This one is a tough one, not because there is a lack of evidence to support the idea that there is election fraud in the United States, but because it goes against the core beliefs of many Americans that their election system is honest, open, fair and accurate.
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it’s so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.
At this point though we want to distinguish between election fraud and voter fraud since many people are confused about the two. Voter fraud is when you vote in an illegal way. One example includes voting if you’re not a citizen. Another example voter fraud would be if you live with your mom, both ballots arrive in the mail. You open up both your ballot and your mom’s ballot and you vote for both of you, forge her signature and turn in both ballots (thus getting 2 votes for yourself). This is obviously illegal but it’s not very common. Getting people motivated enough to vote once is difficult enough.
By contrast however, election fraud is when you tamper with the election system in some way (such as rigging voting machines, purging voters from the rolls, changing vote totals in the database, and more.)
How easy is it to rig an election anyway? Well…It all adds up.
Soft Election Fraud:
What do we mean by soft election fraud? This would include any process which would make the election unfair in some way but not so direct as to tamper with vote totals or databases or anything like that. This could include examples such as manipulated media coverage, cutting the number of polling places, long waits in line to vote, long waits between registering to vote and being able to vote, requiring party registration, and more.
Let’s use a specific example. Democratic Party Super-delegates. What are super-delegates? In the Presidential Primaries, in the democratic party, When you go to vote, around 85% of the delegates to the DNC convention where the final candidate is chosen to be the Presidential nominee are representative of the voters. However around 15% of the delegates that choose the Presidential Nominee are super-delegates, these are party officials, lobbyists, former governors, congressmen and more who have been chosen by party insiders to be delegates. What are the purpose of these super-delegates? It’s to make sure the democratic party remains in the control of the insiders and party bosses so that no grassroots movement can take over the party. Former DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted as much during the 2016 election. She was DNC chair at that time.
Superdelegates have been part of the Democratic Party Presidential Primary Process since 1984. However the origins of superdelegates go back further. With the 1968 Democratic National Convention, pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election or caucus. the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what primary voters saw as unfair control of the nomination process by party bosses.
The McGovern-Fraser Commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 and shifted the balance of power to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members. As a result this increased the level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box however, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carter which both resulted in landslide defeats.
A new 70-member commission headed by North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt was appointed to further change the Democratic Party’s nomination process, attempting to balance the wishes of rank-and-file Democrats with the collective wisdom of party leaders and to thereby avoid the nomination of insurgent candidates. Following a series of meetings held from August 1981 to February 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended the idea of superdelegates and suggested superdelegate slots for Democratic members of Congress, state party chairs and vice chairs. With the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were to represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention, but when it was actually implemented by the Democratic National Committee for the 1984 election, the number of superdelegates was set at around 14%. Over time this percentage has gradually increased, until by 2008 the percentage stood at approximately 20% of total delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention.
What is the problem with superdelegates? Well they make up anywhere from 15% to 20% of the primary vote when deciding who the Presidential nominee for the democratic party will be. This could easily swing an election against the will of the voters. Many elections are within a 15% margin. When it really matters, the superdelegates can tip the scales in favor of the party insiders.
On the Republican Side we have “Winner Take All” primaries. This means that delegates chosen to go to the national Republican convention are chosen based on who won the state, rather than proportional represenation. This means that if you won the state by 1% of the vote in a 51/49% election, as a Presidential candidate you’d receive 100% of the delegates from that state. Intead of on the Democratic Party side where you’d receive 51% of the delegates from the same state (instead of 100%), minus the superdelegates.
Why is winner take all a bad system in terms of election Presidential candidates? Because it does not give a fair representation of the will of the voters. Since a Presidential candidate gets 100% of the delegates in a state where they won by 1%, that means that 49% of the residents from the very same state don’t have their voices heard.
Let’s move on to another example, Controlling the Presidential Debates. For many Americans who don’t follow politics or government operations closely, the Presidential debates are sometimes the first and only time that citizens will hear and get to know each of the Presidential candiates and debate policy issues. This is why both the Democrats and the Republicans work together literally to control the Presidential Debate Process. How do they do this?
Through the Commision on Presidential Debates…The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is an independent non-profit organization established in 1987. Their operations are funded jointly by both political parties. Since both parties fund the CPD, they effectively have a monopoly over the Presidential Debate Process. Both parties have used this control to keep 3rd Party candidates out of the debates.
In the year 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a candidate to be included in the national debates they must have at least 15% support across five national polls. In 2003 a non-profit organization called “Open Debates” was formed to advocate for debates that included third parties and that allowed exchanges among the candidates. Open Debates criticized the CPD for collusion between the two political parties. One example includes the 2012 election Where the Romney campaign and the Obama campaign signed a contract with the CPD called a “memo of understanding” which informed both candidates of the debate topics in advance and set strict rules for the candidates such as not being able to ask direct questions of the other canidate, seating arrangements, what questions will and will not be asked, and more.
On October 8, 2004, two presidential candidates, Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb were arrested while protesting the Commission on Presidential Debates for excluding third-party candidates from the nationally televised debates in St. Louis, Missouri. On October 16, 2012, Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and Green Party vice-presidential nominee Cheri Honkala were arrested for disorderly conduct while trying to take part in the second presidential debate in Hempstead, New York. The two women were taken to a warehouse, and for around eight hours strapped to chairs with plastic wrist restraints before being released.
The CPD has had mulitple of lawsuits filed against them as well. In the 2000 election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader filed a complaint with the FEC, on the basis that corporate contributions to the CPD violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. The FEC ruled that the CPD’s funding sources did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 2012, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the CPD, citing the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case was dismissed in 2014 by the DC circuit court. In September 2015, the Libertarian and Green parties filed another lawsuit against the CPD, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney citing violation of federal anti-trust laws. The case was dismissed in August 2016.
By controlling the debate process, the two major parties have been able to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but to allow a very lively debate within that spectrum. This is why the policies, debate topics and types of candidates never change and the general public doesn’t hear very many new ideas from their elected officials.
Let’s move on to another example of soft election fraud, legalized bribery, also known as “Money in Politics”. This has been a problem in American politics for quite some time but has accelerated in recent years with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission supreme court decision, which opened the door for unlimited election spending by corporations to SuperPAC’s. The ruling brought a new era of corporate influence in politics; allowing companies, business people and billionaires to “buy elections” to promote their financial interests.
When corporations and Governments mix, both become corrupted, not just the Government, both. This is why politicians (especially at the national level) don’t actually implement policies to benefit the people, they implement policies to benefit their donors. That’s why politicians that take money from the health insurance industry don’t want universal healthcare, that’s why politicians that take money from oil companies don’t implement practical environmental policies, because they have already been bought out. There are countless examples.
Bribing politicians is a form of soft election fraud. Both parties agree that it’s OK because they both represent corporations and billionaires and their interests, and corporations and billionaires want to continue to buy out the political process. Billionaire Warren Buffet even went so far as to say that the billionaire class has won the class war.
Let’s take a look at another form of soft election fraud, manipulated media coverage. In 1983, 90% of US media was owned by 50 companies. Now 90% of US media is controlled by 6 giant media companies. These 6 companies are General Electric, News-CORP, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS.
These media companies and their various owners also give money to political campaigns from both political parties, this is a major conflict of interest. It means a company like Comcast (who owns NBC) can give money to a political campaign for their preferred candidate, and then use their media influence to trick the public and cover an election in a manipulated way to get their preferred candidate to win, and then once their preferred candidate wins, the politician can then turn around and pass laws and policies that benefit Comcast. A recent example of this happened during the 2016 democratic primary, when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said that they would announce Hillary Clinton the winner in the California Primary before the polls close.
The major corporate media companies will also use a technique known as “astroturfing”, in other words, fake grassroots movements and organizations for the purposes of manipulating the public to support one position or another. Investigative journalist and former CBS employee Sharyl Attkisson explains how astroturfing, funded by political, corporate, or other special interests is able to manipulate and distort media messages and public opinion very effectively.
With enough time, money, and effort, giant media companies are able to construct an artificial reality for many people. An early pioneer of media manipulation in the United States was Edward Bernays.
In the 2002 Documentary known as “Century of the Self”, Adam Curtis describes the techniques of Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud’s American Nephew) in terms of Media Manipulation in the United States. Propaganda was replaced with “Public Relations”.
In the modern era, these techniques are even more sophisticated. Social media like Facebook for example has computer algorithms that are able to measure patterns of thought online and use that data to manipulate what people see and hear. The algorithms can also be set up to organize people into bubbles, where you only see posts from things you like and block things you don’t like. Every time you like something or block somebody, you’re giving the machine more information. That information can be used in a countless number of ways. It still hasn’t fully played out yet.
Hard Election Fraud. Rigged Voting Machines:
This isn’t just theoretical though, there are real life examples. Clint Curtis is an American attorney, computer programmer and ex-employee of NASA and Exxon Mobil. He is notable for making a series of whistle-blower allegations about his former employer, Yang Enterprises and about Republican Congressman Tom Feeney. In 2000, Feeney and Yang Enterprises requested Curtis’s assistance in a scheme to steal votes by inserting fraudulent code into touch screen voting systems. Curtis testified under oath on the matter.
In the 2016 Democratic Primary Election, states that had a paper trail Preferred Sanders over Clinton 51% to 49%. However in states without a paper trail, Clinton was preferred 65% to Sander’s 35%.
In 2006 Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy, performed a Security analysis of the Diebold Accuvote-TS voting Machine. The main findings of the security Analysis were as follows:
1. Malicious software running on a single voting machine can steal votes with little if any risk of detection.
The malicious software can modify all of the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting
machine, so that even careful forensic examination of these records will find nothing amiss. We have
constructed demonstration software that carries out this vote-stealing attack.
2. Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted
into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one
minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.
3. AccuVote-TS machines are susceptible to voting-machine viruses—computer viruses that can spread
malicious software automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- and
post-election activity. We have constructed a demonstration virus that spreads in this way, installing
our demonstration vote-stealing program on every machine it infects.
4. While some of these problems can be eliminated by improving Diebold’s software, others cannot be
remedied without replacing the machines’ hardware. Changes to election procedures would also be
required to ensure security
Diebold responded to the study stating:
“Diebold strongly disagrees with the conclusion of the Princeton report. Secure voting equipment, proper procedures and adequate testing assure an accurate voting process that has been confirmed through numerous, stringent accuracy tests and third party security analysis. Every voter in every local jurisdiction that uses the AccuVote-Ts should feel secure knowing that their vote will count on Election Day.”
A number of 3rd party security analyses were also done on the AccuVote-TS (Such as the Hopkins/Rice Report, the SAIC report, the RABA report, the compuware report), and like the Princeton report, they came to the conclusion that the AccuVote-TS has serious security problems.
Something else worth noting is that the computer code that counts our votes is a private trade secret. That means that the company (such as Diebold) creates the code that counts our votes, and does not have to release that code to the public, opening up the door to potential tampering.
Exit Polls vs. Final Results. In the 2016 Presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, exit poll data compiled from 28 states and showed significant discrepancies between the exit polls and final results. In Ohio there was an 8.5% discrepancy, 5.9% in North Carolina, 5.6% in Pennsylvania, 4.9% in Wisconsin, and 2.6% in Forida, all outside the margin of error.
In emerging democracies, exit polls are used in order to find any manipulation in the voting system, it also provides a double check to the vote which improves transparency. A vote is usually considered accurate if the exit polling data is within 2% of the actual results. While swings in the general election of 8.5% are bad, exit poll discrepencies were even greater in the primaries, where there were swings as high as 14%. In all states except two (Wisconsin and Oklahoma), the final results were in Clinton’s favor.
Collusion Between the two parties. It should be made clear that election fraud has taken place and that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have benefited from massive election fraud in the primaries and the general election. Trump is a fraud, as was Clinton. In fact both of their families have been close for quite some time.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump shared a Golf Game and a cordial chat shortly before Trump decided to run. Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton are also good friends..However they only put their friendship on ice after the 2016 elections. Trump also gave $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Trump and Clilnton also share the same Deleware tax loophole address with 285,000 other firms. Bill Clinton also appointed Donald Trump’s sister to the United States Court of Appeals in 1999. WikiLeaks Leaked John Podesta Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Strategy, Which Included ‘Elevating’ Trump as a pied piper candidate.
The Following Video is of Donald Trump Praising Hillary Clinton in 2012.
When moving forward we need to not simply replace one fraud with another, but rather to transform a system that makes fraud into an essential component rather than a rare occurance. The system of “represenative democracy” produces fraud as the norm rather than the exception. The problem with the system we’ve got though is that it relies on the corrupt officials to reform themselves, the voters have no direct power to overturn decisions made by these corrupt officials.
At this time, many in the United States are whipped up into a state of hysteria around Russia, claiming that Russia hacked our elections in a conspiracy to get Donald Trump elected to be President. 13 Russian Nationals, including Vladimir Putin’s Chef, have been indicted as a result of this hysteria. Shortly after the 2016 Presidential elections, Vladimir Putin made the claim that Russia did not tamper in our elections.
Whether Russia interfered in our election or not, it doesn’t matter, because the mechanisms remain in place for our own government officials, both political parties, corporate media, billionaires, and big money to rig the election process and has been in place for a long time. It’s not Russia doing it, it’s us doing it to ourselves, but many Americans are too afraid to look in the mirror. Maybe they’d see a country that pretends to be another country.
Maybe if they did look in the mirror they’d be inspired to take direct action and correct the wrongs of a corrupt election system. Whether your vote is counted accurately or not, it’s extremely important to get directly involved yourself on the issues that you and your community cares about. If you wont do it, who will?
Why ‘Russian Meddling’ is a Trojan Horse
Capitol Hill’s Top 75 Corporate Sponsors
Top Organization Contributors
Noam Chomsky on Propaganda – The Big Idea – Interview with Andrew Marr
The Secret History of Superdelegates:
HUNTING THE HUNT COMMISSION
Commission on Presidential Debates
Memorandum of Understanding (Obama/Romney/CPD contract):
THE MISLEADING MYTH OF VOTER FRAUD IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS:
Analysis of an Electronic Voting System:
SAIC Report – Risk Assessment Report Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System and Processes:
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Technical Security Assessment Report:
SECURITY ANALYSIS OF THE DIEBOLD ACCUVOTE-TS VOTING MACHINE
Refuting Diebold’s Response
2016 Presidential Election Exit Poll/Votecount Comparison
Here’s Bill Clinton and Donald Trump hanging out together in 2000:
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump shared a Golf Game and a cordial chat shortly before Trump decided to run.
Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton are good friends..They only put their friendship on ice for this election:
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are both connected to Jeffery Epstein:
Trump gave $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation:
Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax ‘loophole’ address with 285,000 firms:
Bill Clinton then appointed Donald Trump’s sister to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1999:
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton attended Donald Trump’s wedding:
WikiLeaks Leaked John Podesta Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Strategy, Which Included ‘Elevating’ Trump In GOP:
Both Clinton and Trump are tied to the Rothschilds:
Mueller Indictment of 13 Russian Nationals: