We need to be aware of what is possible, what is fraud, and what is just bad.
Jan 21, 2025
I have a number of new data analyses to present in upcoming editions on this channel, but first, I want to build a foundation of the full range of scams that are possible, which ones are truly illegal, and which ones are not illegal but bad nevertheless.
Trump has now taken the oath of office. Is it worth continuing to analyze and examine the results to expose actual scams and any election fraud?
My response is that I have seen a number of elections that were technically wrong and had incorrect results, and these elections were corrected even significantly after election officials have officially certified the results. I see no reason why a presidential election is not in the same boat.
We have many red flags regarding this election, including a number of scams that were borderline if not blatantly illegal.
After hearing about how this election would set new records in terms of turnout, it was not a new record, as fewer votes were cast compared with 2020.
Quote1:"In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900…”
"Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. That is the second highest vote total in U.S. history, trailing only the 81,284,666 votes that Joe Biden won in 2020.”
Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast. That was 6,285,500 fewer popular votes than Biden won in 2020, but 774,847 more than Trump won in 2020.
So Trump did win the popular vote on a plurality basis by 77,284,118 - 74,999,166 = 2,284,952 out of 152,283,284 votes (of just those two, not including third parties). On a percentage basis, that is only 1.5% -- Strangely enough to 5 decimal places... 0.01500. It is within +/- 0.000005 of being exact. How many votes is that? only +/- 761 votes.
This is exactly the region where I have always theorized that hanky-panky can thrive, because the loser does not want to change too many votes and yet wants to change enough so it will be regarded as a done deal, and need not be scrutinized further. This win was so narrow that we can't immediately rule out that it was influenced by malicious manipulation.
We all watched what appeared to be a Trump campaign in trouble, with insiders quitting and plans disorganized. Trump could not fill venues that Harris was filling to the brim. The Harris campaign was running at top speed, with stunning media and well orchestrated events. Women’s issues were front and center.
In a number of places, Trump won despite down-ballot R-party candidates losing. This is unusual, and this type of split-party results raise a red flag. “Bullet Ballots” were found to be a false notion but the split party issue is still relevant (see post).
Also, in my most recent post, I pointed out the convincing evidence in Nevada, that D-Party votes were unusually limited to an apparent artificial limit.
Trump and his campaign, including supporters Musk and others claimed that they had inside information and were getting updates during the election.
Musk ran a sweepstakes scam2 where users might win $1 million if they registered to vote.
Musk contributed more than $120 million to Trumps campaign through a political action committee.
The recent theft of voting machines and distribution of source code revealed that a “back door” existed in all Dominion-based voting system that would allow election officials to obtain preliminary results (prior to the close of polls) and even to change the results. But we in the election integrity field have known for years that we must assume that any result must not be fully trusted without an audit of paper ballots (or images, since that is sometimes all we can get independently).
There were many other red flags. See this letter to the DOJ and Merrick Garland begging him to take action.
Therefore, the motive, means, and opportunity existed for the election to be manipulated. We must review this election without jumping to false conclusions, but with the knowledge that Trump was very motivated to win this election, and by any means, since he was likely facing jail time. Here, we live by EVIDENCE, not bogus claims.
Risk Limiting Audits were sometimes used to give the impression that the results were carefully reviewed, when in reality, those audits did nothing to check the presidential contest. This was the case in PA, and we will review that in later editions of this newsletter.
Election Scams
We need to be aware of the full gamut of possible scams. Here, I will not go into great detail about each scam. (I use the term “scam” because these action are not necessarily illegal and therefore is not “fraud.”) But as we consider various evidence in this election, we need to know where they fit into the complete spectrum
Pre-Election Rigging
After the 2020 election, many R-party controlled states instituted a vast number of new laws. Not all these were bad laws, but many were. As of about April 2021, the U.S. Census results were applied to the number of seats in the house and the number of electoral votes in the electoral college. The 2024 election was the first presidential election to be held after this critical form of rigging. The electoral college itself is frequently pointed to as the most important type of rigging, as small Red states like Wyoming have far more influence than they deserve when compared with high-population Blue states like California. But this rigging was put into place in original founding documents and will be much harder to change.
Gerrymandering and determining the shapes of congressional districts is probably the most “productive” type of rigging that is done, and this can be undone by using independent commissions to determine those districts. This was done recently in MI and CA and was very successful in undoing the prior rigging. Such gerrymandering is not isolated to one party — both have engaged in it, and it definitely does alter the results.
This is set of scams we must be particularly active to block between elections, because it is when the laws are changed!
Types of pre-election rigging:
Candidates, Policies and Platform
You would think this should be the most important, if not the only topics of importance in elections. Unfortunately, the actual policies and platforms of candidates is rarely discussed.
Messaging and Information Warfare
This category of scams is largely legal, even though a great deal of effort has been expended to both rein-in these actions and to allow them to expand.
Scams during the Election (not directly modifying votes)
It seems the list of scams in this category continues to grow as the competing parties become more creative. These may appear to be innocent errors but wind up altering the results through a second-order effect.
Modifying the Outcome
This category covers scams that are largely illegal and have been problematic in the past. Sometimes, false accusations have been made, such as in ballot harvesting with videos such as “2,000 Mules” which now has been fully debunked and the producers have admitted it is false.
Nevertheless, such scams are sometimes real. Also, modifying the results in the central tabulator is absolutely possible and accepted as a constant hazard by election integrity experts.
Prior to, or during Scanning:
After Scanning:
Changes to the tabulated results can largely be detected with robust audits that include all contests and all ballots in the procedure. We know the machines CAN be hacked and the solution to that is audits, and this is part of the design of elections today. Skipping the audits and declaring victories early are a tradition that we must change.
Checking the Results (Or just acting like it):
As mentioned, checking the results is essential, no matter what voting system is used. Using hand-counting of ballots does not exempt an election from needing additional checking of that process. Generally, we support hand-marked paper ballots with no machines during voting, and then using machines responsibly for tabulating and securing the election, particularly by securing ballot images with cryptographic mechanisms that will make them more trustworthy than changeable paper.
Conclusion:
We must continue to review the 2024 election and leave no stone unturned. The election scams outlined above can help us focus in on aspect that are important, and may have a basis for changing the outcome, versus information warfare that is commonly pointed to as election fraud, but is not.
Can you think of other categories of election scams that do not fit into the categories above? Please let me know in the comments, and I will amend the article when appropriate.