This is part of the reason I have essentially stopped doing new election research. I haven’t totally stopped because occasionally I see things that are worth looking into, but no longer seek out things to investigate.

When I was with other researchers in DC recently, I mentioned this (though the “information sieve” idea just came to me this morning) and all were agreed: there is enough evidence. We don’t need more, though more will be passively accumulated regardless. The goal, however, has to be to use the evidence in hand to deal with the issues related to election integrity that we have found.

All seven of us agreed that the root issue is that American election infrastructure is thoroughly compromised. The problem isn’t “this guy won instead of that guy in that race in that state”, it is “the whole system is broken and must be replaced completely, with not the tiniest vestige remaining”.

Getting anyone else to understand this is a matter of communication, not evidence. That’s what they say the problem is, but they don’t know what the problem is. I know what the problem is: it is that their minds cannot contain any information not approved by the Information Sieve. Our duty is to block the sieve so they can see what they’ve been missing.