By Tom Cushing
Texas, Trump, The Case of Schrodinger’s Cat and What’s NextUploaded: Dec 11, 2020
Texas has always enjoyed an inflated self-image – 'too big for its britches' in the local parlance. Size matters – so coming over the Sabine River bridge from Louisiana, travelers are greeted by a sign reading ‘Beaumont 5 miles, El Paso 879 miles.’
There’s even a legend that the state’s Congressional delegation considered a filibuster of Alaska’s statehood bill (that would render Texas only second largest) … until the Alaskans threatened to divide their territory in two – dropping Texas to third place. As the tourist ads used to beckon: “It’s like a whole ‘nother country.”
So, perhaps it’s unsurprising that Texas would shack-up with a whole ‘nother blustering blimp of a smoldering ego in the person of the White House’s current occupant. Recently served with an eviction notice, the tenant there has been desperately seeking to raise the tortured ghost of the vicious shyster Roy Cohn to assist him in resisting the electorate. All he’s gotten, instead, is a melting apparition of the former Rudy Giuliani, well past his spook-by date. Wanting to conjure a fearsome Freddie Krueger, all he’s mustered forth is Casper.
It’s high time for the cavalry, pardner. Here comes the Texas Rangers ridin' to the rescue in the form of a remarkably arrogant lawsuit, made direct to the Supreme Court, that would effectively expand the state’s territory to the entire U S of A.
It claims the right to overturn elections of other states, conducted by those other states, and for those states, equally sovereign under our system of federalism. Actually, the Texas beef is not with all of them other states – it’s just certain ones with whom they be havin’ a dust-up.
Obviously, the suit faces a pesky threshold matter of encroachment (here called ‘standing to sue’) – whether one state has the right to try and impose its legal will on the internal workings of another. Then on the merits, the lawsuit asks the Supremes to simply throw-out election results of WI, MI, GA and PA without even directly alleging fraud. Instead, per NPR’s legal pundit Mara Liason, the essence of the claim is that those four states had all passed laws which render fraud ‘undetectable’. In other words, they’re so clever that we can’t tell how they cheated – but we just KNOW that they did.
It's the perfect Trump claim - no proof required - indeed the absence of proof IS the proof. The defendant states’ results become the Schrodinger’s Cat of elections: it’s a closed box; you can’t tell whether the votes are legit or not/dead or alive. Throw out the box.
The lawsuit then sprinkles some statistical whiffle dust on the reported results and alleges that the chance that they are legitimate is one in a quadrillion. It neglects to mention that the same model applied to Mr. Trump’s losing results, renders their probability also around the same: 1/1000000000000000.
Actual statisticians have called the Texas model ‘comical,’ and worse. “The model is silly,” said Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California at Berkeley. “This is not science or statistics. It’s not even a good cartoon of elections.” (NYTimes) Beware those coastal elites and their so-called expertise.
Fortunately for Schrodinger’s cat (and Biden’s upcoming feline companion to his dogs), we Can open that ballot box. Voting and counting were witnessed, ballots have been recounted multiple times, and even the Uber-partisan Attorney General Barr has found no significant evidence of fraud.
That is because the saving genius of the American voting system is that it is so thoroughly decentralized. Therefore, it is exceptionally difficult – nearly impossible - to game it. You’d have to involve too many people, too many places, and too many times to achieve meaningful results, and all those incidents would be detectable. Far from fraud being undetectable, it would be impossible to pull it off on a wide scale - that makes these elections impregnable - and reliable.
The irresistible conclusion is that fraud wasn’t found because it was never there. The cat was never in peril. You lost, fair-and-square. Please enjoy this parting participation trophy, and leave the cat.
So, what’s next?
Well, in service to our readers, I’ve consulted with some guy. Now, he has an advanced degree in something, and he’s an Alaskan by birth (recall that makes him worth more than any Two Texans). Here’s some of what he thinks. Remember, folks – you heard it here first.
Vladimir Putin v. United States, d/b/a The Trump Organization.
In this case, Mr. Putin claims unspecified damages (but they are certainly in the $ quadrillions). He alleges that he had a contract with defendant Trump to deliver him 75 million Trump votes in the November election.
Further, Plaintiff fully performed on that promise via widespread pre-election tactics of social media disinformation, conspiracy theories, hacking, troll farming and worse. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant’s representations to the effect that 75 million would be more than enough to deliver the election to the incumbent.
In return, Plaintiff was promised a four-year period of leaked secrets, weakened alliances, tax holidays for the rich, toadying to plaintiff and others similarly situated, and a domestic US march toward totalitarianism – to the ultimate effect that further, future investments in such electioneering would not be necessary.
In conciliation, Plaintiff invites defendant’s CEO to Moscow for settlement discussions – a hotel room is all set-up.
California v. Trump Campaign 2020
Building from the logic of the Texas case above, California claims by statistical evidence that there Must Have Been fraud committed by the Trump campaign against the state. Plaintiff alleges that in 2016, with none of its citizens on the ballot, the state voted overwhelmingly for candidate Clinton – she won the state by more votes (4.3 million) than her nationwide victory margin (2.9 million).
In 2020, however, even with a fair daughter of California prominently on the ballot, the Biden margin in CA (5.1 million) was substantially Less than the national plurality of more than 7 million votes. 7 million! QED.
Plaintiff further alleges application of the legal doctrine of Projection, to wit: our claims must be true, because the Trump campaign Never accuses anybody of misbehaviors that it is not, itself, already doing.
CA seeks injunctive relief against Trump’s traveling in or through the state, lest anyone think he’s a star, with the inevitable consequences.