Election Correction

That Depends, Says a Novel Theory.


Jan. 26. Despite appearances, Joe Biden was not elected legally. To know who really won, we need to repeat elections in key swing states. Republican-controlled state legislators have the power to hold them.


Strange as it may seem, the certification of Electoral College votes for Joe Biden on January 6th was invalid. It violated due process, because the Democratic Party effectively acquitted itself of the charges of fraud issued against it. Per Amendment IX, neither Congress nor even the Constitution itself may violate due process.


Republican-controlled state legislators have the power to hold runoff elections in key swing states to comply with state law instead of the extralegal procedures used in November. That could overturn this very close election.  


A Dozen Reasons to hold Runoff Elections

1. The Constitution, like all just laws, provides no protection for fraud. If there is reason to believe fraud and irregularities may have changed the outcome, this must be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt, before proceeding with "business as usual."

2. If this is forgotten, the powers of the state and the law will be used to condone fraud, which is unconscionable.

3. The right to a fair election is a basic right of the people, of eligible voters and of the candidates.

4. Amendment IX specifically states that no provision of the Constitution shall be construed to deny the rights of the people -- such as the right to a fair election, and to due process. Amendment IX simply means that the Constitution is an instrument to be used wisely to attain its purpose, and not applied blindly in ways that defeat the purpose. There is of course a huge body of law and custom which is Constitutional, without being stipulated specifically by the original Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution can deny the right to runoff or repeat elections where they are needed to attain the objective of a fair and accurate election.

5. The Vice President and Congress violated due process on January 6th, by following the currently inoperable provisions of  Amendment XII for handling objections to the Electoral College vote count. This allowed the Democratic Party majority to wear several hats at once: suspects in the fraud accusations, plus judge and jury in the decision to dismiss objections. Yet no one is ever entitled to decide a case where they are the accused. Where there is a conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves.

The Founders could not have made it clearer that a travesty of justice along party lines was never their intention -- they warned strenuously against "Faction." What the Framers had in mind in Amendment XII was town-hall democracy, not rule by political parties or factions, which are nowhere recognized by the Constitution. They always split on party lines when their power is in question. This places "might makes right" and facilitating fraud above justice and due process.

6. Under criminal law, every citizen who suspects a crime has the right and the duty to expose and if possible, to oppose it. By assenting to or facilitating fraud, one becomes an accomplice thereto.

On January 6th Vice President Pence announced, "with significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of this election." With this knowledge, Pence had the duty to halt the proceeding, not give it over to the suspects to decide for themselves.

7. The Constitution is our civil code, and does not devise detailed procedures for criminal cases. These need to be set right first, so that the matter may become subject to civil law. 

8. No legal standing is needed to report suspected crimes, because doing so is a public duty. The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint by the State of Texas on grounds of lack of standing. SCOTUS should take on this case, as it involves a major dispute between different branches of government.

9. The people and the federal government are principals, who have delegated the election of their representatives to the states, who are their agents. The principal always has the right to have the delegated work done to the standards of probity. What must prevail is the realization that if work has been done badly, it must be put right.

10. Many state governments with contested results were allegedly influenced before the election to change their laws, allowing large numbers of illegitimate ballots. Many states do not keep their voting rolls in order. In some cases, the voter turnout exceeded 100% of the eligible voting population. These improper practices violated the mutual obligations and the checks and balances between those states and the Republic. The election was swamped with mail-in ballots in 2020, which are notoriously prone to irregularities. "Mail-in errors can easily change the election results," as Pullmann noted in the Federalist.[1]

11. As a practical matter, it is impossible to verify the validity of millions of ballots cast under the very conditions warned against by the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform.

12. Congress also showed itself unqualified to adjudicate objections to the Electoral College vote under Amendment XII, when it failed to enact the anti-fraud legislation recommended by the Carter-Baker Commission in 2005,[2] and by HR 1946 in 2019. It is evident that a majority in Congress have no interest in fair elections. Should Congress be the judge in a case where its own refusal to enact anti-fraud legislation allowed the problem to continue?

To make matters even worse, Congress was stampeded to its decision by the bizarre provocations surrounding the protests at the Capitol on Jan. 6th.


The only way to effectively meet objections is to hold repeat elections where needed, in full compliance with Carter-Baker, et al., so that election results are fair beyond a reasonable doubt. The People must be the judge.




The People have an inalienable right to a fair and true election. This right stands above legal formalities, and this is confirmed by Amendment IX and by our inborn sense of justice.


If this right is denied us in the first instance, we have the right to demand it in a repeat election. A disputed election, which is resolved by a new vote, is similar to a mistrial, which is remedied by a retrial.


There would be insurmountable practical impossibilities and moral hazards in attempting to reconstruct what the real vote should have been. Repeat elections with anti-fraud safeguards are the only clear way to eliminate fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.


Ideally there should ideally be no mail-in votes in repeat elections. A forensic election requires maximum probity. Each illegitimate vote will cancel out a rightful vote, suppressing genuine voting rights. Moreover, if there is a significant difference between mail-in and in-person votes, doubt will remain and we will still have a hung election. Let only the people's true and verifiable voice be heard. However, a compliant runoff of the 2020 election will have to follow the existing state law of 2020.


Only the people, as the ultimate sovereign of the state, have the right and ability to vote for their own interests. That is why we have elections. Any solution other than a repeat vote by the People will hand our rights to officials who have their own incentives. There are some rights one simply cannot delegate.


"Repeat elections aren’t all that unusual. As political uncertainty and fragmentation become more commonplace, several countries have come to rely on them to break a political stalemate, or reaffirm a result," says The Atlantic.


Anti-fraud safeguards in repeat voting should include the following recommendations: those of the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, Tulsi Gabbard's bill HR 1946 requiring a paper trail for voting machines, and the open-source, self-auditing vote tally proposed in the full version of this thesis at http://thesaker.is/the-rule-of-law-over-fraud-biden-election-may-be-illegal-as-four-basic-legal-principles-ignored/



[1] https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/03/were-insecure-voting-processes-this-years-insurance-policy-for-democrats

[2] In response to the dispute over the 2000 election, a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform was formed. In their report, Chairmen Jimmy Carter and James Baker called for safeguards to make sure every real vote counts -- and only every real vote. Strict voter ID requirements, restrictions on mail-in voting, accurate voter registration lists, access for election observers, and accuracy of voting machines were among the 87 recommendations. See also https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/11/20/7-ways-the-2005-carter-baker-report-could-have-averted-problems-with-2020-election/  and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Federal_Election_Reform