Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here’s Your Evidence.

[Updated Nov 25th at 2:55 PM MST]

Has anyone ever told you that “You can’t do it” and “You’re crazy” over and over? Perhaps they’ve told you this so many times, you’ve started to believe it yourself. This is what’s happening in our election today. The media is telling us “There is no evidence. You can’t prove it” and “You are just a crazy conspiracy theorist” over and over again. They’re gaslighting, ridiculing, and dismissing. But we all know something is up. 70% of Republicans suspect foul play; far higher than it has ever been in the history of U.S. elections. Something doesn’t smell right, even if we can’t quite put our finger on it. Can we do better than that though? Can we provide evidence? I will argue that we most certainly can. If you suspect fraud or you are open to the possibility, this article is for you. 


First, it is important we begin with a clear and precise thesis: 

We will be using BBC’s criteria to make the minimal claim that we have good reason to suspect that there is targeted fraud in some key battleground states (PA, WI, MI, GA, and AZ). Their results do not pass the “sniff” test. We are not claiming there is decisive evidence of targeted fraud (yet), that there is nation-wide voter fraud in every state, that every Democrat and news outlet is conspiring together, or that there is massive fraud in the millions. Rather, we are making the more limited and the far more modest claim that we tentatively have good reason to suspect that targeted fraud exists in some of the key states, that several powerful figures are behind this, and that this fraud is significant enough to flip the election in Trump’s favor even if that is by a small margin. 

We are taking a minimal approach here because it is intellectually honest, easier to prove, and more persuasive. If instead we started with a claim like “There are millions of fraudulent ballots! Everyone is in on this!” then not only would it clearly be false, a skeptic would dismiss our case entirely and believe that there is nothing to it whatsoever. Now if you believe the evidence justifies a stronger thesis, that’s perfectly compatible with this thesis. I am not saying that the minimal, and only the minimal thesis is true. I am simply arguing that at least the minimal thesis is true. 

Second, we should make a distinction between radical conspiracies and normal conspiracies. Radical conspiracies are like faked moon landings, lizard people ruling the earth from the underground, and all of that crazy stuff. Normal conspiracies are just normal human beings with normal motives conspiring to do bad things. This happens all of the time. North Korea’s leaders conspire to oppress their people, Nazi Germany conspired to murder Jews, Japan conspired to bomb Pearl Harbor, thieves conspire to rob banks, and you get the point. The idea that voter fraud took place in this election is a normal conspiracy. All this conspiracy requires in order to work is a few people with the means, motive, and opportunity in some key areas. That’s why I call it targeted fraud rather than massive fraud. 

Don’t let anyone get away with conflating targeted fraud with radical conspiracies. If they do, make this point: These same people accepted baseless conspiracy theories like the Russian Collusion hoax despite the fact that Leftists journalists like Matt Taibbi and Greenwald showed it was baseless. They also immediately rejected the Hunter-Biden emails as Russian disinformation without any evidence whatsoever. They’re  not in any position to ridicule us. To better understand why this is not a radical conspiracy, I would highly recommend Edward Feser’s article against conspiracies. 

Now, my job is to provide evidence of targeted fraud. But before I do, I need to lay the foundation because that will help support our evidence. Four things will comprise our foundation: historical precedent, means, motive, and opportunity. As I was writing this, Edward Feser posted an article with a similar structure here. You should read that as well. 

Historical precedent

Has voter fraud happened before? Yes!

    • Heritage records 1,298 proven instances of voter fraud. 
    • 20 state elections have been overturned due to fraud. 
    • Abraham Lincoln faced the most elaborate election fraud scheme in America’s history with mail-in ballots. 
    • In 1994 the Democrats enforced a “massive scheme” to steal the PA’s Senate election.
    • A great plot to sway Montenegro’s election was uncovered. 
    • Significant voter fraud seems to have occurred in Bolivia.  
    • Both Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter were concerned about voter fraud. 
    • More recently, NJ had rampant voter fraud. 
    • The DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in the election process. 
    • Non-partisan experts discovered very extensive evidence of suspicious discrepancies in 2016’s election that “were overwhelmingly to Clinton’s benefit.”
    • Venezuela’s election had 1 million fake votes. 
    • There’s evidence that Al Franken won through voter fraud. 
    • A historian thinks Nixon may have been cheated out by 100,000-200,000 votes. 
    • Rod Blagojevich, a former governer of Illinois who was convicted of selling a Senate seat and other corrupt activities, claims voter fraud occurs on a regular basis. 
    • Most countries ban mail-in voting because of significant fraud problems. 
    • Steve Baker says “there is widespread abuse of postal votes…”
    • A 2007 report by Teresa James and Michael Slater found that “Vote by mail is more susceptible to corruption than voting at polling places.”  
    • 15 elections were thrown out because of fraudulent mail-in ballots. 
    • In 2012 the NY Times said mail in ballots are “more likely to be compromised.” 
    • NPR reports thousands of mail in ballots were rejected, admitting that it is “fraught with potential problems.”
    • Republican Steve Watkins was charged with voter fraud.
    • In 2016, NYC wrongfully purged 200,000 voters.
    • Former election official pleads guilty to stuffing ballot box for Democrats.
    • Some “fact checkers” use the Brennan Center Report to dismiss voter fraud. John Glibbs provides a good response.
    • Georgia official admits 1,000 people voted twice in the primaries.
    • For more evidence of mall-in ballot fraud, see here, here, and here. 
    • Just Facts estimates that probably 1 million non-citizens have voted in the past. Briggs refutes the fact checkers on this. 


Do the Democrats have the ability to commit targeted fraud? You bet. 

    • Tech experts were able to hack an election in seven minutes. 
    • Russians were purportedly able to hack our 2016 election. 
    • The Guardian criticized Dominion for acting like “they are above the law.” 
    • A federal judge “expressed serious concerns’ about Dominion’s system in Georgia. 
    • An academic paper claims Dominon’s systems “cannot assure the will of the voters.” 
    • 96% of Dominon’s donations go to Democrats. They admit as much.
    • The Brennan Center for Justice claimed that election vendors are prime targets that require oversight. 
    • Voting machine firms reportedly added lobbyists. 
    • Elizabeth Warren and others filed a formal complaint over the machines switching votes. 
    • AP questioned the reliability of these new voting machines. 
    • A whistleblower on the NY post explains how voter fraud works.
    • An extensive study by Public Interest Legal Foundation suggests that there are 300,000+ dead people on voter rolls. 
    • One million dead people got stimulus checks. 
    • There are 1.8 million possible ghost voters. 
    • One study shows that there are 353 U.S. counties with registration rates exceeding 100% of eligible voters.

All it takes is one hacker to affect this entire election. Just one. It’s also clear that politicians have the arsenal (dead people, ghost voters, illegal voters) and questionable voting systems to do damage. I am not saying that the full arsenal is being used – especially since some errors are gradually being corrected – but it leaves open the real possibility of targeted fraud. 

Motive & Opportunity

Democrats have the king of all motives and plenty of opportunity. 

    • Trump and his supporters are the embodiment of all that is wrong with America.
    • They are white supremacists, sexists, anti-Muslim, anti-LGBTQ, despicable fascists, sycophants, hateful liars, neo-nazis, and anti-rights. 
    • Some even claim that Trump is more dangerous than Hitler! 
    • Nancy Pelosi herself showed nothing but unprecedented contempt when she tore up Trump’s State of Union address. 
    • After Biden’s alleged win, the Left celebrated like crazy and shouted all kinds of profanities against Trump.
    • If given the opportunity, why wouldn’t Democrats remove Trump (aka Hitler) illegally? 
    • Voter fraud already occurs often enough at a smaller scale, and it has happened (although less commonly) at a larger scale. The opportunity exists.

As you can perhaps see now, there is some basis or evidence for our suspicion based on the data presented above. But that data and reason by itself is not sufficient to show we have good reason for thinking that targeted voter fraud took place in 2020. We need to look at the specific events that occurred in 2020 in order to justify our thesis. 

The Evidence

In 2016 BBC provided a very helpful set of criteria (or signs) of a rigged election. Elizabeth Blunt is an experienced BBC journalist who has witnessed many elections in Africa, some of which were proven to be rigged. There is no better source to use because she has no political axe to grind. Recall, however, that this article is not claiming to provide decisive evidence. Just as a fire alarm going off, screaming, and smoke is evidence of fire, so too are these signs evidence of fraud. But these signs could obviously be wrong. The fire alarm going off, the screaming, and the smoke might be explained by a broken alarm, a loud horror movie, and a bachelor overcooking his food.

It’s possible then to provide reasonable explanations of these signs but that shouldn’t be our first instinct. We should take it at face value, especially because of what’s at stake. We’d be perfectly justified in our belief that there is a fire until proven otherwise. Same applies here. When we take these signs together, it provides a good cumulative case for targeted fraud, which calls for further investigation. So without further, let’s go through a few of the signs and show how it parallels what is happening in this election. 

Delay in announcing results

It is an undeniable fact that results got delayed. As BBC says, however, this by itself is not “necessarily a sign of rigging” but it “is certainly dangerous.” No doubt these delays can primarily be explained by COVID-19 and by the unprecedented amount of mail-in ballots that require additional verification. But explaining why delay has occurred does not magically remove the fact that it greatly increases the risk of fraud and should be viewed with suspicion. Especially when tensions are as high as they are in the U.S. this year, it is simply disgraceful and dangerous that our country “has no ability to perform the simple task of counting votes in a minimally efficient or confidence-inspiring manner.” As Greenwald further points out, Brazil with a population of 210 million “holds seamless, quick vote counts about which very few people harbor doubts” despite being “much poorer and less technologically advanced country than the U.S.”  New York was so embarrassed by their slow processs that they admit it would be a “national scandal” if they were a swing state.

We not only had serious delays, which makes the process vulnerable, we had other suspicious events surround it. Key states (MI, WI, and PA) suddenly flipped from Trump to Biden overnight after some ballot dumps. PA stopped counting mail in ballots at 9:30 PM. Poll Watchers were prohibited or obscured from doing their job. We saw sudden spikes for Biden.  A Leftist source reports a now famous spike in Wisconsin for Biden. Another PA reported a ballot dump with a 92-8 margin, while another ballot dump of 23,277 was for Biden. Michigan’s vote dump had 138,339 Biden votes, that was said to be an error.  Another glitch in Miichigan gave 6,000 votes to Biden. Antrim County flipped blue because of a glitch. Another error in Georgia was found that reduced Biden’s lead from 7,000 to 4,000. 20,000 votes all came for Biden while 1,000 Trump votes disappeared. 2,600 uncounted votes, mostly for Trump, were found on a memory card. A third Georgia county found the same. Interesting how almost all of these “errors” and “spikes” favored Biden.

A mathematician, in a sworn statement, flagged 100,000 ballots in PA. Voter Integrity provides the definitive statistical analysis of anomalies thus far. More data analysis of fraud can be found here, here, and here. These irregularities are so problematic, Michigan’s Supreme Court believes the evidence substantiates voter fraud.

Too Many Voters

As BBC notes, even in areas where voting is obligatory, “turnout only reaches 90-95%.” If we see these numbers in our counties, it’s a red flag. Minnesota had a 90% turnout and Wisconsin had a 89% turnout. These are highly abnormal turnouts, especially when we compare them to nearby or similar states like Florida and Iowa that had 10% less turnout. Olmstead saw a 90% voter turnout. Milwaukee had close to 100% turnout. The officials of Milwaukee scrambled to correct the numbers, which the fact checkers make use of, but it’s still problematic. 

High Turnout in Specific Areas

A study shows that in PA “Biden soared in three predominately R counties, by 1.24 to 1.43 times greater than either Obama run or Hillary” which seems to be quite a suspicious turnout. It is also odd that PA and MI had massive mail-in ballot numbers compared to the rest of the country. Another confirms that mail in ballots in PA and MI dwarfed other swing states. We also had an abnormally high number of Biden-only ballots in the key states: 98,000 in PA, 80,000 in GA, 90,000~ in MI, and 62,000 in WI. Biden’s absentee lead does not match up with other states. Another person observed that Joe Biden votes greatly exceeds the votes that Senate candidates received in swing states, whereas those cast for Trump and GOP senators are much closer. This is suspicious because the overwhelming vast majority of people said they’d vote a straight party ticket, and the great dissimilarity just doesn’t make sense. 

Large Numbers of Invalid Votes

This data is still forthcoming, but according to NPR, we already have 550,000 primary absentee ballots rejected that far outpaces 2016. NY Times says that nearly 100,000 invalid absentee ballots were sent. There’s a lawsuit, backed by eyewitness testimony with signed affidavits, claiming that 40,000 ballots in Detroit are invalid. Kayleigh claims to have 230 pages of signed affidavits of questionable practices by various officials, some of which mention discarded votes. 

Miscellaneous Evidence

Other crumbs that raise concerns over our election’s reliability

    • More than 200,000 ballots in Nevada got sent to the wrong address
    • Interestingly, Trump has been warning about voter fraud since 2012. This challenges the narrative that Trump screams fraud only for self-interest.
    • This year 80,000 ballots were disqualified in NYC. 35,000 in Florida.
    • CNN says 160,000 ballots were not delivered in Maryland. 
    • California rejected 100,000 mail in ballots this year.
    • Wisconsin rejected 23,000 ballots because of a small error (Trump’s prior 2016 margins), which can make the difference between winning or losing.
    • 28 million ballots have been missing in the last four elections! 
    • 72% of Detroit’s absentee ballot counts were off.
    • PA rejects 372,000 ballots because of duplicates, causing “mistrust in already-anxious voters.” They caught it this time, but what else is falling through the cracks?
    • First hand account of election workers kicking out GOP observers.
    • Secretary of PA Improperly Changed Deadline 2 Days Before Election Day.
    • Some Dominion Systems are connected to the internet when they shouldn’t be.
    • PA count late ballots without postmarks as if they were received on Election Day
    • Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Operations filed an affidavit, stating that our systems have large vulnerabilities and the election has significant anomalies. 
    • Twitter user gives an interesting analysis of the election data. 
    • Jennifer Cohn presents Dominion’s suspicious history.
    • Benford’s law might have use for detecting fraud, but proceed with caution. 


“If there is fraud, how do you explain the Democrats losing the Senate?”

The answer is quite simple. A good thief focuses on the crown jewel; taking other jewels in the process radically increases the risk. A good thief cannot get too greedy. Trump is that crown jewel. If they tried to take over the House and Senate, it would not only be monstrously harder (requiring massive fraud as opposed to targeted fraud), it would infuriate the GOP and unite them under Trump. This objection makes as little sense as saying a man cannot be guilty of robbery because he didn’t rob all of the money. Lastly, it’s worth pointing out that just because the Democrats lost the Senate does not mean that they didn’t succeed in stealing some seats. We just don’t know yet.

“But fact checkers say x irregularity is not evidence of voter fraud!”

First off, most fact checkers agree that these glitches, irregularities, and events occurred. They just deny it is evidence of fraud because they examine each irregularity or event in isolation. They’re right. No single irregularity by itself is evidence of fraud, but when we combine them with other irregularities and events, it obviously becomes evidence in the same way a fire alarm, screaming, and smoke is evidence of a fire. Second, we must be wary of fact checkers because they’ve made significant errors, are biased, and are not trained in critical thought. I have seen fact checkers quote representatives of Dominion Systems to show that voter fraud did not occur, which is as ridiculous as asking an alleged robber if they robbed a bank. Of course they’re going to deny it. Now I’m not saying do not use fact checkers whatsoever. I used them to weed through a lot of false information about voter fraud. But you should always read them critically.

“If your evidence is so great, why don’t you give it to the courts?” 

I am a philosopher, not a lawyer. My goal is to persuade the American people that at the very least we have good reason to be skeptical of this election’s integrity. I am not claiming to have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there is fraud. So if the courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then this article obviously fails to meet that standard – which is not a refutation because that was not my goal in the first place. This is equivalent to telling a soccer player he lost because he wasn’t playing basketball. Furthermore, not everything that is true can be proved in the courts. You can be justified in believing that John was lying to you even if you couldn’t prove it in court. I suspect, however, that in court we do not need proof of voter fraud because reasonable doubt over this election’s integrity may suffice to call for a serious investigation or recall. If that’s the case then this article may serve to help that cause after all, but again, I am not a lawyer so who knows. 


I will be quoting someone from a private email exchange (the links are my additions) because he sums this up very well: “Going into midnight on Election Day, President Trump was leading by historic margins in Florida, Ohio, and a dozen bell-weather counties which have been accurate in 90% of past elections. He was up across all voter demographics including African Americans and Hispanics. Still, Fox and others refused to call key states in his favor (even Alaska!). Everywhere you looked, Trump was outperforming. Then swing states with Democratic governors stopped counting with no explanation. Later, at 4 AM, massive dumps of unobserved ballots ostensibly tipped the key races in Biden’s favor.” What are the odds that almost all of these irregularities, high turnouts, and ballot dumps in key states consistently favor Biden? These are serious errors. What are the odds that Florida and other counties failed to predict this election’s outcome ?  It’d be absurd to deny it’s improbable! Attach this improbability to the foundation we built earlier and we have a good case for targeted voter fraud.

What amazes me is how dismissive and arrogant people get over this issue. Imagine someone saw signs of a fire next door but kept mocking, “No decisive evidence you idiots!” instead of calling 911 or investigating it. It’d be absolutely unacceptable, if not downright immoral. That’s happening right now. No good person could possibly claim to champion people’s rights while dismissing their concerns of possible fraud. The integrity of our vote and our elective system is at stake here. Now it may turn out that these signs, while normally reliable, are best explained by something other than fraud. I am perfectly open to being wrong. However, as of now we have good reason for believing this. Our view can be falsified if the DOJ, FBI, courts, and other independent agencies properly investigate and say otherwise. Time will tell. In the meantime, I would recommend further research using the articles below. I do not accept every claim made in these articles, but they remain helpful and interesting. 

Further Reading

    • Mark Chatham’s article shows that our 2020 election would be considered fraudulent if held in a foreign country. A must read. 
    • Daniel Horowitz gives a similar, carefully argued case for voter fraud.
    • ZeroHedge offers a good analysis of fraud in PA. 
    • Libertas Bella has an extensive take on the evidence.
    • Every Legal Vote has a lengthy article explaining why this election is suspect.
    • Michael Anton warned of a coming coup here and here.
    • Here Is The Evidence records irregularities and anomalies.

147 thoughts on “Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here’s Your Evidence.”

  1. There are so many problems with your assumptions in this piece that it’s hard to find where to start… First of all, 90% turnout in Minnesota isn’t that surprising… Historically the state has very high voter turnout, the lowest on record turnout was in 1996 at 66.6% ( You chose to compare Minnesota to “nearby” states rather than itself in past elections which discounts your claim that this is an unbiased essay. The Milwaukee vote mistake was done by a republican and immediately fixed, this is well known.
    Your source for the tossed Trump ballots says “The small number of mishandled military ballots at a Pennsylvania elections board that sparked a federal inquiry and allegations from the Trump campaign that Democrats were “trying to steal the election” were actually “incorrectly” tossed by a temp, a county official said Friday.”.. I’m guessing for most of this piece you’re counting on people not checking your sources.

    This is a very sad and unconvincing piece of work, do better.

        1. Maybe if you made an honest effort to research you would see just how much evidence there is. Do your own homework. The media denying there is any evidence is like denying the sun comes up in the morning.

    1. Rational and William are either the same person, or using a social media amplifier app to post similar messaging. “Do better” twice in a row? I think not.

      1. Or, just perhaps, your reading comprehension is off. Try reading those 2 comments again in sequence, regarding “William”s comment as a response to “Rational”, and hopefully this time the penny will drop…

        …however, I actually agree with “Rational”, and I’m sure he could do a number on other points, but then who has the time for that? But then Gil isn’t claiming to be doing more than providing pseudo-intellectual cover for folks who are suspicious of the result. Which, IMO, is actually doing American democracy a huge disservice right now, because there are people who have looked into these issues far more deeply and failed to come up with the necessary proof. However, like guns, this whole thing is out there now, so it would be good to have things thoroughly investigated and squashed. And those who have been deliberately trying to undermine the election result should be dealt with accordingly.

    2. The article was very good. Fraud isn’t one sided. there are Republicans who cheat also.
      Your denial of fraud makes it suspect that you, yourself are a cheating type. If you want to believe the Dem side, walk with caution, you might trip over your own words.

      1. No Gil, you haven’t proven a thing yet. I’m on your side. there is no one, alive or dead, that hates the Democrappic team – starting with the quenella: BHO/Hillary than me. But we do need more than smoking guns.

        341,542 :
        In the interminably long press conference that is the number of votes Sidney Powell came up with, twice in different locales. If that is proven- get out the cuffs.

    3. that all ya got … pretty poor … liberalism is a mental disorder
      Sgt Schultz … is that you ? I see nothing, I know nothing …
      c’mon man !

    4. You would “do better” to change your internet “handle,” pen name, or whatever you call it. Your denial is irrational.

    5. Not much to say! Obviously your corrupt and don’t want a valid recount with actual observers! There’s never been a more corrupt election and it’s clear unless totally blind. If your blind, what wrong with legitimate counting

    6. I actually think it’s an intelligent piece of writing. And I’m an Australian with no particular interest in seeing Trump win.

      1. Snap….I am a English lady who has no connection whatsoever with either side of the American political parties, but I could see that this ‘Election’ was fraudulent immediately, by using logic and common sense. Biden/Democrats could never have won without cheating and the Democrats knew this well in advance. The most simple solution to avoid conflict moving forward should have been for the entire vote in each disputed state to be seized by the military, independent observers employed and a complete recount, watched at a close distance by both sides, and a thorough examination done. A reasonable request. Anything less should not satisfy either political party unless guilty and trying to rule by deceit/cheating.

    7. Not to mention that voter turnout was not 90% ( in Minnesota. It was just under 80% which then shifts all of the other “factual numbers”.

      Interesting this was written from a “philosophical perspective” and I greatly enjoyed that aspect. From an empirical perspective though, it was poor.

      I’m no philosopher although based on the article I presume a single source or analogy is enough to make a convincing statement. There was no fact checking (such is the state of US politics – people who are polarised into their own echo chambers), or even any contradictory thoughts.

      For other readers hopefully seeing this comment, my advice to you over this election would be if you’re firmly believing either side, try challenging and see what comes up. Personally, I don’t believe there was fraud and discovering articles such as this would further strengthen that statement.

      “Correlation does not equal causality” is a really important thing to remember and rule to use when discussing such things. Unfortunately, this article is entirely correlation (e.g. Trump tweeting about Voter fraud in 2014 + claiming voter fraud in 2020 = Trump is clearly not acting in his self interest. This is correlation does not equal causality at it’s very best). If you look at voter fraud, once you place all of the challenges under extremely significant pressure, none of the claims hold water. There is no evidence, there is no consistency.

      If you look on the other side, there are plenty of arguments for significant claims e.g. dead people voting (it’s people with deceased parents who have the same name. This isn’t unusual is Western countries), a lot of people’s birthday’s being the same (default values in SQL), claims of people stuffing ballots electronically, hiding ballots, etc etc (entirely anecdotal and as significant as me telling all of you Donald Trump personally told me he knew he was going to lose and then cry about it. Of course you would ask for evidence and it would be up to me to provide it as I’m making the claim- why should the opposition feel any different?).

    8. Also 90% turnout for Minnesota doesn’t look like it’s right. Minnesota’s Secretary of State, Steven Simon, boasted on Twitter that Minnesota had the highest turnout in the US at 80%.

    9. While they have a great turnout percentage, your claim is 20% points off.
      BTW, I don’t even think you read this article. There is tons of evidence there, you just refuse to read or believe it.
      All this makes you the perfect Democrat voter, ignorant, misinformed, clueless, and follow your leaders blindly and agree/do whatever they want, legal or illegal.

    10. I see an organized presentation which argues that election fraud should be thoroughly investigated, and links to evidence galore. However, there is such a thing as Invincible Ignorance which must be overcome. There really are people who think that a demented old gaffemaster, who hid in his basement most of the time during the campaign, accrued more votes than both Obama and Trump. Perhaps Biden seems “safe” and familiar to them, like their old uncle who paid a little too much attention to the little girls.

    11. Yet You alone have only cited a speck of the allegations and issues that have been brought to the attention of authorities in 6 states….. Why ? When six states have overwhelming issues that Election Authorities are obligated to investigate…. Yet of the six states in question not a single one has been willing to open an investigation, audit the vote or track the computer results with a traceable paper trail…. Now we are left with questions, questions that are rightfully present in a democracy. Keep that in mind.

    12. If you’re going to complain about the author’s argument, you should at least fact check your own first. You mentioned that he is counting on people not checking sources, yet the source you gave does not support your claim at all. The highest turnout on record is 83.2%, which is much lower than 90%, considering the average is 74%. Both of these extremes (other than the most recent 90%) are within 10% of average. Also, if you’re going to refute a claim, make sure you don’t have any comma splices. You used two. Your comment is very sad and unconvincing itself. Do better next time.

    13. Agreed. I could not find any “evidence” here, and I was looking. All these arguments for “suspicion” would apply equally as reasons to suspect the Republicans of voter fraud, but that thought has not ever entered a Republican’s mind. They simply cannot conceive of the idea that additional millions who loathe Trump would have felt it imperative to get out and vote.

    14. You’re terribly wrong on so many levels, I’m not sure that can address all of them. Obama, who was wildly popular in the Twin Cities garnered 78% of the vote. It is unusual. Fortunately with the recent census and the known legal registered voters it was calculated that there was at least 113% voter participation in my ward.

      You are also managing to use a leftist rag for your data. The Minnesota Reformer is a hate filled, racist, leftist propaganda tool. I’ll pray for you.

  2. None of this is evidence that the Democratic Party committed fraud.

    You paint a picture where there are opportunities to commit fraud. That is not the same as having evidence that fraud was committed.

    1. I never said having a motive and an opportunity is the same as actually committing fraud. In fact, I said the exact opposite:

      “But that data and reason by itself is not sufficient to show we have good reason for thinking that targeted voter fraud took place in 2020. We need to look at the specific events that occurred in 2020 in order to justify our thesis. ”

      Please read this more carefully.

      1. The title of your article is literally “Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here’s Your Evidence.”

        Yet there is no evidence presented at all in your article.

        I was responding to your claim that you would present evidence.

        Please title your articles, and make claims, more carefully.

        1. He does present prima facie evidence that there is fraud. Apparently you missed the body of the article, where he goes through each BBC criterion and shows how, using that criterion, we have serious red flags.

          1. “Recall, however, that this article is not claiming to provide decisive evidence. Just as a fire alarm going off, screaming, and smoke is evidence of fire, so too are these signs evidence of fraud. But these signs could obviously be wrong.”

            I did not miss any section of the article, but it seems you did. I did miss seeing any concrete proof at all though.

            He clearly admits in writing that nothing he is presenting is decisive evidence. He even says it can be wrong. How confident can anyone be in someone else’s evidence if they present it and then say “oh it could be wrong so accept it as evidence but not really good proof that we can rely on.”

            Prima Facie works for Judge Judy caliber cases. For the sake of argument though, let’s indulge your peculiar line of thinking.

            Prima Facie is not evidence itself that a crime occurred, it simply buys time to create another opportunity to argue a case instead of having it dismissed.

            Prima Facie evidence is not enough proof for a case like this (election fraud) to move forward, the majority of this article cites people’s speculation as facts (these are opinions, not facts). Prima Facie is not relevant here because the full burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that this occurred. It is not on the defense to prove that it did not occur at this point in time.

            Prima Facie arguments that are accepted in courts move forward under the assumption that the defense needs to have proof that they are not guilty, and the prosecutor needs to be able to present indisputable evidence that the defense is guilty.

            There’s been no solid evidence that the prosecutors have been able to present.

            The defense cannot be asked to prove every speculative conspiracy theory wrong, as the burden of proof does not currently lie with the defense. They can be asked to dispute a specific piece (or multiple pieces) of strong evidence that has been accepted by the courts. This evidence cannot be speculative, it needs to be direct and reliable proof that a specific set action/set of actions took place by the defense that ended up resulting in the specific crime they are being accused of (not that it “could have happened”, “not unreasonable to think this could occur “, or any other line of speculative thinking)

            Without strong, decisive evidence there cannot be a case. Without a case, there is not strong argument that voter fraud did occur.

            Hard facts, not speculation, are needed to justify taking this case to court.

        2. I agree that the title is a bit misleading. Perhaps “Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here’s Why You May Want to Consider Being More Open Minded”

          I do think that the totality of the things we have seen amounts to *something*. It’s just hard to say how much. I think it is almost certain that some significant fraud has occurred. I’m not sure if it would have changed the outcome of the election, but there are just TOO MANY oddities to ignore all of it, and simply say “it’s impossible for fraud to exist in American elections!!!” as the main stream media has been saying for a few weeks now.

          After all, they were saying quite the opposite in 2016, and for literally *years* after.

    2. This article does not allege that the “Democratic Party” committed the fraud. There are several other parties that could have perpetrated this fraud.

    3. What’s your problem? The evidence is there if you take off your blinders! Otherwise what gives you the right to comment on here with an obvious blind spot to MASSIVE VOTE FRAUD.

    4. “None of this is evidence”
      I guess I’ll just ignore the hoards of stats and links in the article. All of that must have been made up.
      Thanks for the help!

  3. While your tone and approach are a significant improvement on most voter fraud conspiracists, your reasoning and correct use of data/quotes/information are only a slight improvement. All of these arguments could be used to claim any election in the past 10+ years was compromised, and that republicans committing fraud is equally probable. Of course fraud happens, but in order for fraud to a realistic technique in swinging an election it must be either remarkably widespread (like getting a group of 10,000 voters to each send in 4 fake ballots – even then it’s an extreme risk for an improbably swinging of results) or extremely blatant (I can’t even think of a reliastic way for one person or small group to do this undetected. There’s simply no way dominion could do this through software undetected, or that a county’s officials could voluntarily do this with their own totals).

    1. If a man kills another man, and then covers his tracks in such a way that the crime is (nearly) impossible to prove in a court of law, did the murderer not commit murder? Do you think this ever happens?

  4. Excellent work here, Gil. This election is not over and we will not let the liberal media decide who the president is. Any member of the press spreading lies on behalf of the Democratic Party is a traitor to this country and the punishment for treason is death. In fact any lefty who believes these lies is a traitor too. We executed the Rosenbergs for being commies, we can execute you too.

    1. Calm down there McCarthy, no need to incite violence.

      If you’re too dumb to make coherent arguments, to have critical thinking skills, and to have the emotional intelligence to coexist peacefully with other people who don’t share your opinion that’s your problem.

      Don’t take it out on people who disagree with you by killing them.

      1. Hey, BDT, there’s equally no need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Your repeated pejorative remarks about evidentiary deficiencies are both redundant (using different verbiage to make the same point) and inadequate for persuasion. In several places, Sanders describes things which need to be investigated in order to prove or disprove the allegations. In others, he seems to acknowledge that when duplicate ballots are discarded, there is no way to prove whether the legitimate ballots or the unauthorized replacements were discarded.

        Combining those points with the number of ballots dumped and counted while observers were excluded from having access casts the entire vote into suspicion. There may be no way short of a complete re-vote to address all the irregularities. I have serious doubts as to whether the culpable jurisdictions (just GA, PA and MI would be enough to overturn the election, and each of them had enough votes tallied during periods when opposition observers were prevented from seeing the activities to make a re-vote a reasonable requested remedy) have a statutory mechanism or the means to take the action necessary to establish widespread confidence in the outcome. There are also credible challenges to the tallies in NV and WI, possibly even extending to AZ. Adding those into the mix would increase the range of possible remediation.

        One thing needed is an official investigation by outside parties. Hardly anyone trusts local authorities in Philadelphia to investigate themselves; if that were feasible, they wouldn’t have needed the US Justice Department to do so for multiple cases prosecuted since the 1970’s. Detroit and Atlanta fall into the same category, with Milwaukee and Las Vegas very close behind. What do they have in common? Democratic political machines which control local elections, local law enforcement and local government. Those political machines have mechanisms for ensuring electoral control which have been entrenched for decades.

        It has been predictable for just that long: voting takes place in a close statewide election. The counting is halted in the wee hours. Observers are told to go home, and that counting would be resumed in the morning at 8:00 a.m. Machine functionaries check to learn the latest status of the total count across the state. The shot-caller then tells other functionaries to bring in a certain number of ballots; if necessary, they have the ability to print more and complete them on-site. If any observers had refused to leave when told, they are forced back from the counting, whether by local police, by private security or by party representatives who have authority as election officials. The necessary votes are added to the tally and then the counting is concluded. I observed this process myself in the 1978 elections held in Newark, NJ.

        The beauty of it is that it’s almost impossible to conclusively prove that the extra ballots that are “found” on election night were not legitimate ballots. Even if they represent votes by dead people, the ballots have no link to the registered voter who cast them, so without the audit trail, it’s impossible to conclusively “prove” the fraud that happens on a regular basis.

        I’ll be submitting an article on how voting should be done in the near future. It will include several of the suggestions from the 2005 Carter-Brady Commission Report on Electoral Integrity, although I won’t limit myself to their suggestions. As much as I hate it, I fear that we’ll have to suffer under 4 years of an illegitimate Biden-Harris adminstration, just as the left griped about spending 4 years under a legitimate Trump-Pence administration, which they (including their minions in the unconstitutionally pervasive permanent bureaucracy) spent the entire time trying to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

        1. JP4C, that is a cogent response to shameless Biden minions on this comment thread. I would love to see your subject follow-up article. If you can make a note of it, please go to and send your article to that email address. Thank you in advance.

        2. Excellent comments. IMHO your aim should be for a blockchain process where I get my 1 vote credit and can send it anonymously but publicly verifiably and observably by myself and protected against fraud : obviously aspects need working on : The reported disappearance yesterday of >400k absentee votes that GA Senate had authorised for forensic analysis is very strong evidence of corruption and also a stolen election : The votes remaining for GA should be now hand counted again so that votes are not ever destroyed again. Those responsible should be jailed.

  5. Your evidence seems to consists of only validation that suspicions exist. You actually don’t provide evidence of conspiratorial fraud at all but rather layout a mor cogent explanation for suspicions. If your suspicions are true , you should be able to find clear material indications of conspiratorial fraud. Go do it. Stop wasting our time an energy on justifications for suspicions.

  6. This is not funny. Stop spreading nonsense.

    It’s well known why results were delayed: mail-in voting. Also, fun fact: Republicans fought VERY HARD in some states to delay counting (in particular in PA).

    Similarly, it’s absolutely well known why late votes favored Biden heavily. B/c a certain Genius campaigned heavily against mail-in voting. It’s also well known that some counties vote very differently from others.

    So, if anything there is a MASSIVE evidence that Trumps’ campaign was (and still IS) involved in a heavy campaign to undermine the elections of 2020 and the US democracy in general.

    Also your “counterargument” about why-Dems-did-not-steal the Senate is just ridiculous.. 2 extra spots in Senate make the main “Prize” many times more valuable. No thief would pass that, especially when it really would costs nothing (those who vote for Biden would be EXPECTED to vote for Dens in Senate)…

    1. I mentioned mail in voting as an explanation for the delay. Did you really read it?

      Oh I know, it’s no surprise that the mail in ballots favored Biden. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it is close to 100% in Biden’s favor with some of these dumps, which is ridiculous, and it vastly outpaces the numbers in other comparable states.

      Massive evidence? Please do provide this evidence.

      It’s faster to print Biden-only ballots. They cannot take over the House and Senate without MASSIVE fraud, which is much riskier. My thesis presents targeted fraud. So even if they filled the down ballots in the key states, it wouldn’t make a difference to the Senate and House *overall*.

      1. The distributions DJT v JRT votes received as absentee should, due to the UPS mixing function, should be fairly similar across time & I understand in non-swing states that was observed . In the states of concern the overnight ‘dumps’ were of an entirely statistically extremely unusually different distribution (to previous absentee ballots) only in these states. An explanation of this observation would be interesting.

    2. “It’s well known why results were delayed: mail-in voting.”

      That makes no sense. High volume of mail-in votes means we have to stop counting for no reason and start back up again around 4AM when nobody’s watching? How does that follow? Why is this any different from a high volume of in-person votes? Other states were capable of continuous counting throughout the night; it seems to only have been the swing states where Trump was ahead and in the particular cities where Biden took these massive leads. How does “mail-in voting” explain that?

      Republicans wanted to stop the counting after it became clear some obvious and blatant fraud occurred with these ridiculous “dumps” in the middle of the night. Obviously you would want to halt the sham process at that point so we can figure out what is going on.

      “Similarly, it’s absolutely well known why late votes favored Biden heavily. B/c a certain Genius campaigned heavily against mail-in voting.”

      Yes, but the margins are ridiculous and absurd:
      They also go against the evidence we have from Targetsmart on relative ratios of absentee ballot requests:

      I also think Gil’s response re: taking the Senate is sound. However, one explanation could also be that Dems printed off tens of thousands of ballots in the middle of the night when the counting mysteriously stopped (Dominion whistleblower just confirmed today this is easily possible), and had to fill them in. Quicker to fill them in just by picking the president. That would make sense if there are, in fact, 80,000+ Biden-only ballots in Georgia, for example.

      Incidentally, we also don’t know that Dems have not stolen the senate. I wouldn’t be surprised if several seats *were* in fact stolen, including John James’, paving the way for Georgia to be taken by the Dems in the upcoming election. (They may not even need to “steal” that seat specifically — just steal a few that would have been won on election night, and be confident that you will win Georgia. Or, they *will* steal it in Georgia.)

  7. I love how methodical you present the facts with links. This is an excellent article of information for those of us who want to research more on how the Democrats tried to steal this election. You deserve some type of journalistic award. Unfortunately the media is owned by Democrats and therefore you will be scorned by them instead. But, we the people, see the truth and will continue to pursue liberty, freedom, and be patriotic. May God protect you and bless you!

  8. I think the key issue with these fraud accusations is that they focus on states in which the mail-in ballot processes couldn’t begin until election day or until polls closed. If any of these states could treat their mail-in ballots like OH or NC then there would be no conversation of ballot dumps because all ballots would already be accounted for.

    Also love the quote from your buddy. Winning in historic margins until you look at the vote totals and realize millions of votes weren’t accounted for at the time compared to totals from 2016. Did he assume that less people showed up to vote this time around?

  9. > Massive evidence? Please do provide this evidence. [of Trump’s campaign trying to tamper with elections]

    Pre-election: cloud of disinformation about mail-in voting, not so subtle suggestion that his followers should vote twice, **public** statements that he would not concede a loss.. And a few more..

    Post-election: Graham Lindsey pressuring GA officials to change the results, Trump campaign calling random voting officials in Michigan, Trump inviting MI state lawmakers into White house (THAT alone is bad enough), Trump firing top military officials, refusing Biden access to briefings etc (note that this access is not binding at all).

    If anything this looks like a blatant attempt to steal election right there (with darker signs of being ready to involve military).. All of that is well documented, you do not need to look at liberal media, “Fox” would do. And then there is a clear campaign to damage whatever-is-left of US government competency with random firings/appointments after elections.

    > It’s faster to print Biden-only ballots.

    I donot follow. It takes exactly the same effort/risk to falsify both at once. If anything, a ballot which votes straight-party ticket is less suspicious than a Biden-only ballot…

    Some people see the enormity of Trump’s lies and danger and voted against him while still voting conservatively in Senate… But apparently, many are still buying Trumps lies wholesale.

    > How does that follow? Why is this any different from a high volume of in-person votes

    B/c the process and effort required to count mail-in votes is different than the effort for counting in-person votes?

    > That makes no sense. High volume of mail-in votes means we have to stop counting for no reason and start back up again around 4AM when nobody’s watching?

    B/c they wanted to give workers a short sleep break or do some planning?
    Also, there were republican observers

    In a huge machine like US voting you will always find some random coincidences, fluctuations, deviations, etc. They are not evidence of anything.

    More importantly, it WAS known well in advance that PA will not be able to finish counting for a long time. __REPUBLICANS__ refused to allow early counting in PA. It was Trump’s campaign which forced a couple of hours counting delay in PA on election day…

    By all appearances that was exactly the game plan: delay the counting and then, if the state is lost, use the delay as “evidence” of fraud..

    The sad pattern here is this: anything which is potentially negative to Dems is reviewed with a microscope, while actions of Trump & Co to steal the election and to destroy US as a democratic country in a broad-daylight are just ignored. And, mind you, most of it was reported by conservative news sources (Fox, WSJ, etc)

    I am no liberal, but I do know that elections can only exist if elections officials are trusted to be non-partisan (you cannt have a Dem and a Rep watching each vote and going to a non-partisan (hah!) Judge to settle differences). And, more broadly, Democracy can only exist when there is sufficient level of trust between citizens and their government. If anything this discussion shows that Trump may have already succeeded in deeply undermining (if not destroying) US democracy.

    1. By the way, you are correct that we do not trust corrupt Democratic machine cities, which as Gil points out are run by people who consider Trump supporters to be “white supremacists, sexists, anti-Muslim, anti-LGBTQ, despicable fascists, sycophants, hateful liars, neo-nazis, and anti-rights” and “Some even claim that Trump is more dangerous than Hitler!”

      No, why would I assume those people play by the rules? They have no qualms about censoring people, beating people up, doxxing people, and threatening their families. Why *should* I trust them?

      But my distrust in that case can hardly be chalked up to “Trump … deeply undermining … US democracy.” Maybe you want us not to believe our lying eyes, but the behavior of the radical left is real, not an invention of Trump’s, and *that* is what gives me no trust that the radical left, which is the part of the Democratic party that largely controls actual offices, would play fair in an election.

    2. Hey Gil, where’s your follow up? Where you change your opinion when presented with evidence and a coherent argument to the contrary? Still skeptical your psuedo-intellectualism is a thin veil to justify your beliefs? Here’s the evidence.

  10. The rest of what you say is pretty obviously a weak reply, so I won’t respond. I will only say this about the middle-of-the-night chicanery — which would, as Gil points out, be an obvious red flag for fraud in any *other* country, according to the BBC criteria.

    You in no way answered this: “Other states were capable of continuous counting throughout the night; it seems to only have been the swing states where Trump was ahead and in the particular cities where Biden took these massive leads. How does “mail-in voting” explain that?”

    To put it another way: There is no obvious reason why *these particular* swing states — in particular, these large, fraud-prone Democratic machine *cities* — had a special difficulty that no other state had which cause them to stop counting in the middle of the night *all at once* and then resume with the huge dumps of ballots. You instead venture a guess (“idk, maybe they had to sleep!”). Interesting hypothesis. I guess being a poll watcher in a large urban Democratic machine in a swing state is a statistical predictor of tiredness. Someone should study that phenomenon!

    1. Except the the swing states did not stop counting all together, that’s thoroughly debunked misinformation. Also there are multiple observers from both parties observing the counts.

      The article is basing it’s theory on a lot of “alternative facts”.

  11. Looks like fraud
    Smells like fraud
    Tastes like fraud
    Sounds like fraud
    Feels like fraud

    “But it can’t possibly be fraud la la la la la la la la la la la la……..”

    1. How can something taste like fraud?

      How can something smell like fraud?

      Here’s a version for you

      Looks like an idiot
      Sounds like an idiot
      Feels like an idiot

      “Bu- bu- bu- bu- bu- election fraud! No I don’t have concrete evidence but we do have proof!”

      Ya’ll are single handily making Idiocracy a reality.

      1. “How can something taste…smell like fraud?”

        Silly response to a sensible comment. This form of reply worked well in Happy Gilmore. Here? Not so much.

  12. > but the behavior of the radical left is real, not an invention of Trump’s,

    Mostly correct. But not very relevant.

    > and *that* is what gives me no trust that the radical left, which is the part of the Democratic party that largely controls actual offices, would play fair in an election.

    Totally wrong. There is zero evidence that radical left control election process in any way. Let alone in a major way (enough to swing multiple states). (Mind you Georgia/Arizona are Republican leaning states too. PA/WI/MI voted for Trump last time: where were those omnipresent radical left then?)

    There are STATEMENTS-BY-TRUMP that he does not intend to concede elections (that’s a few months before elections AND a few months before the previous elections, see the pattern? If elections go against him, they must be fraudulent). How is that for a president of a democratic country? Yet, somehow he gets a pass from his supporters.

    Trump lies and lies viciously with no constraints whatsoever with the only purpose of benefiting himself. People close to him have to lie just as viciously (otherwise they won’t stay close to him). All “evidence” of election fraud comes from Trump and Co. Enough said..

    1. We’re at war. It’s known as 5th gen warfare I encourage you to do the most basic research. Our media has been weaponized against us with the sole objective to divide us. 50% of Americans will never know the truth because it requires searching for it. There are countless examples of voter fraud that = election fraud. But for some reason they are ban from sites. Why is this? With dozens of data analytics reports done on the election proving fraud, why does Google fail to index them? You will never know the truth because you do not search for it. If you have Common Sense as your name suggests, can you explain why of the 27 toss up House seats Reps. won all 27? Can you explain why Joe Biden was the only new Democrat to win? Clearly you are posing as someone with Common Sense.

  13. > There is no obvious reason why *these particular* swing states … had a special difficulty that no other state

    Any complex system can have massive and, mostly invisible to an outsider, pecularities… So, you-and-me not understanding them is not an evidence of anything at all. (sorry, specifically, in PA, the counting was delayed by Republican controlled legislature and, on election date, by Trump campaign’s lawsuit, so there is a clear and undisputable evidence that Trump’s campaign WANTED the delay in PA to create uncertainty).

    In this case, it was well known way before elections that many states (not just PA/MI/WI/GA/NV/AZ) will finish counting way after election day.. This was published a week before election

    The article summarizes state rules and discusses expected timing: PA, NV (and a few OTHER states) are on expect-late-results list, WI,MI,GA were on “medium delay” list…

    > which cause them to stop counting in the middle of the night *all at once*

    That’s a gross exaggeration if not an outright lie:

    Even if it were 100% true, this, by itself, would not be evidence of anything..

    > I will only say this about the middle-of-the-night chicanery — which would, as Gil points out, be an obvious red flag for fraud in any *other* country, according to the BBC criteria.

    “chicanery to inject 100K votes” would require: a conspiracy with at least dozens (if not hundreds) of people involved and significant preparation and, VERY likely, cooperation from election officials AND that would need to happen in at least three states. (and, of course a fraud of that scale would be fairly easy to detect, a random sampling of ballots would do…).. Mind you, the penalty for that is serious prison time…

    > you instead venture a guess (“idk, maybe they had to sleep!”). Interesting hypothesis.

    “Fraud” is an even more “interesting” hypothesis… With the only “evidence” coming from a liar who has ALSO publicly stated that he would not concede before both 2016 and 2020 elections?

    1. Dear “Common-sense Conservative”,

      If you want to disguise yourself in this way, it’s best not to end with an ad hominem attack.

  14. It wasn’t just the counting delays, nor even the middle of the night ballot dumps; CSCS, it was the nasty unwillingness of Democratic operatives to allow GOP poll-watchers to observe their counting that indicated cheating, which I myself experienced in Detroit. Those thuggish bastards- again, I was there, hate Americans- and, I for 1 hate them too- thus, I know a priori they would do anything that they thought that they could legally get away with to undermine lawful authority in this country. This pattern of practice was repeated in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, indicated coordinated activity amounting to fraud. Remember Hyena Hillary braying ‘JB better not dare concede on election night.’ Then the premature call in AZ and the delayed ones in MI and PA? They cheated and you are culpably ignorant to deny it. POTUS DJT most honest President of all-time, too. Your true colors show when you calumniate someone who has done SO much for decent, law abiding Americans. GFY.

  15. Trump is not QAnon, he is part of the deep state! Get a clue, he’s been in on the whole thing, it’s all smoke and mirrors with this guy. Him, Hillary, Epstein, all working together. Look at the photos of them all together! Biden was PART OF TRUMPS PLAN TOO, he just wants you to think he’s not.

  16. ” and that this fraud is significant enough to flip the election in Trump’s favor even if that is by a small margin.”
    You need better editing but other than that, good article.

  17. Andrea Widburg and her colleagues at American Thinker have done a great service presenting a lot of actual data analysis to back up what you have here. One of my favorites involves the flow of mail in ballots up until the early hours of the morning after the election. Mail in ballots should be shuffled like a deck of cards because sorting machines can’t determine who is being voted for inside the envelopes. This proves out in the reporting of votes until two or three in the morning and after shutdowns. At that point, all of the votes go to Biden which, while statistically possible, it is so improbable that it is impossible.

    1. Well it certainly makes sense that votes from Milwaukee will be more Biden heavy than from anywhere else in Wisconsin (except maybe Madison). The fact that the data bears that out shows you have discovered big cities, not an evil plot by George Soros.

  18. I also would like to point out data analysis that shows that in key swing states ballots with single votes for Biden only were showing up in batches. This, and the fact that historically in all locations including these same swing states, about 2% to 3% of all ballots have president votes blank. This could be considered a benchmark. In swing states that number drops to a small fraction of 1%. These are actual numbers. No conjecture. No conspiracy. Just the numbers. But when you’re only method to audit 150 million votes is to analyze the numbers, you cannot ignore anomalies like these.

    Lastly, you are right about the press focusing on each individual anomaly and fact checking or dismissing them as individual events. Unfortunately, when you layer coincidence on top of coincidence on top of coincidence on top of coincidence, it is no longer just a coincidence. In the famous 7 Habits book they talk about airliner crashes. It is usually, according to them, 8 individual errors or breakdowns that combine to take down the jet. It could be the same here.

  19. I find the lack of any evidence in this article disturbing. It’s all conjecture and deductive reasoning. The title is very wrong.

    1. Just as smoke, screaming, and a fire alarm going off is evidence of a fire, so too is this clearly evidence of fraud. You have to redefine “evidence” as PROOF (beyond reasonable doubt) which I never set out to do.

      1. Gil, I find this exact issue deeply disturbing. I’ve seen SO many people insist that “evidence” only exists if it serves to prove the case definitively, and this is logically not so. Strangely, acquitted individuals find themselves also up against prosecutors armed with “evidence”…

        I think a major problem here is a desire (and need, in fact) to skip the investigative phase and go straight to the litigation phase. This isn’t how crimes are solved, nor justice is done. “Evidence” (the fire alarm) alerts someone, an investigation is performed (someone goes and looks), and then the fire is reported as fact and mitigated. It should be an obvious conclusion that every crime not investigated will be unable to prove a crime was committed.

        The real crime is the very large number of people in this country that are 100% ok with that… as long as they aren’t affected (or, in THIS case, “their guy wins”).

    2. Leaving aside Gil’s good point about redefining ‘evidence’, I don’t think you understand that this piece largely exemplifies inductive reasoning–or perhaps abductive. But even if it were entirely deductively reasoned, that’s hardly a defect; deductively valid arguments with truth premises *guarantee* the truth of their conclusions.

  20. Oh Well, Got a good place to get Ammo and I’ll be getting back to the country tomorrow practicing for the War. Gotta keep them Marxists corralled in the cities.

  21. This analysis lacks many key details which can either be chalked up to ignorance or bad faith. I would guess the former in the interest of being charitable if it were not for the one-sided nature of your cited potential motivations for voter fraud. For every liberal who believes Donald Trump to be “literally Hitler,” there is a conservative who believes Joe Biden to be “literally Marx.” I do not deny that there is a deep disdain for Donald Trump from the left, and that it may be a motivation for hypothetical voter fraud. But one must be willfully deluding themselves or there audience to not acknowledge that a similar disdain for Joe Biden, which could lead to similar hypothetical actions, exists on the right. Indeed throughout this post you give the impression that the prospect of voter fraud committed by Republicans is out of the question. A large number of mail ballots (which we knew would skew towards Biden) is reported from Philadelphia (an overwhelmingly Democratic area) sees Biden receive 88% of said new votes? Potential fraud by the corrupt Philadelphia machine. But when previously unreported ballots in Georgia skew heavily towards Donald Trump, you frame that as potential evidence of a conspiracy not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats! The path to such a contradictory position, that newly released votes are proof of Democratic malfeasance no matter the candidate for which they are cast, can only be a partisan one. Reporting errors don’t even have to benefit one major party candidate or the other. Results from Milwaukee county briefly showed Jo Jorgensen with over 1 million votes. Was this a shadowy plot by the Ayn Rand Institute and Ron Paul? Seems unlikely. And all of this leaves out your apparent ignorance of why results from Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania took so long to report in the first place. Florida allows for pre-canvassing of the vote, or allowing mail votes to be tallied as they are received. This is why results from Florida are reported so quickly. The Democratic governors of the aforementioned Northern swing states attempted to institute the same procedures, but were not able to do so due to resistance by those state’s majority Republican legislatures. The long wait between polls closing and results being released was the fault of the Republican Party and the Republican Party alone. And the idea that Trump’s performance in bellwether counties suggests that he should have won shows novice-level understanding of American politics. Those counties (Vigo, Valencia, etc.) have large numbers of voters without a college education. As Trump has supercharged educational polarization, these counties will naturally swing towards him, even if national results don’t. Ultimately, nothing shows your partisan goals more than your willingness to engage with the absurd Dominion Voting Systems conspiracy theories. Georgia, a state allegedly compromised by Dominion, completed a recount of its results which would have shown the hundred of thousands of votes switched from Trump to Biden, if indeed they existed. Unsurprisingly, they did not. The thin mask of “just asking questions” does little to hide your partisan motivations and priors.

    1. There are far, far more people on the Left that regard Trump as Hitler than Biden as Mao, Stalin, or Marx. Most Republicans believe that if we survived Obama, we can survive Biden. But that is not to say the Republicans have not committed fraud. I mentioned Steve Watkins in the article for this reason, and I’m sure there are several other cases as well. Both sides do it. But the context of this is primarily about the 2020 election. So naturally the Left is the focus. Lastly, I am not hiding my political bias whatsoever. This is just you ignorantly projecting; a common tactic used to discredit and dismiss. I make it very clear in another blog post that I am a classical conservative. I never pretend to be non-partisan, but I do aim to be as objective as possible. I’m sure in the process that I got a few details wrong, but I believe the general picture remains correct.

      1. Do you not recall that there was a speech made at the RNC about how Joe Biden is actually Bernie Sanders who is actually Fidel Castro, all because Biden said he would give more people healthcare? A Cuban man said this through tears! As ridiculous as it was, he clearly believed it. I do not doubt that there are more than enough like-minded people capable of carrying out a dastardly plot to steal the election, were such a plot possible (it’s not). Yet only the Left are potential election stealers. The fact that you have admitted to be being a partisan doesn’t mean you have addressed any of my other critiques, demonstrated a basic understanding of how politics works, or shown contextual knowledge of the reasons this election occurred in the way that it did.

        1. “Yet only the Left are potential stealers.” I said the exact opposite of this. Both have the potential, but one has a FAR greater potential than the other. Conservatives tend to be principled. They do not believe the end justifies the means and would therefore reject consequentialism. Progressives by contrast are the same ones who are willing to kill human life to preserve a woman’s convenient lifestyle. While Republicans surely consider Biden to be a terrible choice, they are first and foremost patriots. Rigging the very system they seek to conserve is wholly contradictory. If you listen to conservatives like Rubio, Crenshaw, Pence, Shapiro, and Crowder, you’ll find that MOST do not believe Biden is literally Mao, Marx, or Stalin.

          The fact that I admitted I’m partisan should make you embarrassed for presuming I was covering it up. You’re clearly not reading me fairly here.

          1. Funny you mention Rubio, who recently tweeted “Not every Democrat is a socialist, but every socialist is a Democrat.” Clearly an example of rational analysis of left of center thought. Or Ben Shapiro, who just calls everyone he doesn’t like a leftist and built his career on “debating” unprepared or naive undergrads. Or Steven Crowder, who is most famous for calling Carlos Maza a “lispy queer.” Or Dan Crenshaw, who doesn’t really do anything at all other than quote tweet democratic senators. Principled thinkers the lot of them.

            The idea that Republicans are guardians of American democracy is absurd. They threatened to allow the United States to default on its debt, throwing the global economy into chaos, because they wanted Obama to cut spending. They impeached Clinton, who was closer to them than to his fellow democrats on a number of issues, for lying about a blowjob. When it was politically convenient to approve a Supreme Court justice right before the election, they did it. When it wasn’t, they didn’t, despite the fact that Orin Hatch was a long-time supporter of the would-be Justice. Donald Trump held a meeting with Michigan lawmakers lobbying them to hand him the state’s electoral votes despite losing by 150k votes. These are not rational actors.

            None of which matters, because you still have failed to demonstrate any understanding of how elections in general and this election specifically functioned.

          2. So? Being a Leftist isn’t the same as literally being Mao, Stalin, or Chavez. Finding serious problems with their ideas is not nearly the same as the hatred that the Left has for Trump. Not even close. Conservatives are originalists, progressives are not. Conservatives are deontologists, progressives are often utilitarians. I never denied that conservatives can be opportunists. But there are opportunists that work within the constraints of the law, and those that are willing to abolish it. You see a lot of that On the Left with the “abolish police” movement, and the anti-American attitude that stems from Critical Race Theory. There’s a reason they’re anti-originalists.

            Anyways, I have no interest in continuing a conversation with a person who has no interest in representing me charitably and does not apologize for falsely projecting. Take care!

          3. You are a partisan hack. Have I represented your views fairly? I feel like the act of assuming someone isn’t playing an angle is a charitable one, but apparently thats not true. I’m not really sure how I allowed this conversation to drift to “Critical Race Theory,” it was a mistake on my part. You have still failed to address a single one of my criticisms of your original post, except for your claim that a conservative couldn’t possibly steal the election because Conservatives are Nice and Good while Liberals are Mean and Hate Orange Man.

  22. Great work Gil!

    I can’t help but notice that so many of the responses here are weak and full of misrepresentations re your work.

    1. Thank you, Vernon! Right? People are incredibly uncharitable and disrespectful over this issue despite the fact that I have been nothing but respectful. I’m glad someone else has noticed!

  23. This sentence appears in the first paragraph:

    “70% of Republicans suspect foul play; far lower than it has ever been in the history of U.S. elections.”

    Should that not read “…far higher than it has ever been…”?

    The article in the link attached says that 66% of GOP voters had at least some trust in the US election system before the 2020 election, but that only 37% have at least some trust in it now. Much lower trust equals much higher suspicion, and I think that was the point you were trying to make: something does not seem right. Gaslighting, namecalling, and declaring “nothing to see here” in the face of hundreds of affidavits, video and audio evidence of irregularities; gross mathematical inconsistencies; and bad behavior at the polls and in the counting rooms—all of that raises red flags that need to be investigated.

    (By the way, I did not see any data in the supporting article about the Republicans’ suspicion of foul play throughout the history of US elections. It may be true; I just couldn’t find substantiation for it in that article. I did notice that both articles linked to that sentence contained subtle to moderate leftward bias in wording. So you were more than fair to the left. I also notice that fairness is often not reciprocated by them in the comments. I guess one can only do so much.)

    In all, it was a well-reasoned piece, and I believe you made your case. Thank you for posting such a comprehensive list of the evidence so far.

  24. One good way to determine the efficacy of such claims is if the middle-of-the-road and libertarian talking heads/media institutions are reaching similar conclusions. Such entities have virtually no reason to ignore glaring irregularities, and all sorts of reasons to parse them out. Unfortunately, most of the middle-of-the-roaders and libertarians are reaching the conclusion that there are no more and no more egregious irregularities this election cycle than in any other election cycle. These arguments are coming almost exclusively from the pro-Trump crowd. There are even many right-leaning entities calling this election the same as any other election. This seems to be the pro-Trump crowd grasping at straws.

  25. Since this is 2020, it is safe to assume in America that if it is possible, and depending on the prize; money and or power, then it likely happened. The front runners in his type of “specialty” just happen to be or know the guys in charge of social media. Computer software hacking is a hobby for some Do we really need to go 10 years from now and look back to know this is the case? Let’s act accordingly.

  26. Trump continues to maintain that he won the 2020 election. Wedded to this alternative reality, his supporters are circulating articles wondering how Biden–who was ahead by significant numbers in all pre-election polls– could possibly have won the election… against a president who, for the first time since modern polling began, never cracked a 50% approval rating.

    In their fury, they are turning against election officials, including committed right-wing Republicans like Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump has called “an enemy of the people” for defending the actual results of the election and refusing to make up reasons to throw out Democratic ballots. Raffensperger and his wife have been getting death threats, while Republican leaders refuse to stand up for him.
    Trump’s vision is destroying faith in our electoral system and spreading death. It is destabilizing our democracy, an outcome that helps those who are eager to see America’s influence in the world decline.

    The reality is that Biden was elected president in 2020. He has won more votes than any president in American history, over 6 million votes more than Trump and 306 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 232. This is not close. Trump has challenged this election in a number of court cases; he has lost all but one of them, giving him a record of 1-39.

    Yesterday, a federal appeals court made up of Republican-appointed judges rejected Trump’s attempt to overturn Pennsylvania’s certification of its election results. Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote the opinion, which said the campaign’s challenge had “no merit.” “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” the opinion said. Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.”

  27. It seems unlikely that Trump, who lost the popular vote when he was unknown and running against a tremendously unpopular candidate, would win now that He is the very hated and impeached candidate running against a candidate who doesn’t provoke strong feelings of ire.

    1. Biden “doesn’t inspire strong feelings of ire” is very arguable: most Americans don’t trust a senile old communist puppet approaching 80, who can barely put two sentences together without blunders, who didn’t campaign because he obviously knew he didn’t need to because voter fraud that he boasted about achieving would come up with the votes he required to “win”, who has taken millions from communist China in bribes and payoffs, who lied about how his first wife and child died, whose corrupt son was stupid enough to leave incriminating laptops in a shop for over a year, who called a President of the United States a clown during a national debate, who has a long history of making racist remarks and backing racist policies, who hasn’t accomplished a thing in 47 years working in government except propping himself up. Biden doesn’t inspire any love or trust enough to have 80 million people supposedly voting for him, many more than even Obama did. It doesn’t add up.

    2. Biden “doesn’t provoke strong feelings of ire” but neither does he inspire strong feelings of patriotism and love like President Trump does. Not enough strengths there in the man to make 80 million real people enthusiastically vote for him. Most Americans want to vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone. Biden inspires nothing but boredom, and when he often gaffes from his senility, laughs. 🙂

  28. “Conservatives tend to be principled. They do not believe the end justifies the means and would therefore reject consequentialism. ” What self-serving bullshit.

  29. So a math teacher gives a take-home final exam, and all the C and D students turn in perfect papers–all problems solved. Is that proof of their cheating? Not strictly speaking, but would anyone be so stupid as to think they all did the test without help?

    That’s this election. Biden defied every parameter, and did so by miles against incredible odds that defy common sense. But I guess if you’re so determined to see past it, that’s what you’ll do.

  30. A brilliantly written treatment, thank you. Of course, the ideologues will not listen to a word of it. Facts don’t matter to them, no doubt they are mask-wearing COVIDIOTS, too. Anyone with half a brain and any common sense at all would look at the massive outpouring of support Trump had everywhere he went. Compare that to Creepy Sleepy Joe and Headboard Harris, whose “rallies” of circled in (and probably paid to be there) “supporters”, all dozen of them. It is completely absurd to think that this senile crook beat Trump. No one believes that this election was not stolen. And, it ain’t over yet commies, so buckle up. You’re done.

  31. How much of this was due to fear of the left’s retaliation? Weeks before the election left-wing extremists were making all kinds of threats of Civil War etc… so how much of all this just dropping all or most of Trump’s evidence and saying nothing to see here?
    I say FFF em do the right thing and hear and listen objectively to all that’s been said. The Supreme court today just denied to even hear Trump’s case in PA. WTF???
    FFF the left if Trump won let him be if not then whatever. Biden won’t be my President no matter what.
    Is this just being like the left when Trump won… NO! it’s being an individual not a collective FFF em!

  32. “Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here’s Your Evidence.”

    “Recall, however, that this article is not claiming to provide decisive evidence.”

    There is no evidence here. Not one. Just because they could’ve done it doesn’t mean that there’s any evidence…

  33. None of this matters even a little but because nobody is listening. The republic is lost. It was lost before this election but now we know for sure it is not coming back.

  34. I have read through quite a few comments on this thread and one thought comes to mind…is there anyone on this thread who has actually worked in campaign politics? If so, the blathering that I see would not be happening. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry right now.

  35. […] Sanders, “Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here’s Your Evidence,” Thomistic Thinker, November 20, 2020 — A snapshot of how fishy the election results looked […]

  36. Hi …

    To quote yourself: ‘I am not claiming to have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there is fraud. So if the courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then this article obviously fails to meet that standard – which is not a refutation because that was not my goal in the first place.’ … then why entitle your article ‘Skeptical of vote fraud in 2020? Here’s you evidence.’ ?

    I am interested to look at the allegations of voter fraud from an objective perspective, and I am obviously aware of the biases of both democrat and republican press. If fraud has taken place then there is obviously no fair representation of the America people’s right to have their vote legitimately counted; and from an objective standpoint I do not discount the possibility of this having occurred. I am still however waiting to see actual concrete evidence of these allegations rather than just plausible conjecture. The bedrock of any democratic process is, and must be, the right to a fair election, free from any collusion or tampering. Let’s hope the undeniable truth concerning the USA 2020 Election, whether legitimate or not, will out at some point.

  37. What would evidence of voter fraud look like if not that of sworn testimony and voter irregularities along with unprecedented voter turn out from mail in voting? The evidence is overwhelming.

  38. It seems clear to me that the point of this piece is to demonstrate there is enough to compel investigation. No such investigation ever took place which firmly and unequivocally debunked anything. That is to say, if we’re to accept nothing short of absolute and definitive proof of fraud, I feel it’s equally justified to expect absolute and definitive proof that fraud claims have no merit. Simply “explaining away” a claim is not the same as effectively proving the claim is baseless.

  39. Voter fraud did take place and I hope you are happy with this bumbling diaper wearing idiot you got in the basement. Your hatred for Trump and our country is evidence enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *