After winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote, Donald Trump alleged voter fraud. He went on to promise a “major investigation” into voter fraud, which failed to support his claim. As it stands, there is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in the 2016 election.
It must be noted that absence of evidence need not be conclusive as evidence of absence—but those claiming voter fraud exists bear the burden of proof. After all, proving that fraud has occurred simply requires finding some evidence of such fraud. Proving that no voter fraud occurred would require analyzing every voter and vote—a far more burdensome task. To use an analogy, if someone claims that there is a monster in Loch Ness, it is up to them to find it. It is not up to others to scour every centimeter of the Loch to prove that it is not there.
Significant voter fraud is rather like the Loch Ness monster—despite the failure of extensive efforts to find it, people keep claiming to have seen it. The latest sighting (of voter fraud, not the monster) was by Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin. At this time, Bevin seems to have lost the election by 5,000 votes. In response he claimed, without proving evidence or answering questions, that there were irregularities in the election.
If such irregularities occurred, it would be a serious matter and call the integrity of the election into question. Unfortunately for the governor, no election official has offered corroborating evidence—the election seems to have been conducted properly. It could, of course, be alleged that every election official is in on the conspiracy or that only the governor can see hidden irregularities. However, the most plausible explanation is that the governor was not telling the truth. Kentucky will, however, recanvas the election results. If it does turn out that Bevin was right, then he should either be regarded as a lucky guesser or praised for having a special ability to discern fraud.
If Bevin’s currently unsupported claim turns out to be wrong, then it would be reasonable to accuse him of crying voter fraud. For those who value the American democracy, this tactic is problematic because it unjustly undermines faith in the election system and thus makes it ever easier for others who lose elections to use the same tactic and thus undermine democracy further. It thus becomes a cycle of corrosion. When the fraud is not real, some people will still believe that the failure to act against the fraud is more evidence of conspiracy and fraud, thus making it worse. While real fraud would be bad, it would be something that could be addressed and thus faith could be restored. To use an analogy, someone who is a hypochondriac can never be cured of an unreal disease. In contrast, if someone is sick, they can generally be cured.
It might be objected that while Republicans cry voter fraud, Democrats cry voter suppression (and other things). Are the Democrats not just as bad? The first reply is that even if the Democrats were falsely crying voter suppression, this would not entail that the Republicans were somehow right about voter fraud or that they would be in the right. To think otherwise would be to fall into a fallacy.
The second reply is that there is, unlike voter fraud, evidence of voter suppression exists. The obvious counter is to argue that all the sources that provide evidence of voter fraud are biased and hence either lying or deceived. The challenge is, of course, to provide evidence that the are in error. In some cases, the reasoning runs in a circle: such sources are wrong about voter suppression because they are biased; they are biased because they claim voter suppression is real. In other cases, there are just ad hominem attacks: the sources are liberal, so they are wrong.
There is, however, no need to rely on liberal sources for evidence of efforts to undermine democracy. The leak of a trove of data recently revealed that certain Republicans believed that adding a citizenship question would help unfairly shift power to the Republicans. Interestingly, recent research shows that the question might not have had the impact the Republicans hoped. But this hardly gets them off the moral hook. If someone thinks you are allergic to peanuts and tries to kill you by secreting peanut dust in your food, they are not off the hook if it turns out you are not allergic to peanuts.
To be consistent, I must also pre-condemn any misdeeds by Democrats that involve making false claims about elections that undermine democracy. Obviously, there must be reliable evidence that such claims have been made and that they are false.
Yes, it’s clear to me that whatever Republicans do is wrong and Democrats are right. I don’t understand why half of America doesn’t get that.
Impeach the motherfucker!
In my limited view, I think that the term “Voter Fraud” is used more broadly than the legal definition might insist upon; you bring up the term “Voter Suppression” in contrast to the first term, but also talk about “irregularities”.
I would lump them all into a single bucket and say that there are some serious problems with our system. This is an American problem that you and other left-wing zealots want to turn into a partisan issue.
So perhaps it isn’t “Fraud” per se, but weren’t the Democrats gleefully pursuing Russian influence in our election process? And now with this whole Ukraine business, it has been shown that corruption in that country exercised undue influence in providing anti-Trump information to the DNC (not that that will ever see the light of day).
It is in the best interest of the United States to make sure that every vote counts, and that any legally cast vote is not negated by an illegally cast one – yet the partisan bickering and constant stream of claims and counter-claims has led to some really ridiculous conclusions – deciding that since no massive voter fraud plot has been uncovered that voter fraud at any level simply does not and cannot exist; and this insistence leads to the demand that a simple photo ID not be required … an ID that is required to have a beer, drive a car, get a job, go to school, and even walk down the street. But we’re absolutely certain that anyone who wants to vote is a citizen, whether they can prove it or not. Makes no sense to me at all.
I would also offer a counter to your Loch Ness example, and maybe offer the example of “Corruption in Government” instead. Although pockets of such corruption have been exposed (as have pockets of irregularities in voting), proving the existence of it on any kind of large scale is elusive at best.
And yet we all know it exists, don’t we? My own state capital of Albany is widely known as one of the most corrupt state governments in the US – so why aren’t there charges filed, convictions handed down, the so-called “swamp” cleaned?
My theory is that the corrupt politicians are protected by layer upon layer of political cover, rampant bureaucracy, quid-pro-quo, and media protection, layers so thick that conclusive proof just cannot be had.
Just look at the Ukraine involvement of the Obama administration, the rampant corruption of the Clinton Foundation, and the flaunting of influence by the Bidens – none of this will ever see the light of day thanks to all the protection these people enjoy – but we all know it ain’t even close to pure and honest.
And so it is with Voter Fraud. The left would like us to see it as “Crying Wolf”. They know damn well it exists and so do you – but as long as you can parse words and suppress evidence and refuse to acknowledge any irregularities, it’s fun to play pretend and accuse the right of whining for no reason, isn’t it? And being able to disparage Trump, when you all really know how he speaks in broad terms and doesn’t get as nit-picky as you – well, that’s just icing on the cake, isn’t it?
Mike, you do remember how the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf ends, right?
As far as I can see, there probably isn’t enough voter fraud of various kinds to make much of a difference at the moment.
But if ballot harvesting spreads, and you remove the controls from elections, you will have new forms of arguably legal, and very hard to prove election interference and corruption on an industrial scale that will dwarf anything Boss Tweed could ever have dreamed of.
On my campus, all employees and students carry a University ID. The ID is required to gain access to buildings and labs, and also acts as a debit card for dining and other services.
There is no history of any criminal activity or disturbance on campus caused by unauthorized visitors – and there is no record of non-University personnel coming on campus to use our computer labs or other facilities without having registered for classes.
And yet, this ID is required. Why?
It is a very simple, very low-level security measure – a preventive measure – in place to ensure that the people on campus, those availing themselves of university amenities like computers, software licenses, access to buildings, etc, are actually registered or affiliated in some way with the Institute. Should a lab become overcrowded and matriculated students be denied access to the facilities they are entitled to, the ID is a way of initially sorting things out, and removing anyone who has not gone through the process of registration, employment, or tuition payment. Although this has never, to my knowledge, happened.
No one is making the case that the people in town are being repressed, or unduly denied access. The rule is very simple – follow whatever process is available to gain a University ID, and your’e in.
And so it is with voting. Evidence of voter fraud should not be a prerequisite to asking for proof of citizenship – state after state posts their ID requirements well in advance of any election; they have Internet and telephone assistance for people to register, they waive the ID fee for indigent applicants, they take extreme measures to make sure that the ID requirement can be met by the poor, the unemployed, the homeless. There are counselors available in every state to help guide the disenfranchised through the system. The only real barrier to anyone voting is that they have to plan ahead a little, and make sure that they register in time.
It is a preventive measure, not a reaction to rampant crime. To associate something as simple as an ID with voter fraud is disingenuous; if voter ID laws were in place there would be far fewer, if any, accusations of fraud or inconsistencies.
If I were to suspect fraud and make some kind of accusation, and my accusation was met with, “Sir, we have an ID requirement for voting; everyone casting a ballot has gone through the process of proving citizenship and obtaining a valid ID”, well, that’d be the end of that.
On the other hand, if my accusation were met with, “Sir, although no ID is required to cast a vote, do you really believe that non-citizens would have the audacity to show up at the polls? ” well, that’s kind of a different story, isn’t it? Especially when one party’s platform includes a considerable amount of taxpayer support for these non-citizens in the form of welfare, food stamps, public education, in-state tuition … why wouldn’t a non-citizen cast a ballot for that if they can get away with it?
I know, I know – there’s no evidence. But there shouldn’t need to be. It’s preventative.
My University operates on a budget. We collect a certain amount of tuition dollars, we get a certain number of grants, gifts, bequests, we receive a certain amount of government money and a variety of other revenue amounts from various sources. This finite amount of money pays for all operations and capital expenditures every year; faculty and staff salaries, buildings and grounds maintenance, lab equipment, classroom equipment, and so on. Our expenses are predictable only to the extent that we can keep track of the number of people we serve in various capacities.
What if suddenly our classes started to fill up with additional, non-matriculated students? How would we know, if we didn’t have some kind of ID check? And what if these students began to fill out the required class evaluation forms at the end of every semester, and skewed the numbers to the negative such that faculty raises and promotions were affected? Does a situation like this actually have to exist in order for us to react to it, and only then require ID’s?
The same is true in my house. Two of us live here; we have two salaries, we pay for utilities, food, maintenance, repairs, etc. If some non-family member were to move in based on some entitlement or another, our budget would be thrown off and we may not be able to make ends meet. If three such people were to move in, the democratic decision-making process my wife and I follow with regard to household expenses, vacations, etc, would be overridden. And suddenly the new roof we planned can’t be put on because the three unplanned residents have been sucking up the household money by getting take-out every night. WE didn’t vote for that! But we have to pay for it!
That’s why my wife and I carry a special household ID. I check hers every time she comes home from work, and she checks mine. Hey – you never know. It’s preventative.
Ugh. I just realized I spent 10 minutes rehashing age old arguments that have been made a thousand times before, that fall on deaf ears. Sigh.
DH, it is painfully clear that Dems believe those who disagree with them are not just wrong, but evil. Policy differences are turned into fights between good and evil.
For example, in my view climate change is a technological problem that requires a technological solution. But Dems have turned climate change into a moral crusade with the primary message, “You must change your life.”
Even impeachment is boiling down to the Dems criminalizing policy differences.
If you leave your kitchen back door open a bit, and leave some food out on the floor, you will soon have mice, rats, squirrels, birds – whatever local vermin or scavengers – taking advantage of it.
If you leave your voting systems open for abuse, some bad actors will surely take advantage of that, too.
The weaknesses in computerised systems are quite different to those in open voting systems like ballot harvesting, of course, can be exploited by different methods, and so will attract different means of corruption.
Computerised systems without a verifiable voter confirmation can be compromised by a lone individual, in the offices of the programmer, or with access to the machines. Such a breach can leave zero evidence, other than in the code of the machine itself, and that can be overwritten.
Ballot harvesting will lead to inducement, bribery, intimidation, undue influence, and the selling of blocs of votes by companies, unions, or other organisations, in exchange for political favours. While there may be rumblings, and even evidence in plain sight, it will not be enough to sustain a charge of actual fraud. If a union, or a community collective, for example, runs “vote days” with refreshments and entertainments and pep talks, and implied coersion to turn up and drop your vote in the hands of the union rep or local bigwig, it may not force everybody into complying, but it will surely skew more than enough of the vote. And what can be proved as fraud?