The difference between "ballots" and "votes"

 

Sundance, writing at The Conservative Treehouse, provides what I think is an important perspective on Tuesday's mid-term elections.

As the political discussion centers on the 2022 wins and losses from the midterm election, one thing that stands out in similarity to the 2020 general election is the difference between ballots and votes.  It appears in some states this is the ‘new normal.’

Where votes were the focus, the Biden administration suffered losses.  Where ballots were the focus, the Biden administration won.

. . .

The effort to attain votes for candidates is less important than the strategy of collecting ballots.

It should be emphasized; these are two distinctly different election systems.

The system of ballot distribution and collection is far more susceptible to control than the traditional system of votes cast at precincts.

A vote cannot be cast by a person who is no longer alive, or no longer lives in the area.  However, a ballot can be sent, completed and returned regardless of the status of the initially attributed and/or registered individual.

While ballots and votes originate in two totally different processes, the end result of both “ballots” and “votes,” weighing on the presented election outcome, is identical.

While initially the ballot form of election control was tested in Deep Blue states, through the process of mail-in returns under the guise and justification of “expanding democracy,” a useful tool for those who are vested in the distinction, I think we are now starting to see what happens on a national level when the process is expanded.

. . .

Now that ballot collection has been shown to be a much more effective way to maintain political power, Democrats in a general sense are less focused on winning votes and more focused on gathering ballots.

When ‘ballot organization’ becomes more important than ‘vote winning,’ you modify your electoral campaign approaches accordingly.  It might sound simplistic, but inside the distinct difference between ballots and votes you will find why refusing debates is a successful strategy.

If you are trying to win votes you could never fathom campaign success by refusing to debate an opponent.  However, if your focus is centered around ballot collection, the debate is essentially irrelevant.

. . .

Republicans are running around trying to convince people and win votes.  Meanwhile, who needs voters? Democrats have skipped all of that old fashioned stuff and modified all of their electioneering systems to quietly and efficiently collect ballots.  [Last Tuesday] you saw the outcome.

There's more at the link.

That hypothesis certainly seems to fit Democratic Party "get-out-the-vote" efforts.  They used to focus on getting people to the polls.  Now they focus on collecting people's votes and getting those to the vote counters, often by "helping" voters fill in their ballots.  There are reports out there of postal votes being collected even before they were filled in, with a promise to do that on the voter's behalf!  If true, that's electoral fraud - but it probably has willing accomplices who are unlikely to report it.

A ballot collection network also does away with any possibility of challenging the eligibility of the voter.  If we see a person at the polling station who's exhibiting suspicious conduct, we can challenge his right to vote, and have his identification and/or registration verified in one way or another.  If the voter never has to appear in person at all, we lose that safeguard.  I wonder how many of the postal votes this last election were deliberately intended to achieve precisely that?

That may also explain how some candidates were elected despite seemingly overwhelming evidence that they weren't fit for election.  Fetterman in Pennsylvania comes to mind.  Before the debate that exposed his mental unfitness for office, Democratic Party postal ballot harvesting had already gathered several hundred thousand votes for him.  Those who'd cast those votes might have wanted to change their minds after seeing the debate:  but it was too late for them to do so.  They were already committed.  I think that's probably one of the main reasons, if not the single most important reason, why Fetterman was elected.  I'd love to know what percentage of the votes cast for him comprised those early ballots.  I think it'd be eye-opening.

(As Phil of Bustednuckles put it:  "Congratulations, Pennsylvanians, For Electing A New Senator!  Just don’t forget to water it regularly and fertilize it occasionally and you should be just fine.")

The question now becomes:  can - and will - the Republican Party put in as much effort as the Democratic Party to build a ballot collection and processing machine of its own?  If it doesn't, it's probably doomed to play second fiddle for years to come.  Some states appear to be moving in that direction.  Others appear to be playing dead.

Meanwhile, those of us who support a constitutional Republic may as well accept that our nation is about to be irrevocably changed.  We're dealing with a ballot harvesting system that can gather enough support to pass any and all constitutional amendments the progressive left desires.  The Supreme Court can rule as it wishes, but before long it's likely to be "packed" with progressive judges who'll aid and abet the process.  We can no longer rely on the protection of the rule of law, because the law itself will be administered in a partisan political manner.

I'll let Andrew Torba have the last word.

I see everyone on the right fighting about Trump vs DeSantis for 2024 and I just laugh to myself. The presidency in 2024 is a pipe dream, with DeSantis or Trump on the ticket. To be frank I don’t know if we’ll ever see a Republican president again. Millions and millions of illegals pouring over our border and being distributed to key swing states. An electorate trained to believe that hundreds of thousands of mail in ballots appearing is normal. Demographics is destiny. He who controls the machines controls the outcome. We didn’t fix 2020 and we didn’t build the wall so don’t expect another “free and fair” election.

I wish I could believe that he's wrong.

Peter