Update on Vote Fraud Finds Little

From Defend the Vote:

As I start this article, I must confess that I am on the #TrumpTrain. I believe the Jill Stein inspired presidential ballot recounts were part of a multi-faceted strategy to de-legitimize President-elect Trump’s election – a motive I do not support. However, politics aside, I love recounts! From an election security perspective, a recount is almost always going to yield results that will uncover and highlight weaknesses in the system. The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada did not disappoint.

Wisconsin: In Wisconsin, some voters cast votes on electronic voting machines, but voters primarily use paper ballots which tally ballots on optical scanners. The entire state was recounted, some by hand and some with the original voting equipment. No fraud was uncovered. There were some adjustments to the totals and ultimately President-elect Donald Trump gained a total of 162 votes. This is a minuscule variation in a state that cast 2,787,820 ballots.

According to Elections.wi.gov, “The biggest reason for these small differences between the unofficial results on Election Night, the counties original canvasses and the recount results is human error,” said WEC Administrator Michael Haas. “Some voters do not follow the instructions and mark their ballots correctly so the machines can count them. In the tight deadlines to report the results, election officials make math mistakes, we forget things, we accidentally transpose numbers.”

Michigan: Michigan is 100% paper ballot. The state has simple, direct laws about how voted and counted ballots must be sealed with a metal seal that has a number to track it. If a ballot box is not sealed properly or if the ballot total is different than the ballots cast, that precinct cannot be recounted. In Michigan, audits can include the entire voting process, not just the votes cast.

The Michigan audit showed voting irregularities in Detroit where the optical scanners in 392 precincts had more votes than voters. Except in about 20 precincts, the difference was 1-2 votes per precinct. This is a relatively small number of actual votes. Still, 392 of Detroit’s 662 precincts, which is nearly 60%, tabulated more ballots than voters. Systemically, something is wrong when there is a 60% error rate! Detroit News reported that Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office announced an audit in the 20 precincts with the highest discrepancies.

Most of the discrepancies will be attributed to basic machine or human error. There were multiple reports of malfunctioning machines counting the same ballot more than once when the ballot had an under-vote or over-vote error message. In another discrepancy, the ballots were left in the original ballot box and not correctly sealed in the ballot transport case.

The positive side of these findings is that the recount alerted Michigan to weaknesses in their system. Michigan legislators do care about election integrity, so I would expect positive changes in the law to take place.

Pennsylvania: While Pennsylvania does not require a paper ballot, some of the election jurisdictions do use paper ballots. Pennsylvania has at least 8 different voting systems used across the state and, much like Illinois, the overall administration of the vote is decentralized into many counties.

Before the court stopped the audit, 75 Philadelphia voting districts (precincts) were audited with no change in totals. Also, Pennsylvania has an automatic statewide 2% post-election audit of the voting machines. Statewide, this post-election audit was conducted without reporting of any unusual discrepancies.

Jill Stein did ask for an audit of the computer code. This request was shut down without any chance of success. Statements from computer experts assert that it would be very difficult to find malicious code in hundreds of thousand lines of code. In the specific instance of Pennsylvania, with the state’s many different election jurisdictions and varied voting systems, establishing a credible legal theory of code-driven voter fraud across the state is not likely. It would require someone to establish that the fraud was carried out on a diversity of voting systems with completely different computer codes and languages.

Nevada: The case in Nevada is quite disturbing, and we are watching this closely to see what the outcome is. This type of fraud begins at voter registration. Unlike the other three, this challenge did not come from Jill Stein, but from a candidate for a state-wide office.

Steve Vaughan was a candidate for the Republican Assembly Candidate for Nevada District 15. This just happens to be in Nevada’s largest county, Clark County, renowned as Harry Reid’s turf. While campaign workers were out canvasing, they documented every address they went to and spotted multiple irregularities. Problems such as 5 people registered to the same vacant lot.

Vaughan then sent 1st class letters to 17,086 of the voters in his district who were actively registered to vote at addresses his campaign identified as suspicious. Shockingly, 9,200 voter letters were returned undeliverable. Of these, Vaughan’s campaign checked 200 of the returned letters and found 185 had voted. At this point, the FBI came in and confiscated the evidence. I have not seen any updates since December 7th.

This is quite significant, and more-so if it is a statewide problem. There are 42 Assembly Districts in Nevada, each consisting of about 65,000 people. How widespread is this voter fraud? It is potentially mind boggling!

The voter rolls in the 42nd Assembly District in Nevada have something seriously wrong with them. When voter registration rolls are not properly maintained and when there is no security that those on the rolls are legally registered and USA Citizens, the potential for fraud dramatically increases. In the modern age of technology it is not difficult to have clean voter registration rolls.

We are waiting to see the result of this shocking investigation!

Defend the Vote has maintained that in Illinois the most vulnerable votes are mail-in-paper ballots and nursing home voting. Illinois also has a need to work more diligently to assure that the voter registration rolls are purged of ineligible voters. Our next article will discuss this challenge.


Update on Vote Fraud Finds Little — 10 Comments

  1. Pretty funny how party shills stopped complaining about voter fraud after the election.

    Voter fraud is a non-issue.

    What is an issue is voter disenfranchisement and voter apathy.

    How is it that there are millions of women who went to the streets in opposition of Trump today?

    How is this possible?


    Where were you 100 days ago?

    A year ago?

    Were you calling your neighbors?

    Were you knocking doors?

    Were you donating to your candidate?

    I used to call myself a Democrat and now am second guessing that party affiliation because why should I try and support safeguarding the healthcare for millions of women protesting in the streets today when they were too lazy to read that Trump and the GOP were going to repeal the ACA and didn’t wait until after the election to get mobilized?

    Why should i stand up for those idiots?

  2. I was considering attacking you in that post, Cindy, because you chimed in about voter fraud months ago indicating it was a HUGE issue.

    Yet, strange.

    You’ve been oddly silent about voter fraud.

    Seems to not be an issue anymore does it ya’ old bag.

  3. Never was any kind of issue with me.

    (Unlike the emotional morons – I don’t have issues.)

    I state the truth and leave it out there.

    Nice touch, with the name calling.

    Someday you will get old (if you are very lucky) and I can only wish you the same honor and respect that you dole out.

  4. By all means let’s ignore the elephant (not the GOP) in the room.

    Let’s ignore:

    “Jill Stein did ask for an audit of the computer code.”

    “Statements from computer experts assert that it would be very difficult to find malicious code in hundreds of thousand lines of code.”

    I have been responsible for systems which were written with hundreds of thousand lines of code and that is a cop out!

    I personally would like to see a complete audit of all software used to scan ballots and tabulate results.

    Not a government audit, but a citizen audit.

    OR I would like to see a 100 % hand recount for the audits conducted by states.

  5. Illinois State Board of Elections

    Preventing Vote Fraud

    10 ILCS 5/29

    What is Vote Fraud?

    Vote fraud is a clear intent or action aimed at depriving a voter of his right to vote or falsifying actual votes cast.

    Voters can play a major role in helping to guarantee clean elections by being on the alert for unusual activities at or near polling places and reporting irregularities to election authorities.

    Some of the more common methods of fraudulent activity include:

    – Vote buying, offering money or gifts to a voter to vote for a specific candidate;

    – Chain balloting, taking a previously marked ballot from the polls and passing it to a voterentering the polls;

    – Ghost voting, voting under the name of a deceased person a fictitious name, or anonexistent address;

    – Altering the figures on the tally sheet during the counting of ballots.

    What Are Some Signs of Suspicious Behavior?

    – Money changing hands in or near the polls.

    – Someone passing a folded piece of paper or card to a voter who hides it on his/herperson.

    Note: voters may possess and use sample ballots to assist them while voting.

    – A person claiming to be someone else in order to vote.

    Also, someone giving and address or place that you know is an empty lot. Or, if you know a person doesn’t live atthe address which he claims.

    – More than one person in a voting booth, except under these circumstances: (a) if adisabled person signed an affidavit requesting assistance, he may have a friend or twojudges of election (one from each party) assist him; or (b) one or more children under theage of 18 may accompany their parent or guardian into a voting booth.

    – Electioneering within the Campaign Free Zone.

    – Intoxicated voters being given assistance in the voting booth.

    – Election Judges from both major parties are not represented in the polling place.

    – The judges of election are not in control of the polling place; for example, if you seesomeone giving orders to the election judges.


    – The judges of election are the sole authority in the polling place on Election Day.

    – No person, except a judge, may handle or touch election supplies and materials.

    – A law enforcement officer may be in the polling place to preserve order and carry out lawful directions given by the judges.

    – Pollwatchers are official observers only.

    They may observe the conduct of the election before, during, and after the polls close.

    All pollwatchers must present valid credentials upon entering the polling place.

    – Electioneering, or any type of campaigning, must not take place in the Campaign Free Zone during voting hours.

    – Minor children may accompany their parent or guardian into the voting booth if requested of the election officers and if the election officers determine that the children are not likely to disrupt or interfere with the voting process or influence the casting of a vote.

    Who Can Prevent Vote Fraud?

    Any voter that notices unusual activities or irregularities that should not be happening at the polls, should report it immediately to the election judges and/or appropriate authorities, such as the county clerk, county state’s attorney’s office, board of election commissioners, or the Illinois Attorney General’s office.

    Revised 6/1015

    http://www.elections.il.gov/Publications.aspx > Publications > Preventing Vote Fraud

  6. Illinois State Board of Elections

    IIlinois Pollwatchers

    10 ILCS 5/17-23

    What Are Pollwatchers?

    The great majority of election officials are honest and dedicated; however, even the most honest election officials can make mistakes.

    Pollwatchers sometimes referred to as challengers, checkers or watchers, are election observers who aid in ensuring the free and fair conduct of elections.

    Pollwatchers may be in the polling place before the polls open, during the actual voting hours, and after the polls close.

    What Are The Qualifications Necessary to Become a Pollwatcher?

    A pollwatcher must be registered to vote in the State of Illinois and must be affiliated with the party or organization he/she is representing.

    Who Authorizes An Individual to Become a Pollwatcher?

    Pollwatchers may represent established political parties, candidates, qualified organizations of citizens, State nonpartisan civic organizations, or organized proponents or opponents of ballot propositions.

    Each pollwatcher must have credentials issued by the election authority (county clerk or board of election commissioners) or by the Illinois State Board of Elections.

    These credentials must be presented by the pollwatcher to the election judges immediately upon entering the polling place.

    What Are Some of The Specific Rights of Pollwatchers?

    – Before the first ballot is cast, pollwatchers may observe that the ballot box is empty;

    – Pollwatchers may position themselves near enough to the election judges to examine the applications for ballot;

    – Pollwatchers may observe as the judges compare the voter applicant’s signature on the application with the signature on the registration records;

    – Pollwatchers may watch as the judges initial and distribute the ballots to voter, and as the ballots are deposited into the ballot box after the voter has voted;

    – Pollwatchers may challenge a person’s right to vote. A reason for the challenge must be stated.

    (Possible reasons include the person voted earlier in the day, the person moved, or the person lacks qualifications);

    – The judges of election determine whether or not to sustain a challenge;

    – Pollwatchers may observe the counting procedures after the polls close and at the central counting location(s) established by the election authority.

    What Should a Pollwatcher Do If He Observes An Administrative Error or Sees an Apparent Violation on the Part of Election Judges or Voters?

    The pollwatcher should politely inform the election judges if he observes an error or an apparent violation.

    If the error or violation continues, the pollwatcher should record his/her observations, immediately contact the election authority and remain at the polling place until proper authorities arrive.

    Under no circumstances should a pollwatcher argue with the election judges or interfere with the election process.

    Is There a Limit to the Number of Pollwatchers Allowed in a Polling Place?

    Yes, the number of pollwatchers allowed in the polling place at any one time is limited by law.

    A candidate may always appoint two pollwatchers per precinct, while all other organizations may only appoint one pollwatcher per precinct.

    The only exception to this is that established political parties may appoint two pollwatchers per precinct at each General and Consolidated General Election.

    If over-crowding interferes with the orderly conduct of the election, the judges of election may limit the number of pollwatchers.

    The election judges may cause the removal of any pollwatcher who is disrupting the election process.


    Pollwatchers are official observers only.

    They may observe the conduct of the election before, during, and after the polls close.

    All pollwatchers must present valid credentials upon entering the polling place.

    The judges of elections are the sole authority in the polling place on Election Day.

    No person, except a judge, may handle or touch election supplies and materials.

    A law enforcement official may be in the polling place to preserve order and carry out lawful directions given by the judges.

    Electioneering or any type of campaigning must not take place within the Campaign Free Zone (100 horizontal feet from the entrance to the room in which voting is being conducted).

    Where ballots are counted in the office of the election authority, each political party, candidate, qualified organization of citizens, State nonpartisan civic organizations, or organized proponents or opponents of ballot propositions shall be entitled to have one pollwatcher for each panel of election judges.

    Pollwatchers shall be permitted to observe all proceedings and view all reasonably requested records relating to the conduct of the election, provided the secrecy of the ballot is not impinged.

    Pollwatchers may be appointed to observe early voting by personal appearance at each permanent and temporary polling place where early voting is conducted.

    Revised 6/10/15

    http://www.elections.il.gov/Publications.aspx > Pamphlets > Illinois Pollwatchers Brochure

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.