2,000 Phantom Mules?
Was Dinesh D’Souza Wrong?
In talking about election integrity, people get put down for being in one of two camps called “fraud deniers” and “election deniers”. If you go too far in either direction, you either end up paranoid or horrendously gullible. This is where D’Souza’s film 2,000 Mules enters the picture. The film is great, but it has flaws. You can obtain it at https://2000mules.com
The problem was the use of surveillance cameras, and it resulted in a lawsuit, and D’Sousa apologized (https://apnews.com/article/2000-mules-film-dinesh-dsouza-apology-91d6c3c80e6c56e89684a12111f92319). Salem Media backed out after having to pay a settlement fee. D’Souza has been quoted as saying, “We recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data”. The book goes into more details compared to the film, but due to lawsuits, it was recalled and reissued (https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/1131077739/heres-what-changed-in-dinesh-dsouzas-2-000-mules-book-after-it-was-recalled).
People presume D’Souza has been debunked. This may be true for those exposed to public media, but the same problems shown in the film still persist with American elections. The key part of election integrity is the chain of custody. What 2,000 Mules proves is that, without a clear chain of custody, we really have no idea what is actually taking place. This is what is wrong with ballot harvesting, drop boxes, and mail-in voting. These processes break the chain of custody and create vulnerabilities. The COVID pandemic ruined the integrity of American elections and doubts still linger.
Fortunately, most elections do not run into any major issues, but if you’re not preserving the integrity of it, you are courting disaster, as there is no clear sign as to what is taking place. Proving fraud is nearly as difficult as trying to prove Big Foot exists (He does not exist. Wait, did I misgender Big Foot?). The legal standard regarding fraud requires much evidence and proof of who is doing it. This is why the chain of custody is so important to election integrity.
There is another matter which I find disturbing. So many are stuck in discussing this topic and get into an unnecessary, polarizing, argumentative discussion. There is one good way out of this: focus on who carries the burden of proof. The default assumption has been that the critics of elections have no proof of fraud, but critics do not need such proof. When critics see something is wrong, they expect government officials to explain what has taken place. The burden of proof is upon government officials to show why odd matters happened with an election. Telling the critics to buzz off, misdirect them, and to go pound sand will cause people to stop being part of the political process.
This topic is ablaze in the US Senate right now regarding the SAVE Act. The coming elections are centered around this legislation and this very topic. There are arguments over what to do with the filibuster. Alexander Muse explains what the Senate should do, just click on article below:
I wrote about the problem with mail-in ballots before. I still have concerns. So should you (https://andrewlsullivan.substack.com/p/the-sham-of-automatic-mail-in-ballots).
While mail-in voting sounds compassionate, there is no real way to check voter ID. I don’t know of any way to check voter ID effectively via mail. At the very least we need to discontinue “early voting” by mail. At the very most we should allow only “absentee voting” besides in-person. I.e., you get to mail in your ballot only if you are outside the country for the entire period of early voting. And then only with a current picture that can be matched against the picture taken when you registered. If you are in the country at any time within the early voting period, you must show up in person to vote at your election office.
Otherwise you are not serious about submitting a valid vote.
Elections are regulated by the states. Let each state decide for itself if it has an election integrity issue and needs to tighten procedures for mail-in voting, for example.