Davis: California’s Election System Was Designed To ‘Engineer Results’ ⁠98%

By The Federalist Staff⁠0%

6/6/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 88.5% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 510 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 97.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (519 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.60% of the article peer group.

“We have this system where there’s no way to date a ballot, and they’re going to collect ballots for weeks, and we’re supposed to believe that that’s somehow a credible, secure, normal way to do elections,” Federalist CEO Sean Davis said on *The Megyn Kelly Show* when discussing California’s election system. 
“There is only one reason to design an election in this way, and it’s to control the outcome.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 88.5%The Federalist Staff: 30.5%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias88.5%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 3.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 6.9%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 23.1%The Federalist Staff: 2.7%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic23.1%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 4.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%The Federalist Staff: 24.1%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 2.2%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 2.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 88.5%The Federalist Staff: 12.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias88.5%This article: 76.9%The Federalist Staff: 39.3%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias76.9%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 26.1%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 21.6%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.7%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 13.0%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.0%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.8%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 23.1%The Federalist Staff: 27.1%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma23.1%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 65.4%The Federalist Staff: 43.1%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization65.4%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 34.2%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 23.1%The Federalist Staff: 8.5%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question23.1%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 11.7%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 65.4%The Federalist Staff: 6.8%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof65.4%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 5.5%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.5%The Federalist Staff: 5.2%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.5%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 65.4%The Federalist Staff: 7.3%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote65.4%This article: 76.9%The Federalist Staff: 19.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection76.9%This article: 11.5%The Federalist Staff: 15.4%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 23.1%The Federalist Staff: 13.1%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination23.1%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 42.2%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

78 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker88%attributed speech9writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSean Davis • 51 words • 100.0% coverageSean Davis • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sean Davis

100%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Sean Davis: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-26.1 ptsWriter: 100.0%Sean Davis: 73.9%73.9%Unattributed Quote+73.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sean Davis: 73.9%73.9%Indoctrination+26.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sean Davis: 26.1%26.1%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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