Campaigns/Elections

The Persistent Myth of Widespread Voter Fraud

The nation's leading GOP election attorney throws cold water on election fraud claims

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Republican election attorney Benjamin Ginsberg spent his career helping Republican candidates get elected. As part of those efforts, he was on the lookout for voter fraud. As he details in a Washington Post op-ed, such fraud is very hard to find.

The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there's no proof of widespread fraud. At most, there are isolated incidents — by both Democrats and Republicans. Elections are not rigged. Absentee ballots use the same process as mail-in ballots — different states use different labels for the same process.

The Trump 2016 campaign, of which I was not a part, could produce no hard evidence of systemic fraud. Trump established a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017 to expose all the fraud he maintains permeates our elections. He named the most vociferous hunters of Democratic election fraud to run the commission. It disbanded without finding anything.

The Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database has compiled every instance of any kind of voter fraud it could find since 1982. It contains 1,296 incidents, a minuscule percentage of the votes cast. A study of results in three states where all voters are mailed actual ballots, a practice at the apex of the president's outrage, found just 372 possible cases of illegal voting of 14.6 million cast in the 2016 and 2018 general elections — 0.0025 percent.

If anything, Ginsberg goes easy on those who make broad election fraud allegations.

When Kris Kobach was Kansas Secretary of State, he pushed election law reforms premised on the need to root out election fraud and, in particular, prevent voting by non-citizens.  When these restrictions were challenged in court, his case crumbled.  Given the opportunity to present evidence and expert testimony, Kobach was unable to substantiate his fears of stolen elections. Kobach was eventually held in contempt and sanctioned by the court.

The evidence of widespread election fraud is woefully thin. When it happens, it may affect local races (where the total vote counts are much smaller). It is impossible to prove election fraud is not happening, as it is impossible to prove a negative. (To those convinced we have a problem, the lack of evidence only shows that those stealing elections are even more devious than we thought!) While election administration in parts of the country may be rickety and inefficient, there is no reason to think national elections are compromised, let alone that the Presidential race could be stolen.

That said, when efforts to subvert election laws are uncovered, they should be prosecuted aggressively. Election law violations should be taken seriously. With that in mind, here's more from Ginsberg's op-ed:

Legions of Republican lawyers have searched in vain over four decades for fraudulent double voting. At long last, they have a blatant example of a major politician urging his supporters to illegally vote twice.

The only hitch is that the candidate is President Trump.

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: September 9, 2017

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. LBJ – Duvall county
    JFK – chicago
    Washington State – Rossi
    Minnesota – Norm coleman

    Just to name a few

    Adler – Can you provide info on any safeguards in the new mail ballots to provide any level of security?

    1. It’s interesting that you have to go back fifty years for your first two examples. For your third and fourth examples, you are aware that the Republicans put both of those elections under a microscope and were unable to find any actual evidence of fraud, right?

    2. What about all of the arrests just this year? New Jersey and New Hampshire come to mind.

      1. Jonathan’s writing suffers from failing to point out that a single instance of voter fraud can taint hundreds, if not thousands, of votes.

        To wit, take the case of the Patterson N.J. Two council members were arrested in connection with a voter fraud investigation. Postal workers found hundreds of ballots bundled together.

        According to judge Ernest Caposela, the Patterson municipal election was irreversibly tainted. Nearly 20% of the ballots were rejected. The judge ordered a new vote to be held in November.

        Thus, if one is to be robustly forthright in one’s analysis, one MUST include ALL of the tainted votes as individual instances of voter fraud. Stated otherwise, every single tainted ballot is an instance of voter fraud.

        1. Yes and no. If I steal a million dollars, is that a million acts of theft?

          1. Its a theft of one million dollars.

          2. The point is Ginsberg’s piece is misleading as quoted above, because it conflates the number of “incidents” with a “percentage of votes cast.”

          3. If you steal $1 from a million different checking accounts?

          4. ” If I steal a million dollars, is that a million acts of theft?”

            It’s grand theft.

        2. You’re confusing vote fraud and voter fraud. The two differ based on who’s doing it. When election workers are doing it, it’s vote fraud, when individual voters do it, it’s voter fraud.
          Partisans, of course, like to pretend that THEIR party never does either kind of election fraud, or electoral dirty tricks. Dismiss them and their nonsense.

          1. As I said below, I suspect both major parties commit vote fraud, where they control the election machinery.

            Democrats have, historically, had a bit of an advantage in this area, due to having a fair number of precincts they so totally dominate that, essentially, no members of the opposing party are around to keep an eye on them. That, and for the longest time they had a consent agreement prohibiting the Republican party from having election observers. (And, man, would I love to know why the GOP consented to that!) That consent agreement is over, and Democrats are now furiously spinning the presence of election observers as “vote suppression”, so I’d guess they found that absence helpful.

            But it wouldn’t shock me if the Republicans try harder, in order to make up for those advantages.

            Such fraud, if it happens, secures incumbents against challengers, and so you can’t really expect the institutional government, which is run by incumbents, to have a lot of interest in it.

            1. “(And, man, would I love to know why the GOP consented to that!)”

              Because they got caught in a naked voter intimidation scheme and decided a 35 year consent decree was a better option than having it heard. Of course that didn’t stop the RNC from violating the decree 3-4 more times, but that’s a different story.

              1. That wouldn’t shock me, if the guilty parties had preferred that the party be hobbled for a generation, to their being personally held accountable.

                But my impression is that nobody actually expected the consent decree to last for 35 years.

                1. “But my impression is that nobody actually expected the consent decree to last for 35 years.”

                  I made an error. The original consent decree was perpetual. It wasn’t until decades of litigation due to ongoing violations of the consent decree by the RNC, and repeated requests by the RNC to be free of it, that they were ordered in 2009 that the decree would continue for eight more years (ending in 2017). And the RNC repeatedly took the position in court that it was not violating the consent decree.

                  That said, and with the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent that the RNC didn’t actually expect to follow the consent decree. They just lied about intending that in their 1982 consent decree, or the 1987 modified consent decree. But it is apparent that the DNC (through enforcement actions) and several federal judges expected the RNC to abide by the 1982 and 1987 decrees, at least until 2017.

            2. “Democrats have, historically, had a bit of an advantage in this area, due to having a fair number of precincts they so totally dominate that, essentially, no members of the opposing party are around to keep an eye on them”

              And Republicans don’t? The districts they control tend to be rural, far away from everyone else.
              Partisan blinders are keeping you from seeing the whole picture.

      2. Speaking of New Hampshire, the state has neither a sales tax nor a bottle deposit, nor a “snack tax” — it’s not uncommon to hop across the border for the necessities of life as they are cheaper there.

        Every road that crosses from Massachusetts or Maine into New Hampshire has a “first town” that you come to, not always the communities physically contiguous with the actual border, but the first built-up area area that you come to.

        Well, in the 2008 Dem Primary, Hillary Clinton won all of these “border towns” while Obama won the rest of the state. NH had same-day registration back then, and the only way for her to win the border towns (and *not* the ones next to them) would be for large numbers of nonresidents to have crossed from MA & ME — and college students were being bussed from Boston & Portland (ME) to vote in NH.

        Jump ahead to 2016 where some 3000 voters registered with out-of-state drivers licenses, and guess how many neglected to obtain a NH license as they promised to do within 60 days….

        That cost the GOP a US Senate seat.

        1. 1- That isn’t true. https://www.nhpr.org/post/nh-democratic-presidential-primaries-recent-history-shows-state-divided

          2- Even if it were true, it could just as easily be explained by voters in the wealthy Boston suburbs/exurbs having different political views than the rest of the state.

          3- If out-of-state college students were going to vote in the primary illegally, you think it’d be for Clinton?! (Obama got 51% of under-30 vote to Clinton’s 28%.)

          You’re just making stuff up, and the stuff that you’re making up is stupid on its own terms.

          1. Welcome to the mind of Dr. Ed!

            1. I’ve driven (a bus) from North Conway to Portland in an ice storm.

              I doubt you even know the route number…

              1. “I doubt you even know the route number…”

                No reason to care, perhaps. Google Maps knows what roads go where.

          2. I said 2008 and I said the first town you get to — not the one closest to the border.

            NPR doesn’t even know the roads.

            1. “I said 2008 and I said the first town you get to — not the one closest to the border.”

              So, the “first town you come to” isn’t the one closest to the border somehow? That must be some interesting geography.

              1. Unlike much of the US, New England was not divided into 6 square miles, New England towns are quite large, and you can go through the distant parts of a couple before coming to the built-up part of another.

            2. “I said 2008.”

              Hence the link with the map of the 2008 primary results.

              1. Also it’s not NPR, it’s NH Public Radio. And in any event, it’s a map of election results by then, so knowledge of the roads is irrelevant.

                And of course, you haven’t responded at all to the “maybe towns with different demographics vote differently” or “college students supported Obama” points.

                While we’re at it, Obama won Portsmouth, which is not only a “first town” according to your idiosyncratic definition, but literally borders, and is the first exit off I-95 from, Maine, and is one of NH’s larger cities (not to mention about 15 minutes from the Massachusetts border, and a cute town to have lunch or do a bit of shopping in, after committing fraud, if you feel like making a day of it). Obama carried it by a good margin.

                And Clinton netted the most votes out of Manchester, which as you surely know, is nowhere near the border.

    3. You have two examples of fraud, from decades ago, by election officials. That is not what is meant by “voter fraud,” and you should be aware of that distinction.

      Next, you have two cases where there were allegations of fraud which were never proven,

      None of these is a rebuttal to anything Adler or Ginsberg say.

  2. Thank you, Ginsberg and Adler.

    What has to be understood is that, for Kobach and his fellow vote-fraud grifters like Adams and von Spakovsky, the issue is how they make their living.

    Of course they are not going to stop making BS claims.

  3. Florida 2000

    very difficult to get hanging chads when punching one ballot at a time or dimpled chads

    Very easy to get lots of hanging chads and dimpled ballots when punching multiple ballots at one time.

    1. Not really. If you don’t push the stylus all the way through the punch card, you’ll get a hanging or dimpled chad. And elderly voters (which South Florida has a lot of) are particularly inclined to not push the stylus all the way through, which is one reason Florida no longer uses punch cards.

      1. elderly voters (which South Florida has a lot of) are particularly inclined to not push the stylus all the way through

        Gotta admit I hadn’t heard that euphemism before.

    2. The most interesting thing from that election was the courts ruling you couldn’t change the rules of what counted as a cast vote after the election, but only before, to prevent changing the rules to make your boy win.

      One paper even recounted after all was said and done, using different rules, and in two ways, Gore won, but in all the others, including the official way, Bush won. Letting people change the rules after the election, conveniently picking the one that your guy wins with, is clearly a problem.

      1. Thanks to the Supreme Court, we never got to officially find out.

      2. “The most interesting thing from that election was the courts ruling[…]”

        Way off. The most interesting thing from that election was the courts ruling that you don’t have to count all the votes to certify a winner. The certification deadline is more important than making sure you know who got more votes.

        1. The requirement under florida law was that the protest could be at the individual county level while the contest had to encompass the entire state. The florida state supreme court allowed the recount to only proceed in select counties which was contrary to state statute.

    3. That’s not fraud.

      1. You get lots of dimpled ballots and hanging chads when punching multiple ballots at one time but thats not fraud? its certainly strong indication of fraud. but hey lets ignore reality -see no evil,

        1. You’ve made a bunch of suppositions there I don’t think are supported.

          1. No reasoning or evidence.

            1. One doesn’t need evidence to point out a lack of evidence in someone else’s argument.

        2. “You get lots of dimpled ballots and hanging chads”

          …When you supply substandard equipment to precincts where the voters like to vote for guys who aren’t in your party.

          1. “When you supply substandard equipment to precincts where the voters like to vote for guys who aren’t in your party.”

            While your statement was repeated often, it is devoid of reality.

            1. Unless you count objective reality. Which I guess you’re free to continue not doing, although it does leave a rather gaping hole in your argument(s) when you do that.

          2. Given that those precincts run their own election systems and choose their machinery and polling locations…

      2. No reasoning or evidence.

        1. Pointing out a flaw in someone’s argument is reason, not evidence.

          You pushing a full-on narrative of widespread fraud, on the other hand, requires more than ‘I’ll bet that’s the sort of things those mean ole politicians would do!’

          1. Of course, only politicians of one brand does that. The other brand WOULD NEVER!!!

  4. Republicans are increasingly forced to choose between truth & country on the one hand, or Trump & delusion on the other.

    It is not surprising that some make the right decision. It is surprising and sad how few do.

    1. Right because “Truth & Country” are the Democrats who are burning down cities, chanting Death to America, and murdering people for wearing Trump Hats.

      America!

      1. There are some bad and dumb people on the left. But as loki has noted, being bad and dumb on the right is becoming the norm, with truth & country the exception.

        Look at you, for instance. You have advocated killing liberals on this blog.
        But now when Democrats want to murder Trump supporters it’s bad somehow????????????

        1. “There are some bad and dumb people on the left. But as loki has noted, being bad and dumb on the right is becoming the norm, with truth & country the exception.”

          The entire democrat party has embraced the termination of capitalism even though it has brought immense wealth and prosperity across the world . How is that progress

          The entire democrat party has embrace racism – how is that progress

          who is being

          1. The entire democrat party has embraced the termination of capitalism even though it has brought immense wealth and prosperity across the world.

            See right there, you are being bad and dumb. That’s not a thing the Democratic Party has embraced. Biden is very much not a socialist.

            1. The entire democrat congressional voting record says otherwise

              1. Argument by assertion, eh?

                1. But he believes it to be true so very much. so it must be… otherwise, Mr. Dallas would have to admit fallibility, and we can’t have that, now can we?

      2. No violence coming from the right-wing nut jobs. Is that what you think, Sam?

        1. Those are Biden voters out there rioting and looting.

          1. Leftists don’t vote. They think both parties are the same.

            1. lmao, good ol’ Baghdad Sacrastro.

              1. You got me – I was blowing smoke. But here’s my point – just like you are.

                Because you have as much evidence for your supposition than I do mine.

                1. The rioters and looters are burning cities in the name of BLM.

                  BLMs donations go through ACT Blue.

                  ACT Blue is a front group who receives donations on behalf of the DNC.

                  Biden is the DNCs candidate.

                  Ergo, BLM rioters are Biden Voters.

                  QED

                  1. BLM donations do not through ACT Blue.

                    1. There are many ways of supporting the work of Black Lives Matter including making a financial contribution. We’ll put your money to work in the fight for full equality under the law!

                      Please help Move Black Lives with this fund.

                      Read it again.

                      You got played.

                    2. Baghdad Sacastro, you are a shill and a liar.

                      The above the fold donate button on blacklivesmatter.com goes here:

                      https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019

                    3. Guys, this is really easy to figure out.

                      They’re invoking BLM to get donations to their own stuff.

                      As DMN has noted in the past, BLM is a movement not an organization; you can’t give money to ‘BLM’ anyway.

                    4. Hey remember way back when when you said BLM donations don’t go Act Blue?

                      Now you try to claim they aren’t an organization and its just a movement to collect money for Democrats via Act Blue.

                      Which some how is supposed to prove your argument that Black Lives Matter looters aren’t Biden Voters.

                    5. These are not BLM donations.

                      First, because that’s impossible, as I noted.

                      Second because by the language on the site that I quoted, it is clear that any funds will go to Act Blue to do something for blacks however Act Blue sees fit. Not to a BLM organization of any sort.

                      This is not an uncommon political setup. In fact, it looks like you know your conspiracy theory has unraveled and are trying to reframe. Good luck with that.

                    6. Blacks Lives Matters isn’t a group, it just has a chapters!

                      https://blacklivesmatter.com/chapters/

                      Black Lives Matters isn’t a group, it’s just a “Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, ”

                      It’s just a corporation in three different countries!

                      You should be ashamed.

                    7. And they all have twitter accounts!!!

                      You’re really not doing very well on this.

                    8. You said this:

                      “BLM is a movement not an organization”

                      Was that true or false?

                    9. Movement.

                      Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

                      And nothing you have provided comes close to proving otherwise. A social media presence does not an organization make.

                      I also note you’ve backed off from your Act Blue nonsense. Good move.

                    10. What does a corporation for BLM Foundation in three countries make?

                      And of course I didn’t back off anything. The donate button on BLM, Incs website goes to Act Blue.

                      You claim that BLM, Inc. doesn’t exist and the donate button the non-existent foundation website doesn’t go to Act Blue.

                      You inhabit an alternate universe. Or you’re just doing your tired ass Baghdad Bob routine.

                    11. “Which some how is supposed to prove your argument that Black Lives Matter looters aren’t Biden Voters.”

                      Looters are opportunists, seizing an opportunity for personal gain. That sounds more like Republican branding.

      3. Mind identifying some of these Democrats who are burning down cities, chanting “Death to America”, or murdering people for wearing Trump Hats?

        1. Go to YouTube and look up Portland “peaceful protests”

          1. Go to a mirror and look up “obsolete bigot.”

            By looking up.

            Then open wider and prepare for replacement.

          2. “Go to YouTube and look up Portland ‘peaceful protests'”

            As I suspected, you can’t actually point to any.
            Try running this search yourself.

  5. Look. If your team loses then there was fraud because your team is awesome and there is no other explanation for why your team lost. Duh.

    1. So the democrats agree that there has ben massive voter fraud in the past and that is why SHE is not President?

      1. No, the electoral college is why she is not president.

        1. Majority rules, except when it doesn’t.

          1. It wasn’t her turn.

            1. It was her turn! Abolish the EC! Well, I mean keep it in case she or Biden wins the EC! I mean democracy! I mean… winning is what matters!

              1. Actually, if your real concern is suppressing voter fraud, abolishing the EC would be a step in the right direction, and here’s why.

                Suppose someone had set out to actually steal the 2016 election. With the electoral college, you have to steal 80,000 votes across three states. Without the electoral college, you have to steal 3 million votes. Which of those tasks would be easier?

                1. Well, one could analogize to theft by interception.

                  Would it be easier to intercept Tom Brady once or intercept Richard Todd five times? Hint: Nobody was ever better at hitting the open linebacker than Richard Todd.

                  1. “Nobody was ever better at hitting the open linebacker than Richard Todd.”

                    Rick Mirer as a pro.

                  2. It’s not entirely apples to apples, since Richard Todd played his entire career before the passing era, and therefore did not get to benefit from a host of rule changes helping QBs and WRs, including:

                    No intentional grounding out of the pocket and ball thrown beyond the line of scrimmage;
                    Stricter rules on roughing the passer;
                    Low hits on QBs prohibited; and
                    Tripled penalty for cut blocks on WRs.

                    But let’s assume they played at the same time, with the same quality coaching staff, same quality WRs, etc., Richard Todd’s int % over his career was 5.4%. Tom Brady’s was 1.8%. I’d take the action on it being easier to intercept Tom Brady once than Richard Todd five times.

                    1. No, Richard Todd played MOST of his career in the passing era. His career ran from 1976 to 1985.

                      The single biggest changes to the passing game rules took place prior to the 1978 season. Perhaps the single biggest change was the Mel Blount rule. Prior to 1978, defenders could hit pass receivers all over the field whereas after the institution of the new rule, defenders could only make contact five yards from the line of scrimmage.

                      What resulted was a veritable explosion in passing numbers. For example, in 1977, there were only 5 regular season 300 yard passing games (one of which was spun by Mr. Todd), league wide, whereas in 1978 there were 15 regular season 300 yard passing games.

                      Between 1977 and 1981, average passing yards per game increased by over 50 yards.

                      The average completion percentage surged from 51.2% to 56.3%.

                      Sure, you would be better off taking the action on my prop, but, there is a reason why Joe Benigno is so fond of stating that there was nobody ever better at hitting the open linebacker.

                    2. I should have said golden era, not passing era. By the way, do you know the average completion percentage and passing yards per game today?

                  3. That’s a really bad analogy. There are millions of polling places; there is only one Tom Brady.

                    1. Yeah, it wasn’t so good.

  6. “As he details in a Washington Post op-ed, such fraud is very hard to find.”

    No one questions that it’s “hard to find”. The argument is over whether it being difficult to find is the same thing as it not happening, when efforts to find it are actively obstructed.

    I will grant that it IS impossible to prove a negative. The question is whether one should even credit the negative in the first place, if efforts to disprove it are being blocked.

    Should you believe there is no embezzlement, if you’re not permitted to conduct an audit? THAT is the question. It’s true that the election integrity commission was disbanded without finding anything. Surely it’s worth mention that the reason they disbanded without finding anything is that the states refused to let them have access to the data that would have been necessary to do their work?

    My personal expectation is that ballot fraud is a bipartisan affair, conducted by both major parties where they control the election machinery. I might be wrong, but I’ll never have any reason to suppose that I’m wrong, so long as nobody is permitted to actually look.

    1. WTF do think this blog is about?!?

      Just look at the first paragraph: Republican election attorney Benjamin Ginsberg spent his career helping Republican candidates get elected. As part of those efforts, he was on the lookout for voter fraud. As he details in a Washington Post op-ed, such fraud is very hard to find.

      You guys are desperate.

      1. “Republican election attorney Benjamin Ginsberg spent his career helping Republican candidates get elected. As part of those efforts, he was on the lookout for voter fraud.”

        My personal expectation is that ballot fraud is a bipartisan affair, conducted by both major parties where they control the election machinery.

        I think it’s a bipartisan problem, and both party’s establishments are determined that it not be looked into.

        1. Why do we overlook the the pack of pachyderm in the parlor? Joe Stalin certainly did not.

        2. In other words, you know it’s happening, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

          Since the investigations turn up nothing, the only reasonable conclusion is that they are being stymied.

          I sure hope the reasoning you use in your job is better than what you display here.

          1. No, I suspect it’s happening, and the only way to convince me otherwise is to permit it to be looked for.

            Saying it’s not being found, when they won’t permit looking for it, is not persuasive.

            1. the only way to convince me otherwise is to permit it to be looked for.

              Bullshit. This is just you crawfishing again. Who won’t permit it?

              There have been lots of investigations, including at least one I’m aware of by someone pushing the idea. The only reason you claim investigations are obstructed is that you don’t like what they find.

              The very lack of evidence is evidence of how clever and powerful the fraudsters are, per Brett.

              I think I’ll put more stock in Ginsberg’s opinion than yours.

              1. “Bullshit. This is just you crawfishing again. Who won’t permit it?”

                Brett (and his party) they don’t want you to notice they’re doing it.

            2. “No, I suspect it’s happening, and the only way to convince me otherwise is to permit it to be looked for. ”

              So look for it, and if you manage to find any, tell us about it. But you won’t, because it’ll be your guys doing it.

              1. Yeah, “my” guys do it. And why is that not enough for Democrats to take it seriously?

                Maybe because your guys do it, too?

                1. Hint: Brett, you nutjob, I’m not a member of a party. So, No, my guys aren’t doing it too. Nor are they bleating about losing popular elections because of 3 million+ illegals who voted.

          2. That’s not a fair interpretation, bernard11. He thinks it is happening and wants actual evidence to convince him otherwise. He is skeptical of claims of “exoneration” when investigation was merely blocked.

            It’s like the difference between ‘innocent’ and ‘not guilty’. One can believe in good faith that O.J. did it while also agreeing that the prosecution failed to convince the jury.

            1. And he already replied for himself. I need to refresh before posting. Apologies.

          3. I don’t know if there is a fraud issue in voting. If there is then I expect it varies by state based on overall level of corruption. I do know, from seeing with my own eyes, that there was extensive open bribery of both parties in a state legislature I used to work at. Almost none of this corruption ever led to investigations let alone arrests/convictions. Lack of arrests/convictions isn’t great evidence of law abiding if there is extensive corruption by both parties. I hope that it is true that vote fraud is not a problem but I do wonder why people that would openly negotiate and accept bribes wouldn’t also try to cheat the system that determines if they keep power.

            1. Vote fraud and voter fraud are not equivalent. the notion that people are voting more than once is stupid, and so are the people who believe that this is the reason they aren’t winning elections. On the other hand, if you can tamper with the counting of the votes, that’s a crime with tangible rewards.

      2. apedad:

        It’s amazing that you folks constantly think someone having an (R) next to their name is supposed to be compelling all by itself. Actually, an unknown (R) is more highly suspect to me than a (D).

        1. Come on, ML. It’s an admission by an expert against interest and party.

          1. Yeah, it would be an admission against interest if the GOP didn’t have any internal divisions.

            1. And thus you may dismiss all who speak against Trump, regardless of party or past.

              And yet everything some yahoo with a BLM shirt on does is the unified position of the Democratic Party.

            2. The internal division over whether to engage in vote fraud or vote suppression?

        2. And if there was a (D) in front of the guy’s name you would have dismissed him as a party hack or some other BS.

          You guys are losing.

          Just don’t go off the deep end and start shooting.

      3. “Absentee ballots use the same process as mail-in ballots”

        Sad to see Reason quoting an “election attorney” that said this. The absentee ballot process starts with a written request for an absentee ballot, unlike mail in ballots which are sent to dead people to the address people used to live because they didn’t update their voter registration.

        Also, nothing said about the 7-8% of absentee and mail in ballots that are thrown out for things like no postmark; thus, disenfranchising a very large number of voters they don’t follow up on the ballots they throw out because they don’t have the resources to do it – resources not needed for in person voting. That makes alleged GOP voter suppression look miniscule compared to the Democrat desired mail in voter suppression.

    2. What do you mean nobody is permitted to actually look? There have been multiple investigative stories by journalists of both parties, investigations by election officials of both parties, and they have all reached the conclusion that fraud is a figment of the right’s imagination (though they were mostly too polite to phrase it quite that way). Not saying it never happens, just that the massive epidemic you’re convinced of isn’t there.

      Now, voter suppression, on the other hand . . .

      1. Look at Trump’s election integrity effort. Shut down because the states wouldn’t cooperate with it.

        So, of course, they “found nothing”. But finding nothing because you shut down due to obstruction isn’t evidence that there’s nothing to find.

        1. Look at Trump’s election integrity effort. Shut down because the states wouldn’t cooperate with it.

          Trump’s “election integrity effort” was nonsense. The commission was a joke. Kris Kobach? Hans von Spakovsky? Yeah. Those are impartial investigators.

          1. Yeah, that’s your excuse for not letting anybody look. There is no ballot fraud, thus anybody looking for ballot fraud is a scammer, and you shouldn’t let scammers look.

            1. I’m not stopping anyone form looking, and neither is anyone else, your delusions notwithstanding.

            2. Here’s a simple fact: if voting is so secure and reliable, why has Biden hired 600 election lawyers?

              You’re right, Democrats didn’t want an examination of their election procedures because that would show the weaknesses election fraudster seek to take advantage of and already may have. Certainly you’d expect no cooperation with corrupt election officials – which is how it looks. Seriously, what’s wrong with examining election procedures to replicate the best procedures across states (and not forced upon them by the feds)? Apparently stopping the cheating in some states would be a problem.

              Given the history of election fraud (it’s happening, just as recent reports and convictions show, including that article from an anonymous election fraudster as to how he did it and mistakes recent fraudsters made that resulted in them getting caught) it should be fixed if we want a free country. Pretending it isn’t happening when people are getting convicted of it, and more voters than are registered are voting in some precincts, is denial.

          2. Several points above, much was made about Republicans who failed to find anything because they were motivated to find something.

            So is it a feature of an investigator or an epithet?

        2. Does it hurt very much to keep banging your head against the wall over and over and over and …. ?

          1. Nope, peripheral neuropathy, don’t feel a thing.

            1. In short, and to no one’s surprise, Brett is medically diagnosed as a “numbskull.”

        3. “Look at Trump’s election integrity effort. Shut down because the states wouldn’t cooperate with it.”

          Maybe don’t staff your “election integrity effort” with blatant partisans, and you can get widespread cooperation. This is also why criminal defendants hire their own attorneys rather than rely on the prosecutor’s office to work out all the legal questions related to their trial.

    3. “The argument is over whether it being difficult to find is the same thing as it not happening, when efforts to find it are actively obstructed.”

      So stop obstructing the efforts to find it, when the vote fraud you might find is done by your guys. And maybe tell them to knock it off with the vote suppression, while you’re at it.

    4. How many of you arguing against what Brett says believe that Trump colluded with Russia?

      You’re either going to have to agree with Brett’s assessment or concede that since there was no evidence found of collusion in the investigation, it didn’t exist.

      Can’t really argue both ways.

      1. Aside from the fact that there is evidence of collusion your argument is flawless.

        1. Of course there’s evidence. If “your feelings” are the same thing as evidence.

          1. There is evidence. Very significant evidence. But Mueller determined not enough to charge (in most cases due to lack of intent.) For instance, Roger Stone happening to know about the release (together with testimony that Stone told Trump about the release), but the dots couldn’t quite be connected. Of course, Stone famously refused to turn on Trump and pretty explicitly asked for (and received) a commutation of his sentence in exchange for his “loyalty.” Then there is Team Trump meeting in Trump Tower with a known Russian agent in order to get stuff that, if it’s what she said, Don Jr. loves it, which Mueller determined didn’t warrant charges because he was unsure receiving opposition research was a thing of value and, even more so, that Don Jr., etc., knew what they were doing was illegal. Apparently, in this case, ignorance of the law was a defense.

            And etc., etc..

            There is plenty of evidence of Team Trump trying to collude. There is plenty of evidence of Russia helping Trump. But, sure, there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to pursue criminal charges.

      2. “How many of you arguing against what Brett says believe that Trump colluded with Russia?”

        He wanted to, but they didn’t want anything to do with him. They successfully saddled us with him, and started collecting rewards almost immediately, and they might not have gotten this outcome if he was in on the scheme.

    5. This point is always overlooked. Didn’t the Kobach effort basically amount to sending out requests for a huge amount of pertinent information, and the States saying in response, “Get Lost.” And that was the end of it.

    6. It’s simply not true that all of the investigations into this have been actively obstructed.

      Kris Kobach was Secretary of State of Kansas with full access to the voting records there and couldn’t manage to find any evidence to support the notion that fraud was a thing there.

      And while the Trump/Kobach commission got pushback from many states, some were willing to go along with the entirety of their information gathering and many were willing to give partial information. But as usual, the problem here was not that everyone was being obstructionist, but that Trump/Kobach are inept and asked for a bunch of information that the states couldn’t legally share. Kobach himself ended up having to tell his own commission he couldn’t share all the data they were looking for under Kansas law.

      If you take Ginsberg’s op-ed at face value, he and others have spent a long time looking for “embezzlement” and their conclusion is not that they were obstructed, but that there is nothing there.

      Lastly, as the North Carolina ballot harvesting story shows, even if people manage to manipulate an election, it leaves fingerprints that people can pick up on after the fact. There’s both a partisan motivation for losers of elections to look for fraud, as well as lots of academic interest.

      1. There are cases where fraud has been found. Almost all of them from what I’ve read tend to involve localized elections. It’s much too difficult to work a widespread election fraud of the magnitude required to throw the EC or even the number of counties required to throw a Congressional seat.

        The ones that do attempt to throw into that large of an area are the ones who end up being discovered and prosecuted. It’s also one of thew few arguments I like for EC versus popular vote. It limits the ability to win by stuffing the box significantly. There’s just so little incentive so long as EC exists.

        So, it’s not the level that Trump and others pretend. It’s also not ‘there is none’. It’s just localized and on smaller scales.

        1. It’s also one of thew few arguments I like for EC versus popular vote. It limits the ability to win by stuffing the box significantly.

          That’s a one-sided view. It also lets a state-level scam involving maybe tens of thousands of votes swing the entire state’s EV’s, which has a vastly larger impact than ten thousand votes would in a popular vote election.

          The official tally in FL in 2000 was what, Bush by 539 or something? So a 600 pro-Gore scam would have swung the election.

        2. Three people can keep a conspiracy secret, if two of them are dead.
          It would take a fairly substantial conspiracy to alter the outcome of a statewide race. Even in a small state. Vote suppression is easier and more reliable, and that’s why team R goes for suppression as a strategy.

  7. ” It is impossible to prove election fraud is not happening, as it is impossible to prove a negative. (To those convinced we have a problem, the lack of evidence only shows that those stealing elections are even more devious than we thought!)”

    The burden, though, is to demonstrate that the election results represent an accurate count of the votes of qualified voters. If people don’t have confidence that there is a mechanism to detect and prevent fraudulent voting, it doesn’t help to say, well, there’s no evidence of it. Why would there be?

    1. Yeah, unless I see the other side prove a negative, I shall believe all elections I don’t like stolen!

      1. And if you don’t have confidence that there are mechanisms to prevent fraud, then you should believe elections you don’t like are stolen.

        The way you “prove a negative” is to show that you’ve made fraud very difficult to achieve.

        For example, imagine a policy where the incumbent takes the ballots into his office and counts them.

        It’s not sufficient to say that there’s no evidence that the incumbent counted the ballots incorrectly and cry that you’re being asked to prove a negative.

        You should instead have a policy where the ballots are counted in the open.

        1. Saying we’ve gotta change the mechanisms without evidence that the system has a problem is not a usual thing that happens.

          1. My customers like to have evidence that my systems don’t have problems.

            I can see you’re a bureaucrat.

            Customer: Does it work?
            Sarcastro: There’s no evidence that it doesn’t work.

            1. This is not asking ‘can the process be improved.’

              This is ‘am I, without evidence, going to declare our republic illegitimate.’

              1. Hasn’t that been Dem policy for the last four years now?

                1. No, they liked the outcome of the 2018 elections. It’s Mr. Trump claiming that the 2020 elections are corrupt.

                  1. Correction: They liked the outcome of 2018, except in Georgia. By an amazing coincidence, the R’s are clinging to power in Georgia and don’t want to give it up.

          2. Exactly. There’s no evidence that the incumbents having been reporting the vote outcomes correctly, so there’s no reason to change the system by which they count the ballots behind closed doors.

          3. The evidence is clear, whenever investigative agencies try to submit fraudulent null ballots they do so successfully. In New York the DOI did a sting operation on in-person fraud and successfully voted in 61 of 62 instances. The only auditor refused a ballot was trying to impersonate the son of a poll worker. He was not immediately arrested, meaning if he was not on an audit team there would be no record of such fraud.

        2. “You should instead have a policy where the ballots are counted in the open.”

          You mean like the present system, in which both major parties (and sometimes various third parties) have observers watching the election workers counting ballots?

          1. Yeah, like the present system, where Democrats call Republicans having election observers “voter intimidation”, and attempt to get them prohibited, while they encourage as much of the voting to be moved out of the reach of election observers as possible.

            1. Nice change of topic. Those people have nothing to do with the counting of ballots.

              1. Wait, election observers have nothing to do with the counting of ballots? Where did that come from? Essentially everywhere election observers are entitled to watch ballots being counted.

                Policies for Election Observers

                1. Yes, the kind of election observer that James Pollack was talking about do indeed watch the counting of the ballots. No one calls this “voter intimidation”, and as you point out are allowed everywhere.

                  Then there’s the people that stand around with guns at polling places with large minority populations and questions people’s right to vote before they even manage to cast their ballots. They have nothing to do with counting ballots and are what the Republican Party agreed was a form of voter supresssion that they’d stop doing for a couple of years.

              2. I was a partisan vote count monitor at a recent election in my area.

                We couldn’t see anything. I will never vote by mail. Ever. Democrats can’t be trusted counting ballots.

                1. Oregon has had vote-by-mail for all voters in all elections for a couple of decades. ” I will never vote by mail. Ever.” That’s a good way to take your vote out of the counting.

                  Note that Trump’s objections to voting by mail weren’t sufficient to keep him from submitting a Florida ballot by mail.

        3. There are numerous mechanisms to prevent fraud. Starting with registering to vote, having your signature checked when you try to vote and having majority and minority clerks. Then there are counting double checks, verification of counts against lists of people who voted, etc. etc. You just don’t trust the people doing the work. Maybe you should volunteer to be a poll worker so you can get hands on experience to inform your concerns about fraud. The fact that problems are caught means the built in checks are working.

          1. “You just don’t trust the people doing the work.”

            That’s right, I don’t. In most places, election administration is a partisan job, the party with the local majority runs things. It’s a badly designed system which is rife with conflicts of interest.

            And, when I retire in a few years, I do plan to start volunteering to help with the local elections.

            1. “And, when I retire in a few years, I do plan to start volunteering to help with the local elections.”

              And will you change party registration if necessary to do it?

          2. I should add that I HAVE served as an election observer, and it has made me rather cynical about how far you can trust the people running the elections.

            1. So, your experience suggests to you that ALL election observers are ineffective partisan hacks, based on a sample size of one?

  8. “The evidence of widespread election fraud is woefully thin. ”

    Widespread = hedge-word

    No amount of actual voter fraud will ever meet his criteria for “widespread” therefore they can dismiss all allegations of voter fraud.

    1. As opposed to you, where it seems no amount of actual voter fraud will ever fail to meet your criteria of “widespread”. If they’re not getting caught, that just shows how good at voter fraud they are!

  9. I would posit that it’s way too early to make this statement. Let’s discuss again, say, November 4 or after. I have a feeling that the only ones still singing this tune will be whoever wins the election.

    1. Why would you say that? Dems really didn’t like the result in 2016, but they don’t yell fraud.

      Trump, oto won and still yelled fraud.

      1. From the Wapo

        “Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.”

        1. You’re lying.

          The claim was that he stole it with voter suppression and other means, not by fraud.

          Here’s more of what Clinton said:

          “No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”

          In other words, you’re full of shit, and Sarcastro was right.

          1. “Hacking”– it’s right in your quote, you lying sack of shit.

            1. I would assume “hacking” refers to the Russians and emails, not voter fraud.

              Do you honestly think this is an oblique reference to hacking voting machines or something?

              Point to bernard11.

            2. Yeah, you’re just lying at this point. Maybe to yourself. Maybe just to everyone else.

              Hacking refers to the Dem campaign apparatus, not hacking the voter machines.

  10. 1. “I stole that election fair and square” – LBJ
    2. “Absentee ballots use the same process as mail-in ballots “. False. To obtain an absentee ballot (in my state, all I have knowledge of) I have to go online, electronically swear under oath to who I am, give a reason why I cannot vote in person (lockdown), and confirm my current address. Then they mail me a ballot, which is barcoded and requires a signature on the external envelope. The barcode bring up the signature on file, and only after that checks out is the inner ballot, inside a security sleeve, submitted for counting.
    The mass mail OUT of ballots, (called mail-in ballots for political purposes) to last known addresses of thousands is quite different.

    And the issues with that process is a huge increase in potential fraud, not proven past fraud.

    1. There is no mass mailing of ballots.

      There is a mailing of applications for mail-in ballots.

      1. “There is no mass mailing of ballots.”

        Except in the states that adopted vote-by-mail sometime in the past.

      2. Unless you are speaking locally, that’s not the case. In WA, for example, our ballots just come in the mail. I haven’t voted in person in decades – I’m not even sure that have old fashioned polling places anymore.

      3. According to this website who have conveniently collected the rules, in a normal election year 5 states (Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon) automatically mail out ballots to all registered voters. 30 states plus DC require an application but no excuse, and 15 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia) require an application and an acceptable excuse.

        Some states have temporarily relaxed rules in 2020 due to COVID-19 (e.g. Vermont will automatically mail out ballots, and New Hampshire will require an application but not an excuse).

    2. When we moved into our retirement home in California, we got absentee ballots for the previous renters for two years. While there is a good process to identify voters in the application process for absentee ballots in my state, the follow-up for those moving is pretty much nonexistent. The renters moved out of state, so did not register at a different location in state. They just registered in the new state. Our state sends ballots to the same address unless they are not returned for three elections running. A fairly good forgery attempt should work for about ever.

      1. That points to a problem area, sure.

        It’s a really, really lousy way to commit voter fraud though: “if I keep moving state to state, some random people at my old address who I don’t know at all will get an extra ballot! MUAHAHA!”

        1. Feh, it’s not the people who moved that commit the fraud. It’s the people who know they moved, and can intercept the absentee ballot.

          1. No, it’s whoever submits a bogus ballot and manages to get it counted who commits fraud.

          2. That requires a lot of moving parts. First, you need a crook with access to the list of who gets absentee ballots. Then you need to know which of them have moved. Then you need to have someone able to select out the ones for people who moved (or do you envision driving around checking mailboxes and hoping you don’t get caught on someone’s camera?).

            Now you have your pile of ballots, and you fill them out, and mail them back. Then you need someone to keep anyone from noticing that there are duplicates from the people who went to a regular polling place.

            Etc, etc. There are just too many moving parts there to do that on any kind of scale without getting caught.

            1. You just need the crook to be an election worker, and you can cut out about 90% of the moving parts and opportunities to get caught.

              1. Or you just need someone living at the house that people moved away from and who finds the absentee ballot that just showed up in his mailbox is a great way to double his vote for his favored candidates.

                It may not be organized fraud on behalf of one party, but it’s still something that ought not be made easy.

                1. And of course that voter needs to be willing to commit a felony, and risk being caught if his signature doesn’t match that of the one who moved, which he probably has not even seen.

                  Guess how often that happens.

                2. Having an extra blank ballot doesn’t actually alter the outcome of the election.
                  Now, if you can fill it out and get it counted, then there is a problem. Do any of the states just accept mailed ballots with no verification that it came from the voter it was addressed to? No? OK, then you should relax.

      2. I just registered in a new state. They asked me to identify where I was previously registered (county and state) on the voter registration form.

        In any case, having them send you a ballot doesn’t lead to fraud unless you (or someone else) have a way of getting it submitted and counted. This usually requires getting the absent voter to sign the return envelope.

    3. bring up the signature on file, and only after that checks out

      A signature check is not security
      Its a couple people looking at two scribbles and subjectively deciding if they are kinda close enough.

      1. If it’s good enough security to cash a check, it’s good enough security to count a ballot.

        Are you saying that banks are just handing money out with no security?

        1. What makes you think banks routinely check that the payee on a check is who is actually cashing/depositing the check, or for that matter, comparing the endorsement to a known signature?

          1. I am sure my cell phone verifies every signature on the checks I deposit electronically. How else could it work?

            1. No, the check system operates on the assumption that the checks are valid, and only goes to the trouble of looking at this stuff if the person who supposedly wrote the check disputes the charge against their account.

              Signature matches really aren’t a terribly secure system, even if they’re better than nothing.

            2. I am confident my oldest grandchild knows as much about this ‘uniform cell phone signature verification system’ and ‘how this must work’ as you do.

              He is three. Unless you know plenty about Lightning McQueen, he has an edge here.

          2. “What makes you think banks routinely check that the payee on a check is who is actually cashing/depositing the check, or for that matter, comparing the endorsement to a known signature?”

            Well, I used to work in a bank, and I’ve been in the signature verifaication work area, fixing their computers.

      2. FWIW, I’ve had the elections folks contact me because they weren’t sure the signature matched. Admittedly, my sig looks like I went to med school, but the forger doesn’t know that – if he does a neat one, that’s going to stand out. Unless you’re postulating that the vote forgers also maintain a database of signature images[1] and semi carefully mimic them.

        [1]I mean, that’s possible, presumably the election folks have a database of images, but doing it at scale is going to provide some logistics challenges.

        1. In IL the poll workers have physical books with everyone’s signature from the precinct. It would be a simple matter to take pictures of the signatures to sign ballots. The poll workers also know who voted and who didn’t, so they’d know what ballots are “safe” to submit. Combine something like that with the ruling in NY that ballots without postmarks must be counted and there’s your opportunity for fraud

          That being said, I don’t see this happening all over, maybe a few precincts. Also worth noting that the states where fraud is particularly easy (NY, IL, CA) aren’t very competitive, at least not for president, so they won’t help with the EC. I could maybe see it being used to build pressure to eliminate the EC by ensuring one side never wins the popular vote

          1. Its hard to believe that I have to say this, but here goes. No one party controls what happens at any poll site. There are majority and minority clerks! Unless you come from a precinct with no members of the opposite party.

            1. In some states, but only some states, every precinct is required to have workers from more than one party. But there are still an awful lot of precincts where the entire staff are of one party.

              Mostly the Democratic party, because while it’s rare to find a precinct with more than 55-60% Republicans, you can easily find precincts with 70, 80, or 90% Democrats. In fact, every election there are long lists of urban precincts where no Republican votes are cast at all.

              1. ” there are still an awful lot of precincts where the entire staff are of one party.
                Mostly the Democratic party”

                So if the Republicans aren’t concerned about fraud in those precincts, why would anyone else be?
                Is it because the R’s are sure they can more than make up for any cheating in the precincts that they control?

            2. That doesn’t matter to my point: all a poll worker has to do is take a few pictures of the signatures in the book, this can be done fairly easily without anyone from the opposite party, or even your own party, seeing.

              Also, the party affiliation of poll workers isn’t as strong as you may think. Years ago a friend of mine and I were asked if we wanted to be poll watchers, which we agreed to. I think I had the democrat book and he got the republican, but it didn’t matter, we were just doing it because the guy offered to buy us a case of beer after the polls closed

        2. No, my assumption is that most election fraud is conducted with the cooperation of election workers, and thus automatically bypasses most of the security. Think of it as election embezzlement. You can’t count on the accountant to catch the bad check if he’s the one passing it.

          That’s why I think we really need to systematically reform our election system, which is mostly based on the crazy idea that you can trust the people running it. We need a distrust based system.

          I’ve proposed a “election corps” where people could volunteer for elections, be trained, and then be randomly assigned to administer elections in precincts far from home. So as to minimize the chance of collusion among election workers.

          1. I think you’ll have a problem if you’re counting on getting young people to commit to years of service to country, and then counting on these young people to look out for Republicans and Republican issues. The current system is highly dependent on retired people, who already lean team-R and only some of them are disillusioned.

        3. “I mean, that’s possible, presumably the election folks have a database of images, but doing it at scale is going to provide some logistics challenges.”

          In the bank I used to work for, there were about 30 people in signature validation. They had good computers and dual monitors, plus fast network connections. Any competent IT technician could set it up.

    4. “The mass mail OUT of ballots, (called mail-in ballots for political purposes) to last known addresses of thousands is quite different.”

      Yes, one is happening in your imagination, and the other is at least based in reality.

    5. Here’s the Pennsylvania web page describing the process for vote-by-mail versus absentee ballots. The only difference is whether you’re going to be at your home address or at a different one. If anything, it seems like vote-by-mail should be more secure since you can’t redirect the ballot to some random address:

      https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Mail-and-Absentee-Ballot.aspx

      There are only a handful of states that do universal vote by mail (the mass mailing of ballots to people). All of them do the signature verifications that you describe, and make it easier to track what’s going on with your ballot in ways that most states don’t easily make possible for in-person voting.

      1. ” If anything, it seems like vote-by-mail should be more secure since you can’t redirect the ballot to some random address”

        Yes, a highly-successful vote fraud operation is going to be set up and operate by leaving permanent records of where to find them.

    6. The checks you cite apply to the ballots mailed to registered voters. Nobody gets a ballot, puts a couple of check marks on it the mails it back without those security checks. Willful obfuscation on your part.

  11. There is corruption in every aspect of human life, and in particular in government. Every State, city, town, county, and other municipal district if rife with corruption. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

    With the stakes involved in elections, why would anyone assume that of all aspects of government, that voting is singularly devoid of corruption? The presumption should be that the voting system is corrupt and that vote fraud is prevalent and widespread. People should then insist that we construct systems to limit this as much as possible.

    You would have to have been born yesterday to assume elections are fair, or pronounce them fair, and malign those who disagree knowing the corruption helps your side.

    1. Anyone can read the news to you. ThePublius promises to feel the news… at you.

    2. “With the stakes involved in elections, why would anyone assume that of all aspects of government, that voting is singularly devoid of corruption?”

      The value of a single vote in a state or federal election is low enough to make the rewards of vote fraud not worth the effort unless you can capture a very large number of them at once. So we put our prevention efforts primarily to detecting cases of very large number of fraudulent votes.
      Then, we allow interested parties to watch the process of counting the votes. If either side is cheating, they’ll have to do it under watchful eyes of someone who would very much like to detect cheating, if it is happening.

  12. Georgia:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/us/politics/georgia-double-voting.html

    Also, absentee and mail-in (universal) voting are not the same.

    1. “Also, absentee and mail-in (universal) voting are not the same.”

      They are in places that have universal mail-in voting.

  13. “A study of results in three states where all voters are mailed actual ballots, a practice at the apex of the president’s outrage, found just 372 possible cases of illegal voting of 14.6 million cast in the 2016 and 2018 general elections — 0.0025 percent.”

    Oh ffs, not this type of thing again. The article implies that they could rule out fraud in 14,599,628 cases. But this is just bogus, as the methodology in the article shows. Maybe there really isn’t much fraud, but you shouldn’t try to prove it using bogus studies.

    1. ” The article implies that they could rule out fraud in 14,599,628 cases”

      No, the article implies that they didn’t find it in 14,599,628 cases despite having people watching for it.

  14. nothing but battlespace preparation. the anti-trumpians are getting ready to contest the election should they lose on election night by harvesting mail in ballots and count late and non-compliant ballots in Democrat areas

    1. Oddly, it’s Trump who keeps promising that 2020 will be the most corrupt election in American history. And it was Trump who asked his supporters to try voting twice.

      1. Well, he said quite explicitly that you should check if your vote counted, and if everything works, you will be fine. The stated idea was to confirm that you actually voted.

        However, I think we can say that the real point was to call the media’s bluff. If voter fraud is essentially impossible, as people persist in claiming, calling it a “myth” then this isn’t an issue. If voter fraud is trivially easy or if there isn’t a valid way to confirm that someone voted twice, as many others claim, then this will succeed.

        However, you can’t argue both ways. Voter fraud can’t be trivially easy to accomplish and so rare as to be mythical. The fact that we had several prominent vote frauds in the primaries is clear indication that it’s certainly no myth (though its probably not a bad as others fear).

        1. ” If voter fraud is essentially impossible, as people persist in claiming, calling it a ‘myth’ then this isn’t an issue.”

          Approximately 0 people total are claiming that voter fraud is impossible.

          Pointing out that it isn’t happening doesn’t imply that it can’t happen.

  15. “The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there’s no proof of widespread fraud.”

    So how exactly does one prove not-in-person double-voting? Regarding the particular species of argumentum ad ignorantium presented in the original post, Carl Sagan once exclaimed “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!”

    1. “So how exactly does one prove not-in-person double-voting?”

      You prove that one voter was issued two ballots, and that neither one can be currently accounted for (because they both were counted). All you have to do is assume that sneaky, corrupt organizations exist in secret to alter things that affect your life, and that the people who have the most interest in finding and documenting this fact instead choose to do nothing. Once you embrace your inner conspiracy-theorist, you never have to accept that your problems are of your own making again!

    2. “So how exactly does one prove not-in-person double-voting? ”

      If you find someone who can be in two places at once, there’s a risk of double-voting.

  16. Burglary is rare and there is no evidence I as President of the Your City is Burglar Free Association can find that locks on doors will keep out determined burglars. It makes no difference one way or another.

    Therefore I will fight tooth and nail and spend millions of dollars and cry and moan and stamp my feet all day long to prevent you from being able to use locks on your doors…..makes sense…

    1. No, but I’ll fight the locks-on-your-doors tax.

        1. The one that pays the salary of the President of the Your City is Burglar Free Association.

  17. Okay lets assume that Adler and the Dems are right about everything and there is no widespread fraud. Why not just take extra precautions anyways? Just to be on the safe side? I mean libs love to preemptively ban a lot of things of which there is no evidence or history of harm or based upon theoretical future consequences. There is in fact a new narrative circulating around that Trump is encouraging double voting. Shouldn’t we get ahead of that? Can’t circumstances change? Why is there a lobby so vehemently against this if it just doesn’t matter?

    The only thing I can think of is the intimidated minority voters theory they’ve recently invented as a justification for this which is as or more evidence free than what you claim for voter fraud.

    1. “*Republican* election attorney Benjamin Ginsberg spent his career helping *Republican* candidates get elected.”

      Reading is fundamental.

    2. They refuse even the simplest of measures such as purple-thumb voting.

    3. Who is “they”? There are 50 states, convince one to bust out the purple dye. Heck, convince one municipality in one state to do it.

      There is no, repeat no, lurking cabal of “they” stopping you.

      1. You seriously believe that a community could attempt the purple dye thing, and not have it shut down as “vote suppression” on the basis that some voter might not want their thumb dyed purple?

        1. That’s some seriously motivated thinking on display.

          1. That’s our Brett.

            There’s always a conspiracy or something against him.

            Then he periodically complains about his opponents being unwilling to ascribe good faith to those who disagree with them.

        2. You seriously believe that when Sam refers to “they” refusing to implement something, he’s talking about communities writ large? That’s not how fever dreams about conspiracies of “they” work.

    4. ” Why not just take extra precautions anyways?”

      There’s a 0% vote fraud rate now that we disenfranchised all the voters…

    5. Because many of the “precautions” make it unreasonably difficult for large numbers of legitimate voters to exercise a constitutional right.

      1. Again…zero evidence which is what you guys are harping on about.

        1. Solutions that look like a poll tax in search of a problem? Quotes from the GOP about how they wanna suppress the vote?

          Yeah, Amos, you see nothing.

        2. When voter ID laws in several states have been litigated, the states in question have acknowledged that sizable numbers of legal, registered voters, sometimes close to 10% of the total number of registered voters in the state, did not have the kind of ID required by law.

          1. And that is caused by what legal impediment?

            I know plenty of minorities who are a bit baffled why progs think they aren’t capable of getting an ID for themselves.

            It’s not even remotely difficult. There is dramatically less proof that “voters cannot get ID” then there is of vote fraud.

  18. Some of the cases of aggressively prosecuted election fraud seem to involve things like ex-felons who don’t realize they are not allowed to vote after completing their sentences, people mistakenly voting in the wrong fistricts, and other minor-seeming mishaps that don’t appear to deserve being treated as major felonies subject to stiff prison sentences.

    Prosecuting people for major felony level crimes with stiff sentences for an isolated act of casting an incorrect vote, with mistake no defense and no need to prove any special malice or meet any heightened scienter element, seems more designed to deter people from voting than to combat any actual crime.

    1. As long as politicians think they have something to gain by suppressing voting, guess what they’re gonna do? It’s time to pass an anti-suppression constitutional amendment.

      1. No state shall limit or otherwise interfere with the voting rights of any US citizen.

      2. Any state violating section 1 of this amendment shall have it’s number of Congressional Representatives and electoral college votes reduced by one-half in the next federal election. repeated violations shall reduce in a reduction of Senate Seats, in addition to the previous reductions.

      Poof! States now have a good reason to reject attempts to suppress voting. Later on, we’ll need one for gerrymandering, too.

      1. “1. No state shall limit or otherwise interfere with the voting rights of any US citizen”

        Says the parts of “It’s racist ‘voter suppression’ to require citizens to have some form of identification to vote, or identify ‘undocumented’ ‘citizens'”.

        So, the next election after this amendment, suddenly 11 million new voters swing the US to +12 million blue votes, and no one is allowed to verify citizenship status.

        Yeah, sure. Sounds great… /s

        1. Ahem*** Says the party* of…

        2. Vinni, we have GOP officials on tape saying their requirements are made to suppress minority votes.

          “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are … Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

        3. The feds ALREADY made the states offer “Real ID” that proves citizenship. As if citizenship had anything to do with driving competence, or being able to sit in an airliner.

    2. “like ex-felons who don’t realize they are not allowed to vote after completing their sentences,”

      What’s their alternative to claiming they didn’t realize it? Just pleading guilty? Pretty much.

      But if you want to argue for a better system for catching such attempts at the “attempt” stage, in return for making the first such attempt a misdemeanor? I’d be fine with that.

      1. We could stop disenfranchising felons. Most states already restore voting rights post-sentence. The reason they don’t is that one party sees an advantage in keeping them disenfranchised.

  19. Is Jack Marshall peddling a myth?

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/08/21/reality-new-jersey-election-results-invalidated-because-of-voter-fraud-new-york-times-and-your-facebook-friends-stop-trying-to-confuse-us-with-facts/

    Have you seen this story headlined across the news media? A New Jersey judge, Ernest M. Caposela, ruled this week that the City Council election in Paterson, New Jersey, had been irreversibly tainted by mail fraud, and ordered a new vote to be held in November. The superior court judge wrote that the election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters.”

    And that’s just a single local election.

    1. Interesting … yet premature to conclude fraud exists:

      “ It’s possible, however, that some of those cases could be attributed to data errors on behalf of election officials, noted Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who runs the United States Elections Project.

      In a series of tweets, McDonald urged that Raffensperger’s announcement be treated with caution, pointing to data describing the reasons given for voters who were issued a mail ballot that they had canceled to vote in person that were riddled with typos.”

  20. So, is the author saying that Stacy Abrams should concede the GA Governor’s race held lo those many years ago?

  21. And then there’s this:

    “A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.”

    https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

    Think of voter fraud as child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests; before 1985 it was virtually unknown to the public. After a confession in 1985, some additional charges in the 1990’s, and then the Boston Globe’s 2002 expose, it was seen that it was widespread and had been going on for decades, if not centuries.

    If you want to find something, you have to really want to find it, and you must look. It helps to have insiders turn.

    1. Sounds more like the Satanic Panic. People telling you what you want to hear.

    2. I’m a little skeptical of that anonymous source. One reason is simply that he says it’s a large scheme involving lots of people. It’s usually pretty hard to pull something like that off, because the kind of people unsavory enough to do that are probably going to be doing other unsavory things, and sooner or later one of them is going to try and trade the info for a reduced sentence for some other crime.

      Also, there are a lot of fairly simple things you can do to thwart a lot of that – watermark the ballot, for example (our mail in ballots aren’t normal paper, for example). Ours also come with a little tear off strip with a serial number … I haven’t done it myself, but I think the idea is you can call the voter people after the election and verify that ballot #393746493092392 arrived. You could just post all those numbers on a web site, and it would be pretty obvious if a crooked post office worker was round filing them.

      Etc, etc.

      I’m sympathetic to the notion that elections need to be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. If people want to suggest ways to make fraud harder, that’s a lot more persuasive than saying it can’t be done securely.

      (It’s also worth remembering that people in the system can just stuff ballot boxes the old fashioned way … mail in voting isn’t a requirement)

      1. I’m sympathetic to the notion that elections need to be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. If people want to suggest ways to make fraud harder, that’s a lot more persuasive than saying it can’t be done securely.

        We lock horns, but you continually come out with reasonable takes even when I think you’re wrong. Though in this case, I tend to agree; there is value in looking to improve things. But that turns out to be hard to balance with the costs of keeping voting open and easy.

        I think we’d get along.

      2. ” I think the idea is you can call the voter people after the election and verify that ballot #393746493092392 arrived.”

        In Oregon, you can get lists of whose ballots have not yet been returned. The parties routinely get lists and call their members to suggest they turn in a ballot. Other organizations check the lists for people likely to support their candidates or pet issues and suggest they turn in a ballot. This provides incentive to make sure the election office has your ballot as soon as possible, or hold your ballot and just leave your phone turned off.

    3. He’s a Democrat!! So Democrats have to believe this!

      1. turns out they don’t have the same level of brand loyalty that you guys have.

  22. Question for reason writers : How much fraud is acceptable?

    Enough to get Obamacare Passed? Enough to escalate Viet Nam? Where is the cutoff?

  23. I recall reading that Senator Al Franken likely only became a Senator because of voter fraud. It matters.

    President Trump and others are wrong to claim that there were 3 million illegitimate votes or whatever in 2016, as there is no evidence that this is true.

    Democrats and those who favor loose laws and insecure elections are also wrong when they claim that there is no significant voter fraud. There is at least some voter fraud. And contrary to the implication in this Washington Post opinion piece, “1,296 incidents” does not mean only 1,296 votes, so it’s dishonest to say that this number is a “percentage of the votes cast.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and yet these folks always stake their claim on that position, and never seem to attempt to actually make a positive case against the existence of “significant” voter fraud, i.e., by making the argument and explaining why such fraud would be known if it existed.

    How much voter fraud is there really? We don’t know. Probably not much. But this entire argument is beside the point and irrelevant.

    Nobody has previously pulled of “widespread” or “significant” voter fraud — therefore, we do not need to make sure our elections are secure? Is that really the argument we are supposed to buy? How stupid do they think we are?

    This is exactly like supposing that because you can’t find evidence of anybody ever hacking your computer systems, therefore you do not need strong cyber security. See how stupid this is? Perhaps the Democrat National Committee had such a conversation in 2015 before their systems were hacked.

    The security and integrity of our elections is of paramount importance, and should not be a partisan issue.

    1. “How much voter fraud is there really? We don’t know. Probably not much. But this entire argument is beside the point and irrelevant.”

      Irrelevant to you if you aren’t sure your vote is being counted? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

      “Nobody has previously pulled of ‘widespread’ or ‘significant’ voter fraud — therefore, we do not need to make sure our elections are secure?”

      Depends on what we have to trade to get that “security”.

      “Is that really the argument we are supposed to buy?”

      No, it’s the strawman you choose to offer to avoid the real question(s)

      “How stupid do they think we are? ”
      They think you’re stupid enough to buy the “Democrats are going to steal the election if we have mail-in votes” lie.

      1. James. If the discussion was “there is nothing we can do that won’t inhibit a huge number of people from voting”, then I might agree with you.

        However, the argument from the left has been “It’s a myth. There is no voter fraud. Claiming otherwise is racist”.

        We can balance security and openness, and we may agree, disagree, or compromise on solutions. However, we cannot have a discussion with endless strawman arguments and denials that the problem even exists.

        1. “However, the argument from the left has been ‘It’s a myth. There is no voter fraud. Claiming otherwise is racist’.”

          The argument from the left has been “it’s a myth, and an excuse to do voter suppression. Vote suppression is not acceptable.”

    2. “Nobody has previously pulled of “widespread” or “significant” voter fraud ”
      Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Senator Lyndon B. Johnson – – – –

      The runoff vote count, handled by the Democratic State Central Committee, took a week. Johnson was announced the winner by 87 votes out of 988,295, an extremely narrow margin of victory. However, Johnson’s victory was based on 200 “patently fraudulent”:608 ballots reported six days after the election from Box 13 in Jim Wells County, in an area dominated by political boss George Parr. The added names were in alphabetical order and written with the same pen and handwriting, following at the end of the list of voters. Some of the persons in this part of the list insisted that they had not voted that day

      1. Please learn the difference between voter fraud, and misconduct by election officials.

        1. The chief difference is that misconduct by election officials is potentially larger scale, and harder to detect.

          1. Which means that an attempt to “steal an election” is much, much more likely to involve a few election officials conspiring, than a huge number of individuals voting illegally.

            Also, measures intended to stop conjectural voter fraud will not have any effect on election official misconduct.

    3. Great reply. I agree with everything you’ve said, except this:
      “How much voter fraud is there really? We don’t know. Probably not much.”

      I would say ‘probably a lot.’

      That’s because every other aspect of local politics is so corrupt, and the stakes of elections are so high.

      1. This isn’t reasoning or evidence, it’s just spite.

        1. It is, indeed, reasoning!

          rea·son·ing
          /ˈrēz(ə)niNG/
          noun
          the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

          I fully explained my reasoning for saying “probably a lot.” Go re-read it.

          In contrast, you rarely, if ever, present any reasoning with your comments.

          1. ‘I feel like there’s corruption everywhere, therefore there is corruption we are not seeing here.’

            This is not an argument. This is not reasoning. This is emotion and prejudice.

            1. Would you say the same if I had agreed with “probably not much?”

              1. The OP provides arguments and evidence. Agreeing with it means you don’t need to bring your own additional stuff.

                Disagreeing means you need to either point to holes in their evidence or bring your own. And you didn’t bring anything other than your own feelz.

                If the OP said voter fraud was rampant, and provided evidence, it would be on those who disagreed to come with more than ‘but I’ll bet politicians would never stoop so low!’

              2. “Would you say the same if I had agreed with ‘probably not much?’”

                No, if you didn’t try to substitute your feelings and suspicion as conclusive evidence, you wouldn’t be accused of substituting your feelings and suspicion as conclusive evidence.

    4. There were allegations of fraud in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race. But nothing prove. One right-wing activist group put a press release of some kind out alleging that hundreds of felons had voted illegally–only to have to walk it back within days.

  24. While election administration in parts of the country may be rickety and inefficient, there is no reason to think national elections are compromised, let alone that the Presidential race could be stolen.

    Who needs wide-spread voter fraud? Who says it needs to be a massive number of votes? How many hundreds of votes was the 2000 and 2012 Presidential Election decided by? Not tens of thousand, not thousands, it was hundreds in specific states. 538 votes decided the outcome in 2000. Sen Al Frankin was elected by 225 votes. It doesn’t take massive wide-spread voter fraud to change the outcome of an election, it takes a small percentage of lost, altered, and fraudulent votes. So don’t spout the BS about “there’s no evidence of widespread” or that only a small percentage of votes are fraudulent. It doesn’t take a lot to change the outcome of a vote and that’s what matters.

    1. Who made the decisions about those 538 and 225 votes. It wasn’t a secret cabal hidden in a SCIF in Cheyenne mountain. It was people like you. Both Democrats, Republicans and when necessary the courts.

      1. Why do you only assume the final counting is all that matters when it comes to fraud? Trashing ballots, changing them before they get delivered, voting using another’s mail-in ballot, voter impersonation, ballot box stuffing. All historical examples of how voting fraud has occurred previously and none involve the final counters.

    2. “Who needs wide-spread voter fraud?”

      Nobody, which is a big part of why there isn’t widespread voter fraud.

      “. It doesn’t take a lot to change the outcome of a vote and that’s what matters.”

      There’s a couple of hundred million people eligible to vote in the United States. If you knew the election would be close, say, within a couple of dozen votes, well then, you’d know you could just gin up a couple of dozen votes and put your guy over the finish line.
      the thing is, until the votes start to get counted, nobody knows how close the election is going to be. So… if you election cheating plan depends on producing fraudulent votes one at a time, you probably aren’t in good shape to throw an election.

  25. I don’t know how much fraud there is, but here in CA there’s a lot of incompetence.

    My brother moved out of state, including getting a DL in the new state and registering to vote there. It took several years and multiple attempts to get his name stricken from the list of voters. Had I wanted to vote as him, I could’ve gone to vote in the morning, voted as him, returned in the evening, voted as me.

    They also don’t try to hide the list of voters from people: you give them your address and name, they flip to that page and cross it out. Once, I gave them my address and name and they crossed out my mom’s name instead, even though we have different last names. Luckily she was standing right next to me, so I told them they crossed out the wrong person, but it’s still an example of incompetence and says something about how easy fraud would be.

    1. Yeah, my brother and sister moved away from home, I stayed and bought the family home from my folks when I got older. Year after year I’d go vote, and their names were there in the poll book; Every year I’d point out they’d moved away years ago, and nothing would be done.

      Now I’ve been gone from that town for 12 years, and I bet all our names are still listed in that poll book.

      1. I didn’t really live there at that point, but my mom owned the house and I was moving reasonably often and it was easier to just have all my paperwork go to her place, which meant staying registered to vote there. I was in the same county at least.

        I think the last time I voted his name was finally gone but it took several years and multiple attempts.

  26. People are helping nursing home residents. Mailmen are throwing ballots from Republican districts in the trash. People are steaming open other mailed in ballots and replacing the votes with their own copied version. Illegal aliens are being bused to vote in Democrat districts. The Obama election was fraudulent. These are reports by people who have done all that. This Democrat blog is from the Koch Brothers, and is culturally very LA. Dismissed.

    1. “This Democrat blog is from the Koch Brothers,”

      This is not a “Democrat” blog, you illiterate clinger, and as a former elected and appointed official of the Democratic Party I inform you that the Democratic Party does not want and would not take this blog. The Republicans can keep it.

    2. ” Mailmen are throwing ballots from Republican districts in the trash.”

      That isn’t the instructions Trump gave to Mr. DeJoy.

  27. Perhaps, all voting should be contracted to Amazon. They know who you are, where you are, and will not allow voter fraud.

    1. And best of all, their AI can predict your vote and cast it for you.
      Instant results the week before the election!

      1. Yes, but the “would you like to cast that vote again” option would be switched to a higher priced supplier without telling you.

  28. What about the motor voter acts. Recently, I renewed my drivers licence. The application said that I would be automatically registered to vote unless I check the opt-out box.

    Illegal immigrants are encouraged to get drivers licenses. They hear the rumors that opting out on the voter registration is likely to bring ICE to their doors. They are afraid not to. Later when they get a mail in ballot, they are afraid to not vote it for the same reason.

    Who keeps the statistics on that? Non-citizens voting. I heard the claim that up to 20% of votes cast in California are by non-citizens. A wild guess to be sure, but how is any guess (including zero) validated?

    1. I heard the claim that up to 20% of votes cast in California are by non-citizens.

      Trump’s not a great source.

      1. So, just ask California elections officials:
        “California officials still can’t say whether non-citizens voted in the June 2018 primary because a confusing government questionnaire about eligibility was created in a way that prevents a direct answer on citizenship.”
        Did non-citizens vote last year? California officials still can’t say

        1. Look at how hard you did not prove that proposition.

    2. This podcast addresses the topic in depth.

      https://fedsoc.org/events/voter-fraud-and-voter-registration

      No, the Federalist Society is not a right wing organization. They say:

      The Society is about ideas. We do not lobby for legislation, take policy positions, or sponsor or endorse nominees and candidates for public service. Beyond our statement of purpose the Federalist Society takes no public policy positions and does not participate in activism of any kind.

      1. They can say it all they want, doesn’t make them actually non-partisan.

    3. “Illegal immigrants are encouraged to get drivers licenses”

      Except that they are not, absolutely. We SHOULD want them to get driving licenses if they’re going to drive on our streets, and get insurance, too. But some people prefer to prevent them from getting driving licenses, which keeps them from getting insurance, because getting a driving license tells them they’re wanted here or something. (I admit I didn’t really get the argument that was being thrown at me.) I think that a driving license should be about whether or not you know how to operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways, and nothing else.

  29. In the past, vote fraud in big cities and elsewhere was commonly acknowledged, even a source of amusement…”In Chicago, where the cemeteries vote”…”vote early and often”. And so on. Caro’s LBJ biography documents in great detail the vote fraud in Texas…LBJ got our-frauded on his first run, but made sure he held the upper hand in fraud the second time. And it wasn’t just LBJ, and it wasn’t just Texas. I personally witnessed the union members lining up across the street from my house come election day to receive their already-marked ballots from the union’s business manager (chain-link voting). So exactly when, and by what mechanism(s), did the commonplace big city and other vote fraud become so rare, or even non-existent, that only a paranoid or a fool would believe that vote fraud would even happen? After all, Democrats still control major cities (and smaller “major” cities such as Milwaukee) from top to bottom. The city machines are still around.

    1. ” After all, Democrats still control major cities (and smaller ‘major’ cities such as Milwaukee) from top to bottom.”

      Except that a lot of those deep-blue cities are in dark-red states.

  30. This is a classic logical fallacy. “We do not have voter fraud because there are only rare instances of it being prosecuted.”

    I don’t think I need to point out how bad that is just using basic logical reasoning. Voter fraud is usually prosecuted at the State level and the people who are perpetrating that fraud (Democrats) are usually the elected AG’s who have absolutely no interest in pursuing it.

    There is more then enough statistical modeling to suggest around 1-2% of votes cast are fraudulent. Perhaps even slightly higher. In normal elections this probably wouldn’t tip the race to one candidate or the other. But in these turbulent political times with elections being decided by a few hundred votes it sure as heck is going to make the difference.

    To call what the Dems are planning an “election” is doing violence to that word. What they are planning on doing is stacking up mail in ballots with fake signatures in closets everywhere just in case they need the “extra votes” in close jurisdictions. This is going to be a complete farce and the problem is that a good 40% of the country knows it is happening and won’t like the results.

    1. “There is more then enough statistical modeling to suggest around 1-2% of votes cast are fraudulent. Perhaps even slightly higher.”

      Citation please?

      (Also, there’s plenty of Republican AG’s and Secretaries of State, particularly in swing states where the votes matter the most. Why are they in on the fix and not prosecuting anyone either?)

    2. Just like all crackpot conspiracy theories, this one is short on detail. Exactly how is this grand vote fraud conspiracy supposed to work? Where are all these ballots with fake signatures being stacked up in closets everywhere coming from? How are the Democrat criminals acquiring them? And if such a scheme were actually possible and it were implemented, how would a simple analysis of voting trends not reveal this?

      This is like Big Bill claiming that it’s just common sense that vast quantities of fake absentee ballots can be counterfeited and successfully submitted Exactly how? Other than readers of Breitbart fabulist bullshit, who believes this fatuous crap?

    3. “There is more then enough statistical modeling to suggest around 1-2% of votes cast are fraudulent. Perhaps even slightly higher.”

      Perhaps lower. Perhaps 0%. It’s easy to claim things without bothering to offer any supporting evidence.

  31. Alternative theory: Ginsberg was just bad at his job

    These Establishment has beens writing their little anti-Trump op eds are both humorous and tedious.

    1. Guy disagrees with Bob’s narrative.
      Bob discard guy’s points. Continues with his narrative.

      Song as old as time.

    2. Disaffected clingers, with their delusions of adequacy and relevance as they move toward replacement, are as fun to mock as they are to stomp in the culture war.

      Backwater, can’t-keep-up Ohio hardest hit.

  32. What about the 1000 double voters in Georgia? Not saying fraud is widespread, but seems that should make the list.

    1. According to the Georgia Secretary of State as reported by AJC, about 1000 people successfully voted both absentee and in person. 60% in the D primary and 40% in the R. That’s out of about 150,000 who had requested absentee ballots and also showed up to vote in person. Apparently, all but about 1000 either didn’t submit an absentee ballot or successfully canceled their ballot. The 1000 amount to 0.09% of votes cast. State promises investigation and prosecutions.

      Seems that there were procedures in place to prevent double voting but -poll workers weren’t able to implement them sufficiently.

  33. This post reads as a Snopes debunking before the fact.

    The fix is in. Either the Republicans or the Democrats or the Deep State, Russia, China, Israel, Arabs, the UN, WEF, Musk, Gates or Zuckerberg, the City of London, Anglosphere empiric conspirators, the Chamber of Commerce, UFW, BLM, the ACLU or the NRA, We are Legion hackivists, Green meanies, or fossil fuelish fellows will meddle with the sanctity of this election.

    We’ll know by who appears to win [wink wink.] At any rate, count me among those who never believed our election rules, officials, processes, tallies, and media reporting are unimpeachable.

    The predictive programming currently happening in news and opinion tells us this will be a bloodier redux of our “democracy” hanging by a chad 2000 election. Twenty years later and with the introduction of urban rioting and killings and with promises of much more to come, maybe there’ll be actual hanging Chads from lampposts.

    This election will not be an exercise in civility and fidelity to a country slipping through the cracks and our deepening doubts.

    1. “The fix is in. Either the Republicans or the Democrats or the Deep State, Russia, China, Israel, Arabs, the UN, WEF, Musk, Gates or Zuckerberg, the City of London, Anglosphere empiric conspirators, the Chamber of Commerce, UFW, BLM, the ACLU or the NRA, We are Legion hackivists, Green meanies, or fossil fuelish fellows will meddle with the sanctity of this election.”

      You left out the Trilateral commission, the lizard aliens, and the Masons. I would’ve had Bingo. on my conspiracy Bingo card.

  34. Commenter steeltown lad, above (September.9.2020 at 1:07 pm), has it right. See Robert A. Caro, The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson (Book 4) (2012), passim.

    Prof. Adler, come with me to San Antonio on Election Day 2020. We can watch together as Democrat operatives spread their “walking around money” in exactly the same fashion described by Mr. Caro’s meticulously researched book. Then who are you going to believe — Benjamin Ginsberg or your own lyin’ eyes?

    1. ‘Street money,’ also known as ‘walking around money,’ is lawful, somewhat common, and used by Republicans and Democrats.

      Anyone who knew what he was talking about, particularly from genuine and relevant experience, would know that.

      1. 18 U.S.C. § 597:

        Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

        Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

        1. And if you think the money is really “reimbursement” for GOTV efforts, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I think you will surely want to buy, Rev.

          Didn’t we used to ignore each other? Can’t we do that again?

  35. People are looking at electoral fraud the wrong way; from a particular electoral outcome to be connected with a particular collective practice large enough to explain the outcome.

    Look rather at electoral fraud, but don’t focus on the more polarizing aspect of how it might have affected an outcome.
    Voting the wrong ballot is common, and this means votes on many down-ballot races will have the wrong voters. My post-college kids, like many of the adult children of my peers, maintain a pretend permanent address at the home of their youth because it is convenient. So I have three kids in their twenties who find voting in the wrong state/city/school-district to be just fine with them. T
    This is so commonplace as to be practically invisible. Even when I point out to my friends that their adult children are too committing fraud, they perceive what their kids are doing as somehow different.

    Then recently as a water cooler conversation was going on at work, with three colleagues all insisting that voter fraud was vanishingly rare, each went on to relate felony level fraud. one voted her mother’s absentee ballot (what she would have wanted… maybe), another destroyed her grandmother’s absentee ballot when she did not like what was marked, and a third facilitated obtaining an absentee ballot for her adult child in which he had no residence, having lived and worked in a different state for more than 3 years.
    Vote fraud is vanishingly rare only when people are not able to admit that it is so common as to be typical.

  36. Republican claims of vote(r) fraud are as exaggerated as the Democrats claims of disenfranchisement.
    500,000 mail-in ballots were thrown out this past primary season.
    Fraud, disenfranchisement, vote tampering, incompetence. Call it whatever you will the number is not small and it will not be small in November

    1. “Republican claims of vote(r) fraud are as exaggerated as the Democrats claims of disenfranchisement.
      500,000 mail-in ballots were thrown out this past primary season.”

      that sounds like rather a lot of disenfranchisement, doesn’t it?

  37. I offer ProjectVeritas.com and JudicialWatch.org as disproof. Both are more trustworthy than anything published in the WaPo (except of course Volokh’s blog, while it was there, and maybe Radley Balko).

  38. Whether or not there’s fraud, the point is to disenfranchise lazy, stupid, and incompetent Democrat Party voters.

    1. That’s been the Republican plan for several years now. Disenfranchise everybody who votes for (not us), and eventually, we’ll win elections fair and square. We might not even have to gerrymander to keep control of the political structure.

  39. You all cannot find voter fraud because you’re sitting in front of your keyboard in your ivory tower. You need to get out to the streets more. Let me tell you how it works. This is from first hand experience that I personally witnessed. My mom lives in senior housing complex with about 200 seniors. They’re all seniors from one ethnic group (I’m not going to say which ethnic group because it’s not relevant). Whenever election cycle approaches, community activists would show up and register them to vote. Since most of these seniors do not understand English (they became citizen without taking English test after being legal residents for more than 15 years), activists would “help” the seniors fill out the mail-in ballots. I don’t need to tell you which way they vote. That’s how fraudulent votes are cast. You will not see this prosecuted, because technically it’s not even illegal if the activists do not outright write it themselves. They will claim they’re just “helping” residents to exercise their right to vote. But it’s vote harvesting. The actual votes are not from those seniors, but votes from activists. Now you know.

  40. Define ‘not widespread’, I dare you. One vote canceled by fraud is TOO DAMNED MANY, so cut it out with the ‘ not widespread’ weasel words. If you don’t want to show your ID at the Polls, it is because you want to cheat. That debate is over.

Please to post comments