by Ray Jason
On behalf of the Election Steering Table-Top Exercise committee, I commend you for taking the initiative in organizing and funding our endeavor. Your realization of how important the Event 201 gathering was in Oct 2019, in manipulating the global messaging concerning Covid-19, demonstrated extraordinary foresight. Your decision to apply similar influencing techniques to the upcoming election was brilliant.
We commenced our war game scenario on 1 April 2020 and are pleased to now share our conclusions with you. The casual name that we attached to our efforts was The Win Regardless Game Plan. Here are our recommendations arranged in simple bullet points:
As early as possible we should argue that because of the danger of in-person voting during a pandemic, that mail-in ballots should be the preferred method for this election.
Normally, mail-in ballots have to be requested, but we should insist that in this time of crisis these ballots should be mailed to as much of the voting public as possible.
These types of ballots are much easier to “influence” via time-tested methods. For example, it allows voters to exercise their rights who happen to be deceased or who are illegal immigrants or who are convicted felons. In such cases, in-person voting is far more difficult.
Should election night tallies need to be “massaged,” our committee concluded that mail-in ballots are far more effective. Truckloads of boxes with “favorable” choices could be positioned in critical “swing states.” The fact that the governors of most of those states are loyal to you, will facilitate the smoothness of this helpful operation.
Some of the party’s best analysts will be conferring on election night to determine the correct number of favorable ballots that will be necessary to swing the results. Thus we will avoid the embarrassment of having far more votes than the number of registered voters.
The other team will emphatically oppose this mail-in campaign, but this can work to our advantage as a decoy tactic. This will allow our “adjustment” skills with electronic voting machines to barely be discussed.
When the opposition objects vehemently to the widespread use of mail-in ballots, our messaging should be that they are trying to prohibit citizens who are fearful of infection, from exercising their voting rights. The actual fact that anyone desiring a mail-in ballot will readily receive one, should be ignored if it is raised.
Another advantage of mail-in ballots is that it permits us at least a few days to “discover” any favorable ballots that might have been “misplaced.” This is due to the fact that these ballots only have to be post-marked before election day ends.
Long before the election we should enlist our media “allies” to establish the narrative that our opponent might not vacate the White House should his team detect any serious voting “irregularities.” Our talking heads can be assisted by ex-alphabet agency consultants who would amplify this narrative.
Our more “hands-on” supporters, who have already been apprenticing in Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis, can be positioned in Washington and other prime cities to “peacefully protest” an election result that we would deem unfavorable.
The desire of the general public to “just stop the mayhem” could be a great advantage to us. However, this tactic has risks, since the opposition supporters are heavily armed and have had their under-the-surface anger building for months. Many of them are also overseas veterans with serious combat skills.
Another tactic that our committee deems valuable would be to delay the announcing of any significant victories in crucial states by our opponent. Instead of “calling” a state using the normal timeline, our “friends” in the media can be counted on to delay those announcements. This will create the impression that our adversary is doing worse than he actually is.
Simultaneous to this approach our media allies can be counted on to make early calls concerning our candidate. This will advance the illusion that we are doing better than we actually are.
Our committee was quite divided in recommending one tactic that could possibly backfire. Some of us suggested that if the results were seriously trending unfavorably, that counting should be stopped. When the tallying commenced again, the necessary “adjustments” could have been made. A few members of the committee felt that such an action would be “too obvious and blatant” and should only be employed if the situation appeared “extremely desperate.”
An important tactic, that we all agreed upon, was that if the decision ended up in the hands of the lawyers, that our opponent should be accused of trying to steal the election via the courts and thus obstruct the will of the people. The fact that our lawyers were engaged in the exact same mission should be overlooked. Fortunately, the vast majority of the media would support our efforts in this regard.
In conclusion, Madame Chairman, our committee believes that these recommendations can seriously enhance the likelihood of a favorable outcome to this vital election.
I close with the mantra that we often repeated during our deliberations:
WIN REGARDLESS!!!
