“Election Integrity Project” uncovers MASSIVE voter fraud
Allen B West
by Matt Palumbo
August 7, 2017
Just how big a problem is voter fraud?
Just a few weeks after his Election Day victory, then-President Elect Donald Trump turned a few heads by posting that he won not only the electoral college, but also the popular vote if you “deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
It seemed like an irrelevant point to make. Not only had he already won, there was no evidence to suggest voter fraud on the scale Trump alleged. In fact, by the end of November, only four cases of voter fraud had been documented in the 2016 election. Of course, that doesn’t mean there were only four cases of voter fraud.
As The Federalist’s John Gibbs puts it, “does the fact that 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle in 2009 mean that only 109 people jaywalked in Seattle that year? Does the fact that 103,733 people were cited for driving without a seat-belt in Tennessee in 2015 mean that only that many people were driving without seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015? Obviously not.”
President Donald Trump has since ordered the creation of a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” to research voter fraud (which has been off to a rocky start), but it’s a private organization devoted to uncovering voter fraud that’s made progress since then.
According to Zero Hedge, the Election Integrity Project California had provided a list of 11 California counties that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens.
In addition, Los Angeles County officials informed the project that “the number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144 percent of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”
The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. has joined Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan organization in Washington, D.C., in sending a National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) Section 8 notice of violation letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.
Democrats and so-called “voting rights advocates” have slammed Trump’s commission, which Vice President Mike Pence’s office has estimated would cost $500,000 over two years as a Republican attempt to curtail voting rights, especially among minorities and young people (who tend to vote for Democrats).
Is it really any surprise that it’s the party which benefits the most from voter fraud that’s the most public in denial about its existence? Those two facts may be related…
THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION AND VOTING SURVEY
2016 Comprehensive Report to the 115th Congress
This is a survey that has been in submitted yearly to congress since 2004.
Turnout: Data reported to the EAVS show a total of 140,114,502 citizens who voted in the 2016 General Election, representing a national turnout rate of 63 percent of the Citizen Voting Age Population.
Provisional Voting: There were 2.5 million provisional ballots cast in 2016, with nearly half of those ballots cast in California. Of the provisional ballots cast, 71 percent were counted either partially or in full.
[Provisional ballot is used to record a vote when there are questions about a given voter’s eligibility. A provisional ballot would be cast when: The voter refuses to show a photo ID (in regions that require one) The voter’s name does not appear on the electoral roll for the given precinct.]
Ninety-nine percent of absentee ballots categorized as “returned and submitted for counting” were ultimately counted in the 2016 election.
Voting age population statistics versus registration.
According to Heritage.org information, there were eight states who had more registered voting than their citizen voting age population.
Which states refuse or do not have voter identification laws in general according to Balletpedia?
California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada (signature only), New York, North Carolina (only because District Court stuck their nose into state business), Oregon is vote by mail state and requires ID at registration only, Pennsylvania revising, Texas (only because federal courts stuck their nose into state business and after several years of court proceedings), Vermont (only 1st time), Washington is vote by mail state, and West Virginia (only 1st time)
States with the highest percentage of absentee votes cast in the 2016 general election:
California by-mail voting was more than 50 percent of its total ballots cast.
Followed by Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Arizona, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Maine, and Florida.
Less significant but still nearly a quarter of absentee ballots tallied fell to the states of Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.
To bring it into prospective:
The highest electoral votes occur in the following states: California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20) and Pennsylvania (20).
Traditionally the most heavily Democrat states are: District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, and California.
Currently Democrat governors preside over: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, American Samoa, DC, and Puerto Rico with independents voting in line with the Democrats.
The considered swing states for the 2016 general election were: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nevada.
Here’s a list of the 10 closest 2016 states, according to The Cook Political Report’s running tally, ranked from narrowest margin by percentage to widest:
1. Michigan 0.3 percent-Trump 47.6, Clinton 47.3 – Difference: 13,080 votes
2. New Hampshire 0.4 percent-Clinton 47.6, Trump 47.2 – Difference: 2,701 votes
3. Wisconsin 1 percent-Trump 47.9, Clinton 46.9 – Difference: 27,257 votes
4. Pennsylvania 1.2 percent-Trump 48.8, Clinton 47.6 – Difference: 68,236 votes (99 percent reporting)
5. Florida 1.2 percent-Trump 49, Clinton 47.8 – Difference: 114,455 votes
6. Minnesota 1.5 percent-Clinton 46.4, Trump 44.9 – Difference: 44,470 votes
7. Nevada 2.4 percent-Clinton 47.9, Trump 45.5 – Difference: 26,434 votes
8. Maine 2.7 percent-Clinton 47.9, Trump 45.2 – Difference: 19,995 votes
9. North Carolina 3.8 percent-Trump 49.9, Clinton 46.1 – Difference: 177,009 votes
10. Arizona 3.9 percent-Trump 49.3, Clinton 45.4 – Difference: 91,682 votes
21st Century Voting Records Review
There is no excuse in the current digital age that a state hasn’t kept their voter rolls current with those listed as deceased or moved. A state’s own internal statistical record matching programs should be enough; but if not, there are three programs currently in place to cross check between the state and federal records.
- The United States Post Office (USPS) and National Change of Address (NCOA) files
- Social Security Administration
- The U.S. DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program
They may be related — gee ya think?
Q – So which states are least likely to allow voter investigation groups to do studies on their voting populations?
A – Those most determined to avoid voter ID laws and those who have a greater input of absentee or mail-in voting.
Just the simple comparison of information I did shows a serious issue or two or three. While I would say most states do try to keep their voting information current, there is definitely room for improvement and consideration of changes. States ranting and carrying on are the same states in general as those above where it is far too easy for voter manipulation and fraud to occur. Those groups and entities doing the ranting need to have their own purposes and backers exposed to see just how much they are involved in civil or criminal voter fraud activities.
Isn’t it strange (not) that those in a Party who have had evidence explode across “not fake media” in the last year concerning fraud, manipulation, or other means to “acquire” votes seemingly have the advantage in the same states that consistently seem to disregard their legal citizen’s rights of assurance of voter integrity?
Just pointing out something interesting…