Townhall⁠84%

Remember When Kamala Harris Wanted Paper Ballots for Our Elections? ⁠74%

By Amy Curtis⁠89%

7/20/2026, 6:00:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.2% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 1,017 faulty-reasoning hits from 303 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,776 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.60% of the article peer group.

With Democrats in high dudgeon over the SAVE America Act and voter integrity, we'd do well to remember there was a time when Kamala Harris ran on a platform of getting rid of voting machines and using just paper ballots. 
"The best and most secure way to conduct elections? 
Paper ballots," she said. 
"Cause the way that I say it, kind of half joking, Russia can't hack a piece of paper." 
In another appearance, Kamala restated her opinion in multiple appearances on the campaign trail. 
"We have a bill that basically would require states to upgrade their election infrastructure because guess what? 
Going like back to the future, the best and smartest way to conduct voting? 
Paper ballots," Kamala said. 
"Paper ballots. 
I joke and I say paper ballots because Russia can't hack a piece of paper!" 
Kamala said it again, in a third clip. 
"The most secure way to vote? 
Paper. 
You're right. 
And, you know ... it would be great if the Republican leader would put these bills on the floor for a vote." 
Even Whoopi Goldberg and the audience of 'The View' agreed with her. 
"And you said something, I have been saying forever and ever and I'm going to say it in 45 seconds," Goldberg said. 
"You've been saying that it's time for us to go back to paper ballots. 
Why?" 
"Because Russia can't hack a piece of paper," Kamala replied. 
"There you go," Goldberg said. 
Kamala Harris clearly believes Russia stole the 2016 election. 
That's funny, because we've been told repeatedly that questioning the outcomes of the election is an existential threat to our democracy, and grounds for going to jail, being stripped of your law license, and sued in civil court. 
What's (D)ifferent between 2020 and 2026? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.8%Amy Curtis: 8.6%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 3.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 2.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.7%Amy Curtis: 10.8%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect27.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.9%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.7%Amy Curtis: 15.5%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias34.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Amy Curtis: 3.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error3.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.7%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.0%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.8%Amy Curtis: 1.2%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 8.3%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 13.2%Amy Curtis: 4.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man13.2%This article: 5.0%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 14.5%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma14.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.2%Amy Curtis: 16.6%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization17.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 11.2%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon11.2%This article: 27.1%Amy Curtis: 9.9%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion27.1%This article: 1.7%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.9%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 12.5%Amy Curtis: 1.5%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque12.5%This article: 19.8%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof19.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Amy Curtis: 4.4%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 14.5%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection14.5%This article: 45.2%Amy Curtis: 24.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice45.2%This article: 7.3%Amy Curtis: 8.1%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 13.2%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 22.0%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.1%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

303 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech248writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKamala Harris • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWhoopi Goldberg • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWhoopi Goldberg • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageKamala Harris • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWhoopi Goldberg • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kamala Harris

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words25% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-55.2 ptsWriter: 55.2%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-17.7 ptsWriter: 17.7%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-16.1 ptsWriter: 16.1%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.