Election Integrity vs Data Integrity

I recently saw one of the most interesting tweets referencing an equally fascinating report.

Summary – The gaslighting will continue until full compliance is obtained.

The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) produced a painstaking report called The Long Fuse: Misinformation and the 2020 election. The amount of effort and research is staggering, as is the myopic view. If only they had put this kind of effort into researching “Election Integrity.”

Reading the report, you will have no doubt the political affiliation of those behind the words. It is a solitary slanted view that all misinformation was perpetrated by Republicans in the 2020 election. The EIP gave little to no coverage of Democrat disinformation. That is a bit conspicuous after having gone through three years of Russian disinformation distributed by the DOJ in partnership with the press and social media. The world was awash in misinformation. All based on a fake dossier that we now know the FBI knew was false. Did that impact the election? Did three years of disinformation targeting a President of the United States by his own government combined with the social media spread of such lies push supporters into the “last straw” mindset? The EIP did not think that worthy of consideration.

Of note the report often points to alleged misinformation that is authenticated via liberal fact checking sites or liberal news outlets. In essence the report is doing what they accuse conservative sites of doing, but EIP’s cognitive bias prevents them from such realization. How social media buried all coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop that made inference to influence peddling by the Democrat Presidential candidate doesn’t make the report. How some right leaning sites covered it does.

Imagine a report reviewing the social media impacts on an election that had the largest October surprise of a lifetime, but not covering how Twitter blocked all references to the story and later (after the election) the CEO of that social media giant apologized for doing it.

If Election Integrity was the goal, then auditing signature matches would be a good start. I know of zero audits where that happened. If you can point us to one, please reference in the comments.

If Election Integrity was the goal, then a full audit of the Dominion adjudication process would be step two. Chris Krebs said 2020 was “the most secure election in US history” but to my understanding, there are zero audit trails of the adjudication process. In fact, there is no login required. No login, no audit trail and no observers– that is secure from a Cybersecurity expert’s view. Would that pass even an entry level audit?

If Election Integrity was the goal, then how voting laws were violated would be reviewed. On this front Judge McCullough has already declared in legal opinion that “… this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.” But of course, this whole topic is absent from the EIP platform.

Technocrats watching Heatmaps is an amusing endeavor if one doesn’t want to get their hands dirty nor feelings hurt. Referencing Fact Checkers, who call election officials for their opinions is pretty much useless in proving Election Integrity and does little to make things better. Ignoring press and social media’s enormous left bias is embarrassing for such an organization doing this kind of review.

I challenge the Election Integrity Partnership to rise to the challenge of the Data Integrity Group. Some people simply want real answers not conjecture or hyper-opinionated Dunning-Kruger effect driven insipidness.