Skip to content

Untested Procedures, Reduced Safeguards Invite Vote Fraud

The 2020 presidential election has already landed the country in unprecedented territory.

Democrats, their media allies, and even some Republicans are talking up the lack of “evidence” of voter fraud. This talking point raises some obvious follow-ups — none of which the media seems interested in pursuing. If such evidence existed, what would it look like and how would it have been obtained so quickly?

A claim that no court has yet ruled that any of the ballots cast in Tuesday’s election were fraudulent, is accurate but meaningless.

What we have now may not constitute hard evidence of fraud. But it bears indicia of fraud so compelling that any competent body would launch an audit or a fraud investigation.

Potential or likely fraud permeates the entire electoral system.

Taking things in order, ballots are printed, distributed, completed, transported, delivered (to an elections board), handled (by election workers), tabulated, and reported to the public.

Fraud and error are possible at each of these stages.

An electoral system with safeguards would introduce mechanisms designed to protect the integrity of each step. While some of these safeguards are complicated and technical, others are common sense. Distributing ballots only to those capable of showing IDs rather than anyone who requests one reduces the number of ballots handed to ineligible voters.

Mailing absentee ballots only to those who request them and verify their current information reduces the number of ballots going to addresses that are no longer valid (and thus likely to be found by someone other than the intended recipient).

Requiring that people show up at a specific time and place deters repeat voters — as well as many improper acts common via mail or e-mail.

Advanced registration requirements and verified voter rolls reduce votes from ineligible voters. Oversight inside the facilities processing ballots reduces internal mischief.

In the 2020 election, nominally under the duress of “ballot access during COVID,” jurisdictions across the country introduced new and untested procedures pushing ballot integrity in precisely the wrong direction.

As anyone with any experience in systems knows, new and untested procedures heading into a major event guarantee failure — even if the new procedures are objectively “better” than those they replace. Too many people need to retrain, coordinate their actions, and realign their expectations too quickly.

In 2020, for the first time, many states mailed ballots to everyone on their voter rolls —without first cleaning those rolls.

They encouraged people to vote by mail rather than in person.

They legalized, popularized, or promoted insecure distribution networks like drop-boxes and ballot-harvesters.

In short, they created an electoral system lacking safeguards capable of ensuring either that every tabulated ballot came from an eligible voter, or that every legal vote placed into the distribution system was tabulated.

Taken together, it’s hard to imagine an environment more conducive to fraud than one combining new and untested procedures with reduced safeguards.

Given the stakes, it was both predictable and predicted that the tabulations would include most but not all properly cast votes, along with a sizable number of illegal ballots. In short, it is fair to assume that a system designed to invite fraud did, in fact, invite fraud.

A reasonable assumption is still not proof.

Nor, standing alone, is it enough to compel an investigation or an audit.

Common sense and logic cannot identify which ballots were fraudulent or what effect the fraud had on the election. Worse, many of the ballots themselves violate the evidentiary standards courts typically require.

Illegible signatures, smudged postmarks, unbonded (and often anonymous) delivery services, etc. all break the chain of evidentiary custody typically required to tie a person to a document. Unless the document in question is a ballot — in which case, the presumption appears to be that it’s valid and legal unless proved otherwise.

Sifting through millions of ballots looking for indicia of fraud on each one is a painstaking process. Given the sheer numbers and time constraints, it’s effectively undoable.

That’s where modern technology comes in — or at least should come in.

Data mining techniques of the sort used to detect financial fraud work by spotting statistical anomalies in the data.

Those anomalies highlight the places fraud investigators should focus.

When they do, they may find that there was no problem.

Not everything that looks suspicious is indeed suspicious.

But many things are. In the 2020 election, we’re looking at a scenario in which Democratic jurisdictions eliminated all safeguards that typically minimize fraud.

Those same jurisdictions produced statistical anomalies, in which votes found late in the count consistently favored the Democratic candidate with percentages far beyond both historical patterns and today’s population at large. Furthermore, every single shift pointed in the same direction — towards the choice favored by those who eliminated the safeguards.

Hard evidence of fraud? Perhaps not. Evidence that a fraud inquiry is warranted? Absolutely. And if none is forthcoming? Well, that’s just one more indicator of fraud.

Source: Newsmax

Bruce Abramson

Bruce Abramson

Bruce Abramson has over thirty years of experience working as a technologist, economist, attorney, and policy analyst. Dr. Abramson holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Columbia and a J.D. from Georgetown. He has contributed to the scholarly literature on computing, business, economics, law, and foreign policy, and written extensively about American politics and policy.