Home page

No one wants to spoil the fun and partying because the winners see the results to be vindication of the USA's free and fair election system. Others have expressed doubts stating that there is evidence of fraud. On balance, the likelihood of the election not in fact having been fair is quite high, not because of the current election but because of the existing evidence of concerning fraud in most USA elections.

This is why in September 2020 Democrat Tulsi Gabbard and Republican Rodney Davis introduced a bill, "The Election Fraud Prevention Act" in September, 2020, to withhold federal funds from states that allow a third party to collect ballots from voters. This is to prevent ballot or vote harvesting that is wide open to fraudulent tampering of votes and permitted in many states.

Gabbard has stated that this is not a partisan issue with abuse recorded affecting candidates of both sides in, for example, North Carolina & California. Donald Trump's warnings concerning postal votes were based on known facts but the way this system works makes it pretty immune to normal legal procedures.

The old royalist-biased first-past-the-post Electoral College presidential election system, together with the tolerance of widespread gerrymandering, the USA definitely have a serious problem of electoral fraud which needs to be resolved.


Although the term, gerrymandering, comes from the behaviour of an American politician, the process has and continues to be applied in electoral systems that apply the first-past-the-post system. This system for assignment of winning positions is heavily biased against small and new political parties. The instability and lack of any significant permanence of a third party in the United Kingdom is a result of the first-past-the-post system. Gerrymandering was applied in Northern Ireland for some time.

This system is usually based on electoral district boundaries being adjusted so as to capture non-representative proportions of voters so as to favour one party or the other.

Example: For example a population of green yellow voters in the left block would result in greens securing 50% of the vote and yellows securing 50%. This can be altered significantly by shaping the seven electoral districts as shown on the right which would guarantee the green party 71% of the vote and the yellows just 28%.
The potential for ballot harvesting

US states have different requirements governing how postal votes are to find their way to the count.

  • 1 state explicitly requires that the voter returns their ballot:

  • Alabama

  • 12 states specify who may return ballots (i.e., household members, care givers, and/or family members) in most cases:

  • Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas

  • 24 states and D.C. permit someone chosen by the voter to return mail ballots on their behalf in most cases:

  • Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia

  • 13 states do not specify if a ballot may be returned by someone other than the voter:

  • Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

This means there is a higher risk of ballot harvesting in 37 states where the boxes are coloured light and dark red. This is 74% of the states. These are specifically at risk because 24 rely on a trust or honour system and 13 have no established rules. Honour or trust systems often rely on "established" practice which might or might not be trustworthy.

Mechanisms of fraud

With today's access to personal profiles including ID numbers, signatures and most other facts that might be requested to be completed on a mail-in postal vote and the ease with which official envelopes and document formats can be reproduced, it is quite easy to organize mass substitution of completed mail-in votes with bogus votes that shift the registered vote from one party to another. This can also include abuse taking place within logistics functions including mail and postage delivery systems. Where substitutions have required additional time the postal stamp (frank) can be back-dated to conform with requirements. All of this results in what turns up to be counted all appearing to be "above board". No amount of oversight by US or even foreign election overseers will be able to discern which votes that have arrived through the mail-in system are fraudulent.

By the time mail-in votes arrive at the count the damage has been done and no amount of oversight, recounts or whatever else is requested will change the vote.

Voter registration records

Another manipulation that is widespread in the USA is the de-registration of voters who by their identity profile are more or less likely to vote for specific parties. This process is overseen, extraordinarily by political party members and the reasons for de-registration, most commonly and fraudulently applied is to state on the record that the individual has left the state. This has, in the past, resulted in many people turning up to vote and being unable to do so because there was no practice of informing people when they were removed from the voter's registration records. Investigative journalists have estimated that countrywide this fraudulent process has removed well over 2 million people from the voter registers.

The habit of voting can extend beyond life

US households in this 2020 election and in some states have reported that they received mail-in voting materials for relatives that are deceased.

The recount boogie

Because much of the fraud occurs upstream in the supply chain between voters and the counting centres, they are designed to nullify the validity of the counts. As a result recounts will not alter results significantly because any fraud will have already been baked into the votes being counted and recounted. Under such circustances recounts only reaffirm counts or otherwise but this only establishes counting errors. Recounts have no additional value in those cases where the oversight of the upstream integrity of the chain of custody is exposed to potential fraudulent handling of ballots, as is the case in too many states.

No one really knows what is going on out there

The mechanisms and local influences are all fairly murky with traditional families running local politics and the machinery of governance and voting takes place at county or county-equivalent level. There are 3,141 counties and county-equivalents in the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
  • 3,007 entities named "County"
  • 16 Boroughs in Alaska
  • 11 Census Areas in Alaska (for areas not organized into Boroughs by the State)
  • 64 Parishes in Louisiana
  • 42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)
  • 1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia
This does not include Commonwealths and territories and their 121 county equivalents:
  • Puerto Rico - 78 Municipios
  • U.S. Virgin Islands - 2 Districts
  • Guam - 19 Election Districts
  • Northern Mariana Islands - 17 Districts
  • American Samoa - 5 Districts
Needless to say combining the first-past-the-post system with gerrymandering, ballot harvesting, inadequate safeguards and close to feudal setups in some county-equivalents, then fraud is likely. To state there is no fraud for lack of proof or evidence it is necessary to resort to the US intelligence agencies favourite term that it is "highly likely" that, based on past experience, and the archaic election procedures, that the 2020 presidential election was subject to fraud on a substantial scale. In a country that considers itself to be the leading democracy of the world, this is unfortunate because the US citizens truly believe in this system. So the two dominant political operatives maintain the theatre that "We the people.... decide based on a free and fair election." Lincoln is said to have made the point that, ".. you can't fool all of the people all of the time". This is certainly true, but the actors on this stage have the role of projecting an image which Hollywood and others have promoted. This image promotion has progressed to such an extent that even when fraud is almost self-evident, it will be denied by all of the actors to preserve the image. Any criticism of this image is interpreted as a personal attack or a sign of unpatriotic "behaviour".

The Democrats and US media have spent almost 4 years stating that Trump won the 2016 election by fraudulent means and through foreign help in the form of the Russia gate fantasy.

When this proved to be groundless for lack of evidence, they departed on that failed quest for impeachment. These same people are affronted when others point out that the 2020 election was likely to have been associated with fraud; the real issue is just by how much.

Bias in law

The objective of fraudsters who exercise their trade on a repeated basis is to not be detected and this is why the carrying out of fraud needs to be completed before the vote documentation enters administrative structures where some form of checking or audit takes place. It is for this reason that the issue of whether observers were allowed to monitor the count is a weak basis for initiating a case at law because of the difficulty of presenting "convincing evidence". Indeed, the fact that a judge can refuse to advance a case for lack of evidence raises a serious question of logic of legal procedures. The very fact that over time the accumulating evidence of gerrymandering, interference in postal votes and the practice of ballot harvesting carried out in some states under partisan control should be sufficient evidence in itself to justify a legal investigation to clean up the system used in the election of the president of the United States. It would seem that if the word "United" is to have any constitutional meaning then the presidential election, at least, should be subject to stricter standards. That the likelihood of fraud is high because of a range of possible illicit activities and loopholes for the exercise of fraud, including some practices that are legal at state level, and that no investigations take place in a country that prides itself on its operation under the law, is an extraordinary state of affairs. As things stand there is a serious Catch-22 situation making the electoral system a fraudsters playground because of inadequate checks and a failure to impose strict standards in the chain of custody of mail-in votes. This system has been maintained largely because of the accommodation of the two party system in sustaining a group of people in a comfortable style of living while showing no particular concern with the supporting the education, true enlightenment and effective freedom of all of the people of America to exercise a meaningful expression of democratic choice. With most judges being linked to political parties it is clear that a good part of this inertia and inaction is also caused by judge bias. Very few judges would have the courage to advance cases let alone recommend the needed levels of investigation if this risked the image of their party or their jobs. Impartiality in the American legal system in a case such as this will be difficult to find. As a result it is unlikely that there will be an investigation and judges will attempt to bat away the current complaints alleging fraud.

The electoral college

The electoral college is the bulwark of the first-past-the-post system and needs to be done away with. This will be resisted because it maintains the dominance of the two main parties and yet the USA needs new ideas which smaller independent parties can bring. Those who followed the Democratic National Committee's manipulations under Hillary Clinton's orientation saw the deplatforming of the popular Bernie Sanders on two occasions. They witnessed the deplatforming of Tulsi Gabbard who was very effective in the Democratic presidential candidate debates. They also witnessed the sudden out-of-the-blue rabbit-out-of-a-hat Biden-Harris ticket appear when neither of these individuals had performed at all well in the Democratic presidential debates.

Given the levels of acrimony and rivalry and groundless accusations aimed in all directions in the current US political scene, the will to win has become a visceral issue with opponents being treated as the enemy and under such circumstances it is more than likely people will resort to dishonest means to win. The typical cultural twist to this is that fraud is OK as long as it is "our" fraud.

Hope is in the air

In this void of ethical conduct and understanding of the individual significance of people's freedom of choice needing a fraud-proofed system, it is encouraging that two politicians have been brave and honest enough to admit that fraud is a genuine problem in US elections. Democrat Tulsi Gabbard and Republican Rodney Davis' "The Election Fraud Prevention Act" to withhold federal funds from states that allow a third party to collect ballots from voters is a step in the right direction.

The eyes of the world should be on this particular development since by following the debates and arguments on this subject will help establish whether or not the represenatives of the people of the USA really wish to uphold a constitution that operates on the basis of decisions being made by the people of the country in the spirit of the US Constitution.