voters-voting-in-voting-booths-ballots-election-tw-600

When President Trump recently claimed millions of fraudulent votes may have affected the outcome of the nationwide popular vote, the establishment media protested, making outlandish declarations such as Shepard Smith of Fox News who said, “There’s no evidence that widespread voter fraud happened, there never has been.”

But experts who have investigated the issue and know the system as well as state elections officials, contend there are problems.

But they’re not impossible to fix.

Catherine Engelbrecht’s True the Vote – which was launched in 2009 “after a small group of volunteers worked at our local polls and witnessed firsthand both the need for well-trained election workers and blatant, undeniable acts of election fraud” – has a five-step plan for reform.

“It’s really not that difficult,” she told WND. “What we are missing in all of this is the political will to do it.”

When Trump raised the issue, she said: “I am incredibly optimistic that we may be able to finally tackle the very real problems plaguing our election processes. The chaos documented during the 2016 election cycle was the clearest and loudest warning shot to date – systemic election problems must be resolved, or they will soon be the cause of a national crisis.”

She said current research exists “only in silos of disparate data and shallow analysis, offering no basis for comprehensive examination.”

“Known problems, like non-citizen voting, are rarely chronicled and anecdotal evidence is insufficient,” she said.

“It is for this reason that True the Vote, supported by a select group of technologists, statisticians, researchers, auditors, scholars, futurists, election law experts, and process specialists, is leading a forensic audit with targeted investigations to expose election fraud and offer solutions.”

True the Vote’s five-point plan:

  • A forensic audit of the election processes
  • Developing an American voter ID program
  • Evaluating election technologies
  • Identifying dynamic voter registration verification processes
  • Developing model legislation

She noted to WND that the nation’s elections are run by 50 state systems, all with a range of variables.

Englebrecht said her group soon will launch an investigatory team deploying local volunteers to review practices, policies and procedures and make sure that the elections are truly fair.

“We have created for ourselves a layered and dysfunctional process,” she said. “And then on top of them we have set out illogical standards that make the process that much harder to administer in a way that people feel makes sense.”

She said there’s no doubt fraud occurs, and the nation must recover from an administration that had “a weaponized DOJ that was quick to sue a state whenever [one] tried to clean up its voter rolls.”

Data has been impossible to obtain, and, thus, problems have remained unaddressed.

Now, the group is “thrilled the president has chosen to make election integrity a priority.”

There are problems, she said, but, “We can fix them.”

“The technology exists. As long as we the people can agree that only legal votes should count.”

But pulling the weeds that are clogging up the system may take some time.

Obama, for example, “institutionalized” automatic voter registration through a wide range of federal benefits programs.

The system automatically registers people to vote, citizen or not, unless they opt out.

That means the only verification for many is their own statement that they should be allowed to vote.

“It would be wonderful to believe everyone’s going to be honorable, that no one would shade the truth,” she told WND. But actually, “the barn doors are wide open.”

She said her organization has done years of research, gathering all the public information about who is registered to vote and who votes.

She’s working now on compiling all the available information and putting it in a format that can provide comparisons.

It’s a starting point, and she hopes eventually it leads to processes that can provide information on illegal voters and have them removed from voter rolls.

“We’ve been in a regime that didn’t want the answer so they didn’t allow the questions to be asked,” she said.

The problem should be “galvanizing” for Americans.

“We want to make sure of the integrity of the process,” she said.

WND reported last month another leading election fraud expert says there is virtually no way to determine how many fraudulent votes were cast in 2016.

But he applauded President Trump’s call for an investigation, saying the U.S. is long overdue in taking important steps to ensure more accurate elections.

Trump has said repeatedly that he believes the votes of illegal aliens across the United States are responsible for Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. The issue flared again, both at a White House press briefing and in a pair of Trump tweets that announce his call for a formal probe.

Former Federal Elections Commission member Hans von Spakovsky now manages the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. While not weighing on Trump’s specific assertions, Von Spakovsky told WND and Radio America a thorough federal investigation into voting laws is clearly warranted.

“I think it’s long overdue,” he said. “There’s never been any systematic, organized effort by the federal government to try to improve and check on the election integrity of the United States. I think this is a great idea.”

He said Trump’s call is a radical departure from the Obama administration’s position.

“It’s a complete turnaround from the Obama administration, which for the past eight years has done everything it can to try to stop improvements in election integrity: things like Voter ID, things like verifying the citizenship of people who are registered to vote,” von Spakovsky said. “The Obama administration has tried to stop that and has minimized or basically said, ‘There’s no fraud to worry about anywhere.'”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Hans von Spakovsky:

After the 2012 election, WND compiled the the Big List of vote fraud reports, accessible at this link.

It documented how 59 different Philadelphia voting divisions in which Mitt Romney received zero votes compared to Obama’s 19,605. And the Cleveland precinct in which Obama beat Romney 542 to 0. (In fact, Romney received zero votes in nine Cleveland precincts.)

The listing that follows is just a sampling of the results:

The Market Daily News reported on those 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that on election day gave Romney zero votes, and Obama got 99 percent. “In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received two votes or less,” the report said. “One would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there.”

According to Philly.com, 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia produced a “head-spinning figure,” not one vote for Romney. “The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence,” the newspaper said.

A poll watcher told WND up to 10 percent of the ballots cast at a polling station in Pennsylvania reverted to a default, which gave Barack Obama a vote no matter who the voter had selected. The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama got a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio where Obama got 99 percent of the vote, a feat not even achieved by third-world dictators. It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

Chicago elections worker Steve Pickrum told WND as an equipment manager for the elections system, he was called when a voting machine malfunctioned. “On early voting when I did work on the floor when voters needed help using the equipment, I was able to see the preference of the voter, and every time that I saw [a] voter voted for Romney a ‘voter save failure’ message came up on the screen,'” he reported. Then when he went on election day to vote himself, he picked Romney and experienced the same error message. He reported he never experienced the error message when the voter was choosing Barack Obama.

Another poll worker, this one assigned at the University of Michigan, reported to WND a list of irregularities, including that the precinct captain told her at one point, “You go sit down, you are bothering me,” when she was trying to observe the proceedings. “I was only standing there and looking at voter documents,” she told WND. “It was clear that what bothered him was my very presence.” She said a short time later a young man arrived and identified himself as a Democrat poll challenger. “The first time he said anything was to object to my challenge of a voter. He tried to anger the voter by telling her ‘She does not believe you are who you say you are.’ He was trying to create a scene. It then happened again and I told him ‘You are not here to challenge me!’ His reply was a very loud ‘Yes I am! You are a Republican and you are here to prevent people from voting. You are holding up the line and creating obstructions,'” she reported. She told WND in fact no one waited more than about 15 minutes to vote the entire day, and there were no obstructions.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports that some 200,000 fewer white voters were recorded in Ohio’s election than in 2008. “There are several theories about those missing white voters, but the most plausible is that the ones who were undecideds or weak Republicans were deeply influenced by Obama’s relentless attacks on Romney …”

And in Florida, the Sun Sentinel reported that election workers a week after the election said they found 963 unaccounted-for ballots – in a warehouse. “How can you lose them? This is terrible,” candidate Chickie Brandimarte told officials. Election supervisor Brenda Snipes, however, said it’s routine for various vote totals to be adjusted up until the Nov. 18 final certification.

 

 

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.