Why We Can’t See The Vote Fraud That Occurs
Investigating and fighting against vote fraud has been one of the principle threads of my civic and political activities. I can say with certainty that when Democrats and their media supplicants claim that there is no such thing as vote fraud, they are lying.
I fought vote fraud as part of my participation in Republican politics – working with campaigns that needed an honest count to win. One of my clients was Project LEAP (Legal Elections in All Precincts). They are a civic group that worked with the League of Women Voters and others to combat rampant vote fraud. As Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, I formed investigative committees devoted solely to fighting against flagrant vote fraud. I have found it here in Palm Beach County since my move from Chicago.
I was defeated in my own primary election for mayor of Chicago by irrefutable evidence of vote fraud. But it was not prosecutable because of the political machine that committed the vote fraud. I have never monitored an election in which there was not a significant amount of vote manipulation – occasionally enough to steal an election.
Most of today’s debate over vote fraud centers on the issue of the 2020 presidential election.
One side says the election was perfect – no evidence of vote fraud. The other side claims that the vote fraud was so massive that Democrats literally stole the presidency. There is more than ample evidence to prove that the vote fraud deniers are lying for partisan political reasons.
However, my view at this moment pleases neither side. Yes, there was a significant amount of vote manipulation in the 2020 election – contrary to the bogus narrative put out by Democrats and their media cronies. It most certainly would have been to President Biden’s advantage. But … I have not seen sufficient hard evidence YET, to claim that it was enough to flip the election. That does not mean it did not happen, but just that the case has not been proven to my satisfaction. That is why I fully support ongoing investigations, reviews and analyses. It is also why the Democrats are so opposed to looking in the dark corners.
One of the unfortunate realities of vote fraud is that it is very difficult to uncover. And when we do find it, it is virtually impossible to prosecute. The lack of vote fraud cases in the courts is not because the fraud is not happening. It is because it is virtually impossible to identify who committed it – and to make any corrections. For all its benefits, the secret ballot also shields those who commit vote fraud.
Allow me to provide a few examples.
When we find that more votes have been cast than there were requests for ballots – or even more than there are registered voters in a venue – we know that vote fraud has been committed. We even have cases in which there were more votes than population.
Unless you can find eyewitnesses to the vote stealing, you have no way to know who was responsible. And finding political operatives willing to testify against their own political allies and friends is virtually impossible.
Not only do we not know who did it – even though we have absolute evidence of the fraud – we have no way to correct the vote. We may have a rather good idea of which Party perpetrated the fraud. But we have no way to prove it in a court of law. A court can order an election to be run again, but that is extremely rare.
That means there is no rational way to adjust the vote. You cannot simply delete votes from one side. And if you take equally from both sides, you still have the same corrupt result.
Post-election surveys almost always find that votes were counted for deceased or otherwise ineligible to vote. In the 2020 election, there were hundreds of thousands of such votes. And yet the left refuses to call it vote fraud. Again, it is virtually impossible to identify the culprits or to correct the obviously corrupt count.
Paying a bribe for a vote is an evergreen corrupt practice. But it is in play today as much as ever. It is another crime that is virtually undetectable because both parties to the criminal transaction are not about to admit it. This practice is usually for people who would not otherwise vote – homeless folks, gang members and the infirm.
One of the most common and effective arenas for vote stealing has been nursing homes.
Crooked political workers would submit requests for ballots and cast those ballots for individuals – often the without the voters’ knowledge. This enabled the precinct operative to “harvest” and submit a number of ballots.
“Harvesting,” itself, was deemed a corrupt – and often illegal — practice until public officials in Democrat strongholds legalized and used the practice on a regular basis. It is almost impossible to determine which harvested ballots are legit or not legit even when it is obvious that illegal ballots have been part of the harvest.
Today, we have concerns about hacking of the computerized voting system locally or on a grand scale. It is a legitimate concern. In the 2016 election, the Left claimed that Russians tried to “influence” the election through social media. But they did not manipulate the actual voting machinery. In 2020, there is a suspicion that China AND local operatives may have interfered with the actual vote count. That is the reason that ongoing forensic investigations are important.
In presidential elections, the vote fraud does not have to be nationwide to alter an outcome. It only needs to target a couple key states. Those who think bad actors cannot compromise the computer systems should think Colonial Pipeline.
Vote fraud is most difficult to prosecute in major cities controlled by one-party political machines.
That is where the greatest amount of vote fraud occurs. One of the major problems is lack of oversight by all the stakeholders. In the most Democrat urban precincts, it is not uncommon for there to be no Republican judges or poll watchers. Democrat operatives take up those positions.
In those cases, there is no end to the types of stealing that can take place – manipulating the voting machines, freewheeling casting of illegitimate ballots, changing the vote count on reporting documents. These practices were so egregious in the past, that in Chicago, we had to call on U.S. marshals to protect individual polling places.
The presence of an all-powerful political machine shifts prosecution from very difficult to impossible. Party-loyal prosecutors use “prosecutorial discretion” to simply not prosecute those caught engaging in vote fraud. And if a case should be so serious and so obvious that it lands in court, party-loyal judges dismiss the cases. That usually happens long after the election is over and the news media has lost interest in pursing old vote fraud issues – if they even had that motivation in the first place.
That was certainly the case in my mayoral race. It’s not easy to educate the public on election fraud when the media has a professional disinterest in the subject. Or, even worse, where the media takes up the partisan position of those committing the vote fraud.
To protect ballot integrity, there are certain procedures that must be in place.
The most important is to provide the expeditious casting, challenging and counting the ballots. In other words, the longer and more often the ballots are warehoused before counting, the more vote fraud that takes place. That is axiomatic.
Ballots cast early and held in facilities that are controlled by one party offer many opportunities for fraud – and make it difficult to pinpoint the culprits and virtually impossible to prosecute or correct. Mail-in ballots exist outside a protective shield. That is why election reform groups believe the mail-in – or computer voting – are unsafe practices and should be limited to only those who definitely need an absentee ballot.
Ballots floating around the precincts provide another opportunity for vote stealing. Unprotected ballot drop-boxes are another. As is failure to vet voters with identification verification.
For good reasons, federal courts are unwilling to take up cases that may decide elections, but that “good reason” makes it more difficult to correct voting miscounts.
The Pennsylvania case is but one example.
The state constitution says that only the legislature can change the voting rules. Yet, election official changed the rules to extend mail-in voting. Hundreds of thousands of people voted after the legal deadline. Yet, the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case. The justices were not about to throw out the well-intentioned votes of so many Americans simply because those in charge of the election broke the law.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court seemed to have relied on that vague “reliance doctrine” – meaning that the election officials were wrong but honest people relied on the belief that they were voting properly. In essence, the state Court said that the votes would count, but that the election officials were wrong and should never do that again.
An honest vote count depends on the proper tally of the votes AND on measures that eliminate opportunism for vote fraud – tightening up the frontend systems and procedures. That is what you see happening in virtually every state in America as local legislators strengthen the protective shield around our elections It is a state-based election reform movement because the Constitution gives the states the power to regulate their elections.
They understood the danger of nationalizing elections. That is why the Democrats’ For the People Act is so dangerous to our democratic process and the right of the people of the several states.
Perhaps the most effective means of understanding and fighting against vote fraud would be to have the national media actually report the facts instead of propagandizing on behalf of the vote fraud deniers. Contrary to the biased reporting, what most states – Republican and Democrat – are doing is protecting the vote. It is not about racism or suppression, but about making an important system a bit safer.
So, there ‘tis.