There have been allegations of widespread cheating in the 2020 election by the Trump campaign—the response by election officials—they haven’t seen it.
The question: Should the burden of proof be on the candidate or should election officials have to demonstrate no voter fraud has been committed?
(Note: In Michigan’s Senatorial race between John James(R) and Gary Peters(D), Mr. James had to concede because he did not have the resources to investigate the claims of widespread voter fraud taking place in the Wolverine States.)
It seems obvious, election officials should have to shoulder the burden of proof that they have run a clean election.
Sadly, this isn’t the case.
In Michigan, Richard Baris, director of Big Data Poll, claims he has uncovered evidence of nearly 10,000 dead Michiganders voting in 2020. (Read: 10,000 Dead Michiganders Key to Exposing Voter Fraud)
Election officials’ response: It wasn’t possible.
Furthermore, if it had occurred, those votes would have been rejected.
Election officials gloss over the implications raised by Mr. Baris’s assertion that nearly 10,000 tried to vote.
This means 10,000 fraudulent requests for mail-in ballots were submitted by persons unknown.
These same unknown persons then returned those mail-in ballots to be included in the Michigan vote tallies.
That’s 10,000 cases of voter fraud.
The bigger issue: 10,000 mail-in ballots were requested by the dead—and those requests were fulfilled by county clerks.
This is not only malfeasance—it may be criminal.
If county clerks did mail out ballots to the dead, these election officials facilitated the act of voter fraud.
Furthermore, do election officials believe only the dead took advantage of mail-in ballots? (Read: Mail-in Ballots Represent New Paradigm)
Instead of stonewalling Mr. Baris’ claim, election officials should do everything in their power to investigate his allegations.
The process of verification would be straightforward.
First, were there deceased individuals on the Michigan voter registries at the time of the 2020 election?
Second, did anyone who is deceased apply for and receive an absentee or mail-in ballot?
Third, was that ballot returned to the county? (Read: Successful Ballot Harvesting Requires Economies of Scale)
Finally, was that vote rejected by the system?
Instead, election officials merely declare such an occurrence isn’t possible; yet, they have not proven that it is impossible.
The same logic should be applied to double voting.
Election officials, not candidates, should have the burden to prove their safeguards to prevent double voting have functioned as designed.
Again, election officials provide no evidence their protocols have worked.
Worse, there has been no effort to share with the public what protocols have been setup to prevent cheating.
What about residents currently on county registries that no longer reside within those counties?
The potential for voter fraud is endless.
More troubling, without a voter registry based on a person’s personal identification number (Social Security #) there is no way to effectively prevent double voting. (See: Follow the Dead)
Then there are the statistical aberrations reported by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai—who applied statistical analysis to three counties Trump carried by a wide margin in Michigan.
Dr. Ayyadurai’s analysis indicated 69,000 votes had been taken from Donald Trump in those three counties and given to Joe Biden, resulting in a 138,000 net difference.
Did this happen?
Instead of declaring it couldn’t occur, election officials, not the candidate, should prove that it didn’t.
Again, this would not be difficult to prove—one way or another.
Simply compare the hard copy ballots to the digital vote count coming from polling machines.
Mr. Ayyadurai’s analysis implied computer software was at the core of the vote stealing scheme his work uncovered.
Could widespread voter fraud have been committed via computer software?
It is not only possible—it is something that should be expected. (Read: Sweeping the Change—An Elegant Way to Cheat)
The 2020 election has been described as unprecedented—regrettably, it will likely go down as unprecedented cheating.
In all of this, it should be the burden of election officials to ferret out the malfeasance, not the candidates.
Sadly, that’s not what’s taking place.