Posted on 02/10/2024 10:01:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A new study examining the likely impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots had in the 2020 election concludes that the outcome would “almost certainly” have been different without the massive expansion of voting by mail.
The Heartland Institute study tried to gauge the probable impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots cast for both then-candidate Joe Biden and his opponent, President Donald Trump, would have had on the overall 2020 election results.
The study was based on data obtained from a Heartland/Rasmussen survey in December that revealed that roughly one in five mail-in voters admitted to potentially fraudulent actions in the presidential election.
After the researchers carried out additional analyses of the data, they concluded that mail-in ballot fraud “significantly” impacted the 2020 presidential election.
They also found that, absent the huge expansion of mail-in ballots during the pandemic, which was often done without legislative approval, President Trump would most likely have won.
“Had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in-person rather than by mail, Donald Trump would have almost certainly been re-elected,” the report’s authors wrote.
Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history.
The new study examined raw data from the December survey carried out jointly between Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, which tried to assess the level of fraudulent voting that took place in 2020.
The December survey, which President Trump called “the biggest story of the year,” suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they’re no longer permanent residents.
In the new study, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is “under most circumstances, illegal” and so potentially amounts to voter fraud.
“This means that more than one-in-four ballots cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted,” the researchers wrote.
A Heartland Institute research editor and research fellow who was involved in the study explained to The Epoch Times in a telephone interview that there are narrow exceptions where a surveyed behavior may be legal, like filling out a mail-in ballot on behalf of another voter if that person is blind, illiterate, or disabled, and requests assistance.
However, the research fellow, Jack McPherrin, said such cases were within the margin of error and not statistically significant.
In addition to reassessing the likely overall degree of fraudulent mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, Heartland analysts calculated the potential impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots might have produced in the six key swing states that President Trump officially lost.
This, then, was used to determine the impact of potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots on the overall 2020 election result.
First, the researchers analyzed the electoral results for the six swing states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—under the 28.2 percent fraudulent mail-in ballot scenario that they estimated based on the raw survey data.
Then they calculated the electoral results in the six states under the different scenarios, each with a lower assumed percentage of fraudulent ballots, ranging from 28.2 percent all the way down to 1 percent.
For each of the 29 scenarios that they assesses, the researchers calculated the estimated number of fraudulent ballots, which were then subtracted from overall 2020 vote totals to generate a new estimate for vote totals.
Overall, of the 29 different scenarios presented in the study, the researchers concluded that President Trump would have won the 2020 election in all but three.
Specifically, they calculated that the only scenarios that would affirm the official 2020 election result, namely that candidate Biden won, were mail-in ballot fraud levels between 1 and 3 percent of ballots cast.
Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead.
For example, the adjustment to the vote tallies under fraud percentage rates between 13 and 6 percent would mean President Trump would have won Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, though he would have still lost in Michigan and Nevada.
Under such a scenario, President Trump would have won 289 Electoral College votes compared to candidate Biden’s 249.
In scenarios of 5–4 percent fraud, each candidate would have received 269 Electoral College votes, but President Trump would likely still have won because Republicans controlled more state delegations and, under a tie scenario, Congress would have voted based on the number of delegates.
However, the researchers expressed confidence in their overall assessment that the level of mail-in ballot fraud was over 25 percent, indicative of an actual Trump win.
“We have no reason to believe that our survey overstated voter fraud by more than 25 percentage points, and thus, we must conclude that the best available evidence suggests that mail-in ballot fraud significantly impacted the 2020 presidential election, in favor of Joe Biden,” the paper’s authors wrote.
Jim Womack, president of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview and in additional written comments in response to the new study, that he believes the survey questions were flawed and make the survey statistically meaningless, though not without value.
“We know there was fraud in the 2020 election, but you can’t conclude that it was 20 percent or 10 percent or even 5 percent based on the survey because the questions that could lead to such conclusions were unclear,” Mr. Womack said.
However, he said that the survey questions on which Heartland based its research were unclear. He argued that the questions comingled legal and illegal activity and that this made it impossible to conclude specific percentages of mail-in ballot fraud with certainty.
For instance, Mr. Womack pointed out that it’s legal and permissible in all states for people who by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy request or require assistance in filling out mail-in ballots to get such assistance.
However, the wording of one of the survey questions—“During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”—did not differentiate between legal and illegal forms of filling out a mail ballot on behalf of someone.
Therefore, 21 percent of people responding “yes” to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.
Mr. Womack also said that another survey question–“During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a state where you were no longer a permanent resident?”—to which 17 percent replied yes—also does not support the conclusion that all such cases were illegal. That’s because, as Mr. Womack pointed out, federal and state laws allow some voters (such as UOCAVA registered citizens) to cast a ballot in a state where they are no longer permanent residents under certain circumstances.
“We'd need to dive deeper into these responses to determine if these were fraudulent or not,” Mr. Womack said.
Regardless, he praised the Heartland Institute for engaging with the topic of mail-in ballot fraud and raising public awareness about what he said is an important problem.
When asked to comment on Mr. Womack’s objections, Mr. McPherrin, of the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times that he stands by the findings.
For instance, Mr. McPherrin acknowledged that it’s legal for people who are blind, disabled, or illiterate to get help from someone in filling out a ballot.
However, he argued that the number of such individuals responding to the Heartland/Rasmussen survey (which was based on a representative sample of 1,085 likely voters) would likely have been tiny.
“It would be difficult to imagine that dozens of blind people or those that are illiterate or disabled are answering this poll,” he said, adding that the presumably tiny fraction of survey respondents who fall into this category would be statistically insignificant and not impact the overall survey results.
But even if that particular question is left out due to concerns about its clarity, the percentage of people who admitted to potentially fraudulent voter activity would still be about one in five, he said.
Mr. McPherrin said he and his team have received and reviewed Mr. Womack’s criticism and they believe the points he makes have some validity but not enough to affect their findings in a meaningful way.
He maintains the study clearly shows that if the 2020 election had been as fair and secure as prior elections, President Trump would “almost certainly” have been re-elected to a second term.
Mr. Womack continues to stand by his criticism of the survey question design, providing The Epoch Times with a written statement on Feb. 8 that calls the survey “very poorly constructed, failing to capture even a single instance of probable voter fraud.”
He argued that the survey questions were “vague and ambiguous, commingling permissible with impermissible behaviors, thus diminishing the quality and usefulness of responses.”
Further, Mr. Womack argued that propagating the contents of the survey does more harm than good and potentially undermines the work and reputation of “legitimate election integrity organizations like EIN,” referring to the Election Integrity Network, a project of the Conservative Partnership Institute.
Meanwhile, the authors of the Heartland study call for state legislatures to do all in their power to ensure the 2024 presidential election is as secure as possible, mostly by severely limiting mail-in voting and adopting other commonsense policies to prevent mail-in voter fraud.
Unfortunately, better late than never does not apply to 21st Century American politics. Its a whole different ballgame.
Yet, the Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives, and still haven’t shut down the U.S. Postal Service, or anything else, until this is fixed. Obviously, they don’t want to fix this.
And to this day the RNC chairwoman Ronna McRomeny has not even tried to get a handle on ensuring there will be no voter fraud or even making it a priority to not have the debates on Ultra liberal networks with biased moderators.
Technical question: Can a woman be a putz?
Question aside, she is the author of failure in her tenure as RNC chief, multiple failure. In any other job of similar responsibility, she would either have resigned or been shown the door.
They will do it again this year.
I fear you are right...
Yep.
Voting by mail should be what is challenged in the SCOTUS.
They will because absolutely nothing has been done about it, so why would they not do it again? Plus we have so many RINOs who don’t want Trump as POTUS. They would rather see the country destroyed.
Oh look, the picture is King County WA.
Where WA election have been stolen for the last what…three decades…?
That’s my ballot right there…must be the designated for the shredder pile…
IMHO, here’s why it matters.
If Trump lawyers or staff can prove conclusively that Biden was installed rather victorious in 2020, then absolutely NOTHING he has issued as executive orders or legislation he signed or appointments he made is legal.
It means the past four years is legally null and void (including his SCOTUS choice).
It also means that the largest case of fraud and TREASON has been committed against the people of the United States.
Many many people will have to be indicted, charged and taken into custody.
There is no bail on a charge of treason, everyone involved is a flight risk.
It won’t be a matter of ‘revenge’, as the fake news would like to call it.
It’s a matter of enforcing the laws already on the books. No more ‘two tiered’ system of justice.
It also means that the illegal aliens that Obama brought in to “…fundamentally transform America…” are going home, since their entry into the country was and is illegal.
Whether Trump really did win the election of 2020 is the most important issue of our time, and calls from RINOs and democrats to ‘move on’ will fall on deaf ears.
“Almost certainly”=Absolutely he did.
IMHO, here’s why it matters.
If Trump lawyers or staff can prove conclusively that Biden was installed rather victorious in 2020, then absolutely NOTHING he has issued as executive orders or legislation he signed or appointments he made is legal.
It means the past four years is legally null and void (including his SCOTUS choice).
It also means that the largest case of fraud and TREASON has been committed against the people of the United States.
Many many people will have to be indicted, charged and taken into custody.
There is no bail on a charge of treason, everyone involved is a flight risk.
It won’t be a matter of ‘revenge’, as the fake news would like to call it.
It’s a matter of enforcing the laws already on the books. No more ‘two tiered’ system of justice.
It also means that the illegal aliens that Obama brought in to “…fundamentally transform America…” are going home, since their entry into the country was and is illegal.
Whether Trump really did win the election of 2020 is the most important issue of our time, and calls from RINOs and democrats to ‘move on’ will fall on deaf ears.
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Agreed on all points.
We were saying the same thing about BO being installed as president without having met the Article II requirements.
I checked my local county and yes along with the obligatory vote by mail "more days to vote, more ways to vote" there is still the in-person voting option for those of us who want to do it the right way, on Election Day.
Anecdote: I saw an apartment building where there were brochures of the upcoming presidential primary election, thick brochures with addresses on them, all dumped in the mail junk bin. All of them. Not perused and discarded by the residents but apparently very neatly and all at once by the mail carrier.
THREE YEARS AGO we knew the election had been stolen but those who could've CHANGED the situation at the time said and did NOTHING.
Now, we're well on our way to being a full fledged "Banana Republic."
Twenty years ago.
King County just “happens” to find just enough votes that Gregoire wins.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/final-washington-state-recount-results-gregoire-by-130/
Dems want it more, and they have a sympathetic bureaucracy that always tilts the field in one direction.
At the same time, I think a focus on “Electionism” is a mistake.
“Electionism” is the gormless, high school civics class theory of politics that a politically neutral and impartial bureaucracy efficiently implements the program of the election winner.
Rather than what they really do which is do what they want with very little accountability to the elected politicians supposedly in charge.
Winning elections and overcoming fraud, means very little when intransigent bureaucracies resist election results.
Again, IMHO, I believe you are correct in your assessment of BHO.
He was challenged during his stay in the White House by none other than President Trump to prove his eligibility for the Office of the Presidency, and BHO provided a Certificate of Live Birth, a peculiar document that is specific to the State of Hawaii. It is not a birth certificate, merely a document proving that an infant was presented to a medical professional, with no certification that the birth took place in a State of the Union.
The document that was presented by BHO is a proven fake, and the hospital listed on the document for this supposed Live Birth did not exist in the year that is stated on the certificate.
Additionally, BHO has a Social Security number from the State of Connecticut. He has never lived in that state, and he applied for aid as a foreign student when he attended college.
There are too many variables associated with his documentation to be absolutely certain he was qualified to be president.
I do not believe that he was. If this can be proven, then even more people will be charged, and it calls into question the level of debt incurred by both Biden and BHO.
If it was me making the call, I would say that the Democrat Party of America is an illegal organization that owes the Federal Reserve about 20 Trillion dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.