Trump’s claims of election improprieties are baseless according to a group of international observers.
Just what exactly is the access that these people have to our election?
They don’t have special access, at least they shouldn’t have.
Go mind your own business you know nothing of our behind the scenes election information…
Or, at least you shouldn’t!
If you do, that’s a BIG problem in itself.

A Friend

Trump’s claims of election improprieties are baseless according to virtually everybody who’s examined this year’s elections closely. The NY Times called election officials in every state, Republicans and Democrats. They got replies from every state but Texas. Overall, the responses tallied with the answer of Kansas’s Republican secretary of state, “Kansas did not experience any widespread, systematic issues with voter fraud, intimidation, irregularities or voting problems. We are very pleased with how the election has gone up to this point.”

Election results are reported precinct-by-precinct, town-by-town, county-by-county. Think about the Democrats you know. Do really you believe that any of us is both smart enough and unscrupulous enough to put together an air-tight conspiracy capable of coordinating clandestine activities across tens of thousands of jurisdictions, leaving no evidence and allowing no leaks? (Hint: We’re not that bright.)

Or is a desperate, cornered narcissist—a known fraud and compulsive liar—taking advantage of millions of loyal Americans who can’t believe that the President of the United States would stray so far from the truth?

Am I claiming that we’ll find no election irregularities? Nope. There will always be errors and chiselers. But I’ll bet you that, when the results are in, we’ll find that the frauds are small-time and few. The Heritage Foundation voter-fraud database is instructive. The ultra-conservative think tank put together a list of 1,285 cases of voter fraud dating back to 1979.

That’s 1,285 cases over 40 years with billions of votes cast in federal, state, and local elections. The foundation is at pains to point out that this “sampling of cases illustrates the existence and effect of voter fraud.” I for one wonder, though: wouldn’t they have included more examples if they could find them?

The list is meant to show that The Risk of Fraud is Real. True. But, to me, it also shows that The Risk of Fraud is Small. That has been the conclusion of every investigation conducted over decades, including the very public bust of the Mike Pence/Kris Kobach voting integrity commission.

But back to the Heritage Foundation database. It’s fun to play with. You can list the cases by year, by state, and by type of offense (btw: Dear Heritage Foundation, please add the ability to compile summary statistics.)

The Heritage Foundation logged 32 voter fraud cases for 2019 and 65 for 2018.

In 2017, the year following the last presidential election, the HF database lists 63 voter fraud cases. These ranged from 46 fraudulent absentee ballots in an Alabama mayoral election to a single duplicate vote in West Virginia.  

Here’s how they broke it down (they total more than 63 because some cases included multiple violations): 1 altering vote count, 4 ballot petition fraud, 0 buying votes, 11 duplicate voting, 1 election overturned (fraudulent use of absentee ballots), 14 false registrations, 14 fraudulent uses of absentee ballots,  3 illegal “assistance” at the polls, 2 impersonation fraud at the polls, 15 ineligible voting, and 2 miscellaneous (one a poll worker who sold voter lists and the other a Kentucky private investigator who “falsely identified himself as a state voting inspector to both voters and poll workers, and claimed to be investigating election fraud. On election day, he ordered poll workers to provide written and audio statements, followed voters, and even entered at least one private residence demanding the names of voters the homeowner had driven to the polls.”)

So voter fraud is real. It’s also very small potatoes.

Leave a Reply