Here are the questions I want answered.
-- If Democrats didn't rig and steal the election, why are they so afraid of forensic audits in key battleground states, specifically the current audit in Arizona?
-- When Trump was an 8-to-1 landslide favorite with bettors around the world late on election night and clearly headed toward a landslide electoral victory, why did five states suddenly announce they would pause counting for the night? And how come Biden was suddenly ahead by morning?
-- How come Michigan apparently had a dump of 149,772 votes at 6:31 a.m. on Nov. 4, 96% of which went to Biden?
-- How did Wisconsin count 149,520 votes for Biden from 3:26 to 3:44 a.m. on Nov. 4?
-- How come Philadelphia vote counters were so desperate to keep witnesses out of the counting room? Why did they refuse entry to witnesses (to Republicans) until those witnesses had a court order in hand?
-- Why were the windows in a vote-counting location in Detroit covered with cardboard so nobody (no Republican) could see inside?
-- There are videotapes filmed in Detroit of vans pulling up in the middle of the night with what obviously look like boxes of ballots. In Atlanta, there are videotapes that clearly show ballot containers appearing at a vote-counting location after a fake water main break was used to force all GOP witnesses out of the counting room. Why can't we discuss these videotapes?
-- How come Twitter banned me for life over mentioning these videotapes?
-- How come the Arizona Senate's liaison for the vote audit says Maricopa County hasn't complied with the subpoena by turning over passwords to Dominion voting machines?
-- How come the Biden DOJ suddenly wants to stop the Arizona audit?

These are all valid questions. Why do we get backlash for asking them and posting them on social media? What are Democrats hiding? What are they so afraid of?

In the end, that's the proof Democrats rigged and stole the 2020 presidential election. The truth is in their ridiculous, heavy-handed overreaction. They're desperate to stop you from looking into or even talking about this.

Democrats are guilty as sin.

Retired senior DoD analyst Ray Blehar has examined an underreported election story pertaining to write-in and minor party ballots/votes. His investigation has resulted in some startling conclusions and a working theory: that Biden’s margin of victory in several key states could have been provided by shifting write-in and minor party ballots through ballot adjudication.

Let us examine his statistical analysis and conclusions in more detail. First, a definition of terms:

Write-in ballots. These are ballots marked by voters who choose to vote for a candidate other than those listed on the printed ballots.

Minor party ballots. These are ballots marked for candidates of minor parties who were qualified to be on the election slate, such as the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. Approved minor party candidates will vary by state, depending on qualification requirements.

WIMP. This is an acronym that stands for the sum of write-in and minor party ballots in a given state.

Adjudication. This is a manual process by which the “intent of the individual voter” is determined when a given ballot cannot be determined by automated tabulation devices. Adjudicated ballots are typically write-in ballots, mismarked ballots (double votes), misaligned ballots, and other categories. Note: it is also possible to program voting machines in order to recognize a “straight party” ballot as misaligned and automatically sending it to the manual adjudication process. Adjudication is really where the vote shifting happens, particularly if the election officials in a given precinct are all from one political party and/or vote shifting malware has “infected” tabulation devices. //

Blehar believes the following happened:

Conclusion #1: The total adjudication manipulation resulted in Biden winning the state by ~80,500 votes, but in reality, President Trump actually won Pennsylvania by over 186,000 votes.
Conclusion #2: Biden’s margin of victory could have only been obtained through adjudication manipulation.

Despite the left’s claims that stricter voting laws disproportionately prevent black people from voting, the data shows that voter turnout was at record levels in 2020. The Wall Street Journal reported: //

Notably, GOP states with stricter voting rules didn’t experience significantly lower minority turnout. Black turnout was highest in Maryland (75.3%) followed by Mississippi (72.8%) and lowest in Massachusetts (36.4%). Liberals have lambasted Georgia for “purging” voters and restricting ballot access. But Georgia had a smaller black-white voting gap than Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia and California—all states controlled by Democrats. //

The states with the biggest black-white voting gaps? Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado. Three allow same-day voter registration (Wisconsin, Iowa, and Colorado), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Good luck trying to discern a link between a state’s voting rules, partisan control and minority turnout. //

California is one of the easiest states to vote in. They allow same-day registration, ballot harvesting, and other accommodations for voting. In contrast, Arizona does not allow these practices. Still, it “had a higher turnout among all minority groups and smaller voting disparities with whites than California,” according to the Journal.

This letter was sent to the Judiciary Committee while Congress is considering the highly controversial H.R.1 – ”For the People Act of 2021.” Below is an excerpt from that letter:

Sadly, the public discourse about Georgia’s new voting reforms has not been civil, fair, nor honest. Politically motivated attacks against the new law have generated much heat, but little light. We do not challenge the goodwill of the vast majority of the participants in this needlessly overwrought drama playing out. But we take great issue with the manner in which opponents of these reforms have operated. It has become clear that even well-intentioned critics of the law simply have no idea what the law is. It is clear they have no idea how favorably Georgia’s new law compares with most other states – including President Biden’s home state of Delaware. And it is clear they have no idea that a majority of Black voters across the country support the key provision under attack by critics – the simple requirement that voters be able to identify themselves when voting.

This is the same simple requirement needed to pick up baseball tickets or board a plane – activities hardly as important as voting. Instead, critics of the law have substituted passion for reason, hysteria for judgment. They have launched a despicable smear campaign against supporters of the law and economic reprisals against the state of Georgia – punishing the very people they claim to champion. They have tarred with the brush of racism people whose only sin is a desire for confidence in our elections. It’s time to end these campaigns of misinformation, division, and hate. People of goodwill must find ways to expand voter access for all Americans, strengthen the security and integrity of our election process, and do so in a way that sees civil, respectful discourse between those who disagree.

While Georgia’s new voting reforms aren’t really controversial at all — except to people who want to cheat — H.R. 1 on the other hand institutionalizes cheating that, of course, favors the Democrats. Critics say Georgia’s new law disenfranchises Black voters by asking them for a photo ID to identify themselves.

H.R.1 bans voter ID laws. Instead, all a voter will have to do is give a sworn statement that they are who they say they are at the polls. It also bars states from checking with other states for duplicate registrations within six months of an election. It bars removing former voters from the rolls for failure to vote or to respond to mailings. //

The most egregious part of H.R.1 is the provision that strips state legislatures from drawing their own congressional districts. Instead, “independent ” commissions will draw district boundary lines. Mid-decade readjustments are banned under H.R.1. In order to reduce representation in rural and traditionally Republican areas, prison inmates are counted as residents of their last known address — even if they are serving a life sentence!

Georgia’s new voting reform laws are not discriminatory and will ensure integrity in Georgia’s elections. H.R. 1, on the other hand, will do the exact opposite in Georgia and the other 49 states. We must not get distracted by the Democrats’ head fakes in Georgia while they maneuver the federal takeover of our election system. We must stay vocal and diligent because our country’s future depends on it.

Majorities of whites (74%), blacks (73%), and other minorities (82%) say voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to vote. SOURCE: Rasmussen

87% of black people have some form of confirmed photo ID. SOURCE: ProjectVote (pg. 3)

90% of Latin Americans have a form of confirmed photo ID. SOURCE: ProjectVote (pg. 3)

Percentage of Americans who have ID vs. percentage who vote. SOURCE: CNN

87% of black people have ID, only 13% voted in the 2020 Election.
90% of Latin Americans have ID, only 13% voted in the 2020 Elections.
95% of white people have ID, only 67% voted in 2020 Elections.
97% of registered voters in Georgia have a valid ID. SOURCE: AJC

Voter ID laws have been shown to actually INCREASE turnout in states that recommend them, such as Georgia and Indiana. SOURCES: Heritage, Heritage

The recall qualification process is so rigorous that, as the Orange County Register reports, “Since California voters approved the recall process in 1911, there have been 179 recall attempts. Only 10 got enough signatures to make the ballot, and just six succeeded.” Just 3.3 percent of recall attempts have succeeded, yet Newman feels it necessary to chill that exercise of free speech?

Newman believes that votes should be secret but that signing a petition is political advocacy that should be reportable, and that voters have nothing to fear. //

skeptic62
2 hours ago
Let me get this straight. The Dems would prohibit any investigation into voter fraud but want a list of those who would vote against them. Is that really what they are asking for? How very Marxist of them.

oldairman2000
3 hours ago edited
'Skin in the game.'

This argument regarding self-government has been part Western Civilization since Athens developed the first democracy and Rome established their republic. The fundamental requirement to participate in steering the ship of state from a self-government perspective has always been property ownership. Without property ownership, the voter has literally no stake in the very ground of the homeland he resides upon and may have to defend with his or her life. In the early days of Western Civilization, and by that I mean Greco-Roman civilization, one had to own property to even serve in the military/militia let alone vote in a citizen's assembly about important matters. Leaders in those cultures did not send slaves or vagabonds wandering the streets of their societies to fight wars to protect their societies. And they certainly did not want those types having a say in the affairs of state. They wanted people who cared about the society.

I have come to the Robert Heinlein conclusion regarding self-government, as impractical as it may be in this day and age. If you want a say in the affairs of state, you have to serve it. And there are ways to do that. Otherwise, you are not a "citizen" but simply a "civilian." There is a difference between those to concepts.

Addendum: Perhaps the best identification required to be allowed to vote in any election should be one's local, state and federal taxes paid receipts paperwork. No receipts, no ballot. //

NickSJ
3 hours ago edited
From Lee's Summit Conservative Blog:

"In 1787, while our first 13 states adopted their new constitution, Alexander Tyler who was a Scottish History Professor at the University of Edinburgh, said this about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier:

"“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”"

We're in the last stage of that process. America was nice while it lasted. //

davenj1 NickSJ
3 hours ago
I believe that was the Left's long game all along. //

Baldred
4 hours ago edited
Welcome to Reality. LOL

44% of eligible voters in the USA (and even higher in many Western European Countries - are already receiving 100% of their income from Government funding in the form of welfare and housing benefits and this proportion of the Electorate, dependent upon the Politicians, continues to grow exponentially.

They are ready-made slaves and drones.

Why would these Government Dependents NOT vote Democrat? They would be biting the hand that - literally - feeds them if they voted other than for Democrat candidates. LOL

Today's Democrats WANT more of the Electorate to need dependency on the Government even though, economically, it is nothing less than Communism/Marxism/Socialism and typifies life under a regime similar to the U.S.S.R and The Soviet Bloc Countries in their heyday.

Those glorious (Hahahahaha and LOL) days when many People of the Soviet Bloc were desperate enough to risk being shot-to-death climbing The Iron Curtain to escape to Capitalist Western Europe and onwards to the United States of America!

SWRichmond
2 hours ago
"political morality"

So here we are. Voting is an act of violence. If war is politics by any other means, then the converse is true. Voting enables some people to band together and decide other people should be robbed and killed. Organizing one's society around a set of rules which must be enforced, and the enforcement mechanisms paid for, necessitates organized violence.

This is why the Framers wanted government to be as tiny as possible.

Groups have been organizing to loot public treasuries for as long as there have been treasuries to loot. Government and corruption go hand in hand, by definition. They have used various justifications, but the themes always rhyme. //

ConcernedConservative
2 hours ago
Our Founders knew and respected Natural Law, and accepted the fallenness of every Man, even themselves. They knew that no one individual or arbitrary group could be completely entrusted with the power of government, and that pure democracy ignored our baser nature and was fraught with peril.

And so here we are. //

St. Joseph Terror of Demons ConcernedConservative
2 hours ago
Yep. They knew that for America to succeed, it required a moral people—a people that believe in and worship God.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case for a vast number of those that co-inhabit the borders of this country. //

blh
2 hours ago
I have long argued for some level of qualification beyond age and being on US soil (ostensibly a citizen). I would argue for the following in priority:

Civic literacy (pass an 8th grade civics test) - show you can read and understand our system of gov't.
Own property - preferably real but must have a stake in the land and wealth of this nation
Pay in taxes - If you don't pay taxes then you cannot vote. This can be at the various levels pay state taxes but not federal? Vote in statewide elections (easy enough)

Only exclusion to the last two is to be a combat wounded veteran but there would be no exclusion to the first. If you cannot read and understand what you read then you cannot vote.

The Associated Press
@AP
·
Apr 2, 2021
Replying to @AP
Six in 10 Americans support automatic voter registration, including about three-quarters of Democrats and about half of Republicans..

The poll also finds rare bipartisan support on a measure: requiring photo identification to vote. Overall, 72% of Americans were in favor, including most Republicans and a slim majority of Democrats. //

In short, the current outrage is completely manufactured. It’s not based on a true reading of the law, nor are the complaints even a majority opinion in this country. Yet, the power corporations wield is massive, and Democrats know they can tell them how high to jump. That’s what we are seeing, but there’s nothing real or organic about the current consternation.

H.R. 1 is a Democratic Party wishlist to eliminate election security. Among other things it does, which The Federalist has reported on here, here, and here, the For The People Act would turn election day into election season. It would also require blanketing the country with hundreds of millions of mail-in ballots, extending the confusion of 2020 to every future federal election.

Mayer’s backing of President Joe Biden’s press conference claim the GOP opposing the bill is “sick” and “un-American” is only fitting, since both Biden and The New Yorker writer oversimplify the measure and do not mostly address GOP concerns. This includes a two-week delay in ballots being opened, zero voter ID at polls, enabling 16- and 17-year-olds to register to vote, a mandate against election audit recounts, and much much more. //

There is a thing called right and wrong in society, and eliminating privacy for law-abiding citizens to expose them to harassment by pressure groups is surely wrong. As The Heritage Foundation cites, H.R. 1 would mandate exorbitant rates for “candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations” and “its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment.”

The writer also trivializes the fact that the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union has voiced disapproval over the donor disclosure provision in H.R. 1. The ACLU acknowledged in a January letter to House Democrats the measure “could harm political advocacy and expose non-profit donors to harassment and threats of violence should their support for organizations be subject to forced disclosure.” //

The major crux of Mayer’s argument is groups ought to have to disclose donors in the name of transparency. But a necessary follow-up to this claim is why? Do Democrats seek to uncover who is funding right-leaning organizations and people just in the holy name of “transparency,” or is another motivation fueling this effort?

Given that two-thirds of Americans agree that cancel culture is a threat to freedom, and similar numbers fear saying what they truly think, it’s pretty obvious that a supermajority of Americans agree privacy is needed to secure people’s freedoms to support whatever candidates they believe in.

Cruz calls the bill a “brazen and shameless power grab,” noting that it would promote widespread voter fraud. It includes automatic voter registration for essentially anyone who has ever interacted with the government. That would naturally include a lot of illegal immigrants who have driver’s licenses, and without strong verification in place, which H.R. 1 doesn’t have, there’d be nothing to stop them from voting.

Worse, as Cruz points out, even though it would still be technically illegal for an illegal immigrant to vote, H.R. 1 expressly removes any liability for doing so. In other words, you can vote illegally with no repercussions. The bill also strikes down all laws at the state level that prevent felons from voting. That’s another attempt by Democrats to stack the deck with voters they perceive would favor them.

Other terrible aspects include the striking down of voter ID laws, which exist in 29 states right now. Ballot harvesting, which has completely tainted states like California, would also be made universal across the country. Cruz uses the example of a political operative going into a nursing home and harvesting ballots only from those who voted for Democrats. There’s no supervision in that case, and unwanted ballots could just be thrown out after collection.

Cruz ends by calling it the “corrupt politicians act” because the goal is to keep corrupt politicians in power. That should be obvious to anyone thinking critically about what all of these federal mandates would mean. Democrats like to spin it as stopping the “restricting of voting,” but their definition of such is basically that any vote they think will benefit them should be counted regardless of its legality. They are also seeking to give machine politics, i.e. ballot harvesting, a dominant role in deciding elections.

H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom. It would (among other things) implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election; go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place; and interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process.

The latest report is that Wisconsin has joined the ranks of states that will investigate what happened last year by adopting a resolution authorizing an investigation that “would give the investigators subpoena power to compel testimony and gather documents.” That’s at least three states who are keeping the issue in front of the public, counting Arizona and Georgia.

While these actions are excellent, there are three significant challenges that must be overcome in order to restore election integrity and voter confidence in US elections:

Overcoming Democrat attempts to institutionalize election fraud nationwide, as well as their unified resistance to revising state election laws to prevent fraud.
Restoring trust in federal and state government agencies, especially law enforcement, to enforce state election laws to the letter.
Educating the general public about why restoration of election integrity is of vital importance in preserving our constitutional Republic. //

Signing HR 1 into federal law will effectively end our constitutionally-based political system, with all of its checks and balances, replacing it over time with a one-party political dictatorship that would be immune to the outrages of average Americans over capricious authoritarian federal and state policies implemented since corrective elections to replace “elected officials” would be impossible. Third World dictators would be proud.

The court ruled that the Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when she unilaterally issued changes for how to consider absentee ballots in Michigan.

The judge held that she was required to go through the state legislature that she didn’t have the right to just make unilateral changes on her own.

The issues involved such things as sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters and then how absentee ballots should be considered. This affected things such as judging whether the signature verification was valid. Michigan requires a signature on the application for the absentee ballot and a signature on the return ballot envelope. Those are then matched against the signature on file. //

But unfortunately, of course, now it’s too late to make any difference in the November election. The suit was filed in October of last year but not decided until this month.

[I]n California, Biden beat Trump by 5± million votes (2020), whereas Clinton beat Trump by 4± million (2016). Doing the arithmetic, the contrast is 833,843 votes. (Statisticians call this the Difference of the Differences, or DoD.) Note that Trump increased his California vote total [from 2016 to 2020] by 1.5± million votes. However, Biden increased the Democrat candidate’s vote total by 2.3± million [from 2016]. Where did California find 3.8± million more votes in 2020 than in 2016? Easy, you say: California’s population has increased.

That’s a good thought, but between 2016 and 2020, the Census Bureau says that the population of California increase by less than 700,000 people. (Note that this includes children not old enough to vote, non-citizens, non-registered citizens, etc.). However, as mentioned above, the 2020 vote total for the Democrat candidate increased by 2.3± million votes. On the face of it, that significant vote increase does not appear to be logically explainable. //

Trump did better than expected in Ohio and Florida while also improving over 2016 in Louisiana, Alabama, and Utah, each of which counted their absentee ballots BEFORE Election Day (no counting of absentee votes afterward). In other words, whatever transpired during “the Great Pause” in counting “new” Biden votes was precluded from happening in those five states. Is that just a coincidence?
New York lost over 304,000 residents from 2016 to 2020, yet the state provided approximately 300,000 more votes for Biden in 2020 than expected. How is that possible when Trump increased his vote totals in 2020 by over 461,000 from 2016? //

California gained 700,000± in population from 2016 to 2020, but gained 6,000,000± registered voters. Not bloody likely no matter how big of a voter registration drive there was.

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen after Nov. 3. //

A Rasmussen survey last month found that 61 percent of Republicans say Joe Biden did not win the election fairly. That number hasn’t changed much since early January, when 69 percent of GOP voters voiced the same concern. That 34 percent of all voters and 36 percent of independents agree with them is a strong signal that something went terribly amiss in the maelstrom of election cases. //

Yet to understand why there is still widespread unease with the election, would it not be better to stop demanding conformity and instead dig deeper to see what the courts told us in those cases, and what they did not? A review of them shows that, contrary to a common narrative, few were ever considered on the merits. //

When most needed, the court that once took the time to render a decision on whether a tomato is a fruit or vegetable chose to punt on each of the key presidential election cases. American voters are worse off for it as confidence in elections erodes. //

The election of 2020, which included more than 155 million votes, was decided by approximately 300,000 votes in six states, or 0.2 percent of the electorate, all of which came by an unnatural flip of results late on election night. Despite judges’ repeated hand-wringing that any court action would disenfranchise millions of voters, the reality is that millions of others may have been disenfranchised, and they instinctively suspect so.

The one thing many voters seem to have learned through the legal chaos is that it’s easier to commit election violations than to stop them. So the electorate remains divided—even after “86 election cases.”

As Bonchie explained in this story, the dispute over the outcome of the Iowa House race is now pending in the House Committee on Administration. The Democrat challenger, Rita Hart, made a deliberate decision after the recount of ballots to NOT file any election contest in the Iowa courts as was authorized by Iowa law. Instead, she filed the petition with the House that is now pending to have the “winning” candidate — as identified by Iowa election officials — Mariannette Miller-Meeks, disqualified from holding the seat on the basis that she did not receive a greater number of votes than Hart received.

The House has the final say under the Constitution with respect to the qualifications of any individual to serve as a member. Under the statute authorizing the petition filed by Hart, the Committee conducts an investigation. It can hear from witnesses, accept documentary evidence, conduct interviews in Iowa, and even conduct a recount of all the ballots on its own to come up with its own final vote tally.

Remarkably, if the Committee chooses to recount the ballots itself, the standards for what constitutes a “valid” ballot under Iowa law do not apply to such a recount by the House. Democrats who have majority control of the committee can fashion their own standards as to what should be deemed a “valid” vote, and may freely choose to ignore any limitations on the process established by Iowa law and court precedent.
The Committee, based on its investigation, makes a recommendation to the full House, and it is a vote of the entire House that determines the outcome of the Petition filed by Hart.

Richard Grenell
@RichardGrenell
You’ve never seen a signature verification process like the one about to be unleashed in California in 2021.

The new Secretary of State was just appointed by Newsom - she interviewed for the job during the Recall signature campaign.

Do you think they discussed it?

Ari Fleischer
@AriFleischer
Why is it routine and acceptable to challenge the validity of signatures on recall petitions, but it’s voter suppression if the same standards are applied to signatures on absentee ballots? https://sacbee.com/news/politics-

The outcome of Brnovich — if the Arizona statutes are upheld as not violating Section 2 — will provide the “go-ahead” to conservative state legislatures to adopt “ballot integrity” legislation prior to 2022 and 2024 with confidence that the Supreme Court will sustain such legislation so long as the statutes are race-neutral even if they have what some consider a disproportionate impact on minority voters.

The Supreme Court’s role in the judiciary is to chart the course or lower courts to follow — not to step into an electoral maelstrom and attempt to sort out the claims of the competing parties on incomplete and contradictory factual records.

Potentially the two biggest issues that will be directly implicated by the outcome of today’s case will be the degree to which states are going to be allowed to require voter identification and engage in signature matching on absentee ballots without worrying about Democrat lawyers like Marc Elias trying to tie up the election process in court proceedings raising due process and Voting Rights Act claims.

Americans of all political backgrounds have rejected ranked-choice voting as a confusing scheme that makes it more difficult to exercise your right to a vote that counts,” Rebekah Paxton, director of research and coalitions at the Employment Policies Institute, which launched Protect My Ballot, told The Daily Signal.

“Studies show that [ranked-choice voting] disenfranchises voters and reduces turnout, while its proponents’ promises remain largely unfulfilled in practice,” Paxton said. //

“It’s a good program for political and ideological activists. The average voters have a hard time remembering the names of the down-ballot candidates,” Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which led the fight against ranked-choice voting in the Bay State, told The Daily Signal. “Simplicity and clarity to voting is better than ranking and algorithms.” //

But runoff elections are a better alternative to having candidates win by a plurality, according to a 2019 report by Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky and Public Interest Legal Foundation President J. Christian Adams.

A majority is more than 50% of the vote, while a plurality is the largest percentage of votes that go to any one candidate in a race. A candidate is less likely to achieve a majority when a race features more than two viable candidates. //

Voters have a greater opportunity to make an informed choice than with instant runoffs (i.e., ranked-choice voting). Runoff elections guarantee that the winner of the runoff election has a genuine mandate from a majority of the voters—a crucial factor in a democratic system. Runoff elections carry additional costs—but so do primary and general elections. Yet few people suggest abolishing them because of their cost. Consent of the governed matters.