There ain't no such thing as vote fraud--except maybe in DuPage County

Progressives/Liberals/Democrats continue to make the tiresome and false assertion that vote fraud “doesn’t exist.”

They’ve boxed themselves into this laughable corner because it supports their ideological and partisan argument that any effort to ensure the integrity of the vote is a ridiculous racist plot to suppress minority and Democratic voters.

Now comes the DuPage County DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin who has filed vote fraud charges against five people. They’re innocent until proven guilty, of course, but the investigation that uncovered the felony fraud case cannot be easily dismissed because “vote fraud doesn’t exist”–the threadbare argument of left-wing partisans.

That’s not the only vote fraud charges to emerge following the 2020 election. Here are some others:

Last week, the mayor pro tem of a Northern California city resigned from office after pleading guilty to election fraud charges. Crescent City Mayor Pro Tem Alex Campbell entered the plea to making a false declaration of candidacy in Del Norte County Superior Court, local news outlet Wild Rivers Outpost reported, citing the city’s clerk’s office.

Separately, in Aberdeen, Mississippi, a judge ordered a new runoff electionfor a city alderman seat after more than three-quarters of absentee ballots cast in the June 2020 Democratic runoff election were found to be invalid, while a notary involved in the election was arrested.

I don’t know what candidate or party would have benefited from the alleged DuPage County vote fraud. Nor am I joining the chorus of Trump supporters who insist that he won in a “landslide” but that he was cheated out of the victory.

At the same time, it’s hard to tell how many people did actually engage in fraud but weren’t caught. The problem is that opportunities for fraud are everywhere present in the progressive/liberal/Democratic schemes that, for example, send out sample ballots willy-nilly out to everyone listed on an unverified list of name. Or that political operatives are allowed to pick up of marked ballots, destroying any semblance of a chain of custody. Or that mailed-in ballots can be counted well after polls close. Or that no form of personal identification is required for to vote in person.

We will again be reminded that “studies show” that vote fraud is as rare as, in one case, “being struck by lightening.” Many are based on the number of actual prosecutions, overlooking–intentionally or not–the fact that the study does not account for the number of fraud cases that are not discovered or prosecuted. Perhaps one day a study will appear that will include the universe of fraud cases, but such studies would be difficult, if not impossible, and clearly not pursued by academics who are overwhelming on the left.

Until such time, procedures designed to halt vote fraud are not only prudent, but also clearly necessary. So, here’s are kudos for Berlin for going after the cheaters who destroy my vote. 

My historical novel: Madness: The War of 1812

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • 'Progressives/Liberals/Democrats continue to make the tiresome and false assertion that vote fraud "doesn't exist."'

    Who said this?

  • I also have heard the argument that voter fraud is at best very minimal. If this is true, then why was it necessary to coin the following statement that allegedly originated in Chicago: "Vote early and often."

  • In reply to davegorak:

    Great question... Seriously, if someone did something dishonest 80 years ago, we should almost certainly take steps that make it difficult for citizens to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Certainly, government policy should be based on jokes from the 1960's.

  • In reply to dave77:

    "Jokes from the '60s . . ." You lost me.

  • In reply to davegorak:

  • What exactly do people think happens with mail in ballots? Do you all think that ballots aren't verified against voter rolls? Does anyone here actually claim to know what happens behind the scenes?

    I'm reminded of all the wailing from 'voter fraud' screachers about the Trump lawsuit in Michigan. There were outrageous claims about boxes of votes being brought in from the back and people being told not to verify votes and stories of vans with out of state license plates... Here is the final disposition of the Michigan lawsuit by the Trump campaign:

    I'd love people to read this and then still claim that the ridiculous statements made in the news are actually related to voter or election fraud. What do people think? Do you think I can just grab a ballot off of a pile and fill it out and sign it "Bubba Smith" and that it will be counted?

  • In reply to dave77:

    Are you that naive? Yes, the shenanigans of the 60s and 70s are gone replaced by new shenanigans. I had cocktails with a few precinct captains in our ward and once the lips loosen, the stories you hear. They laugh about it. Do I have “proof?” No, and none of these guys are whistleblowers, I won’t name names, and Kim Foxx or Kwame wouldn’t prosecute anyway. IL is the second or third most corrupt state, four governors jailed, dozens of aldermen convicted, more than a dozen other officials currently under indictment like Burke, McClain, So you think all that corruption wouldn’t include vote fraud? You believe in unicorns?

  • In reply to Get out of IL now!:


  • In reply to dave77:

    Same goes for the "voter suppression" screeches.

  • This is one of Dennis's patented straw man arguments. First he builds the straw man: 'Progressives/Liberals/Democrats continue to make the tiresome and false assertion that vote fraud "doesn't exist."' I asked him yesterday, Who said this?: He did not answer because, of course, it is a straw man--no one said it.

    So, was there fraud in the recent election? Probably. Somewhere. So, was the election stolen? I think everyone who has studied the evidence agrees with Attorney General Bill Barr that "we have not seen fraud on a scale that would have affected a different outcome in the election."

    Those who argue that the election was stolen because there may have been fraud somewhere are like the guy who argues that we can't trust our money to the banks because there are bank robbers.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Again, having to do your research. How about this: "It is more likely that an American will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls,” saith the left wing Brennan Center. It calls it "The Myth of Voter Fraud." It says: "However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators."

    It cites a Washington Post study that found: "To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
    "So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below."

    Obviously, this study is flawed. The universe is publicly cited allegations or prosecutions. That's an incredibly small slice of the universe and fails to come close to the unreported number of fraudulent votes. Unless, of course, you would make the nonsense argument that none other are reported because none other existed.

    But here you've got me. Even the studies acknowledge a degree of vote fraud, but that the incidence is so small as to be inconsequential. As in "What, me worry?" To argue that is not exactly the same as claiming "there is no vote fraud." Thus, my strawman. My hyperbole. So Sorry. Now, is it your position that voter fraud is so rare that it is virtually nonexistent? That the integrity of elections requires none of the safeguards being discussed? This is the progressive/liberal/Democratic argument. Do you disown it?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    I accept your apology for building a straw man, but I am puzzled by your response. Your "research" includes an article from the Brennan Center, which concluded that "fraud is very rare," You also refer to an article from the Washington Post to similar effect and say about one or both of these sources, "Obviously, this study is flawed," without evidence.

    Then, in your final paragraph, as if to neutralize the sting of admitting your hyperbole, you try to put words in my mouth (or in this case, in my fingers): "This is the progressive/liberal/Democratic argument. Do you disown it?"

    To repeat, the assertion I made was the one Bill Barr made, "we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome." This is enough to rebut the claims of those who are now trying to change the next election by denying the vote to as many of the "wrong" people as possible.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    This shouldn't be difficult to understand. I cited the Brennan article because it exposes my hyperbole, but it also demonstrates that as rare as fraud supposedly is, it does indeed exist. But the study--so often cited by the those who argue against vote reform--is flawed because it doesn't capture any fraud that escapes notice or is ignored. I'm clearly not putting words in your mouth. I am simply asking
    if you agree with the argument that fraud is so rare that none of the discussed reforms are needed.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    By your standards, all social statistics are "flawed." Even birth and death records don't capture events that are not noted or reported. Still, most people consider these statistics more reliable than the anecdotal yarns that some people seem to accept as truth. As for reforms, I am a progressive,/liberal/Democrat and I believe that all things can be improved, so of course I am open to discussing intelligent reforms, but I don't know which reforms you are talking about. I think that, consistent with legitimate election security, citizens should be given the widest possible opportunity to cast their ballots when and where they find convenient, and that all votes should always be counted equally.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    The study is flawed because it doesn't capture the universe or an accurate representation of it. "all votes should be counted easily." At least we agree on something, although you don't seem to agree all legitimate votes should be counted easily. Thus, some of the way to mail-in ballot are distributed, collected and counted need reform.

  • I saw this when it was first gaining traction on the Trump sub and all I could think was, “my god, they will literally believe anything posted, even random screenshots.” How are there so many gullible fuckwits in this country?


Leave a comment