Republicans have very recently started discussing a new scientific theory that they feel would more accurately reflect the views of their constituents. During a meeting to discuss the ramifications of election results, a contingent of Republican Senators began discussing alternative ways of interpreting ballot results.
During the closed door session, sources indicated that Republicans were seeking a long term strategy that might prove more effective than "stop the steal". The source explained the general content of the discussions, "A lot of the long time Senators had stated they wanted something that they can use in more than one election."
Some of the suggested approaches were:
- Using Euclidean Geometry to count votes.
- Validating only half the votes cast after 10:00 am, after all the old people are done voting.
- Give different voting districts varying values based on a subjective value applied based on undiscussed criteria.
After it was determined that nobody knew what Euclidean meant, and the other methods had already been tried and failed, one unnamed Lindsey Graham mentioned the success that digging up a few scientists that disagree in climate science had been in building a counter argument for sensible conservation practices. He then suggested the possibility of finding scientists that might offer a descending opinion on counting.
Although, it is still very early in the development the source stated that it already seemed more difficult to find the right scientists to help support a alternate counting theory. "We already reached out to some of our favorite scientists, but even they had trouble coming up with ways to manipulate the results of basic math. One ambitious conservative scientist in need of research money suggested treating the "D" on ballots as a math character that reduces the value of the vote by half but that was seen as a bit too obvious, but "only by a little bit". It seems that the arbitrary nature of basic addition poses greater obstacles to alternative lines of thinking than something as subjective as observing that throwing a candy wrapper on the ground is littering.
Senators were still optimistic that long term they'll come up with the proper solution because, "when you are feeding people information that they want to hear the threshold for proof drops very low."
With time being of the essence, some short term options are already being pursued as a stopgap measure until a solidified message can be crafted. "We figure just using a couple of our bot accounts on Facebook ought to do the trick. If that isn't enough, we always have prime time on Fox to fall back on."
