le are also saying that it's no problem because we've tested it enough in these states. We'll just do what they did. It'll be fine. But here's the part they get wrong. 2020 is not like any other year because you don't have any baseline of expectation. So that let's say the votes came in and they were five percent different than they would have been if people voted in person. What's it tell you? Nothing. If we had had a history of voting by mail and then this year there was something different in the outcome and you look at it and go huh these numbers don't look real. It looks like this district faked something over there. So if you had a baseline of doing this all the time you could maybe detect if some mischief had happened. But 2020 there's no baseline. We haven't done it before. We expect massive cheating because it's America and people will cheat if they can. We don't know because of the coronavirus what the vote would have looked like. We don't know if the polling is accurate because of the shy Trump voters. We have no way to know that the outcome we get is anywhere near the truth. That's different. So everybody who says hey we've done mail-in before, we know how that works, is missing the biggest part of the decision which is wait, wait, it's 2020.

If you had said this in any prior year I would say yeah that might be dependable enough. Even 2016 I would have said yeah we know how many people vote. We've got a good handle on it. We would detect any mischief. We would see it. Not in 2020. In 2020 it will be completely hidden by all the other noise from the coronavirus to shy Trump supporters to the polls being not credible entirely. So here's what I would suggest. I think the sooner the government gives the public a clear path in terms of what would happen under different scenarios the sooner we can start arguing about the rules instead of figuring out how to kill each other when it all goes bad. So I would like to see the government in some form just put out a flow chart that says this is our understanding of if we get to election day and we don't have a result we're going to do this. These people will be in charge and they will give us this outcome. Then if we still don't have a result we can trust, and I'm just making this part up, on this date we'll have the Supreme Court decide. Again I'm just making this all up. The Supreme Court will decide if we should hold the second election, if we should just do it again, or they might decide to just do it in a couple of problem areas. Maybe there's a state or some counties that look like they're not reliable. So it doesn't matter what the process is so long as it looks credible on paper. It's presented well in advance so that we can live with it for a while. I want to be able to live with the idea that no this isn't going to be like normal elections. We will not have a result on election night. Then the process will be as follows. Let's say the process is that we don't ask the networks not to report who is even ahead. Suppose you just don't report it and you wait till the votes are counted and there's some kind of official sign off before the networks can give you any results. Maybe you just say there's no news on this. You just can't report the news until all the votes are counted. How about that? I don't know if he could make that stick. I don't know if it would even work. But it doesn't matter what the process is. My point is you have to get the public pregnant with that process now. You don't want to wait till election night and have the public find out for the first time where it goes. Big, big mistake. That is a civil war-sized mistake if you don't educate the piss out of the