Testing for voter fraud

 John Lott has now produced a statistical analysis that suggests substantial voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  For the entire study, go HERE.

Here's the introduction and the reason why few countries allow the kind of mail-in ballots that were used to potentially steal the 2020 election:

Courts have frequently rejected Republican challenges to the 2020 presidential vote because they want evidence that a case involves enough fraud to alter the vote’s outcome in a particular state. Republicans argue that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote count, they can’t provide that evidence and have asked for discovery. Still, while the courts have agreed that irregularities have occurred, they weren’t willing to grant discovery unless Republicans first present enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election. Republicans thus faced a kind of Catch 22.

This paper’s approach allows us to quantify how large a potential problem vote fraud and other abnormalities might be in the 2020 election. The process is applicable to other states where precinct-level data is available on voting by absentee and in-person voting. Concerns over fraud with absentee ballots is not something limited to Republicans in the United States. Indeed, many European countries have voting rules stricter to prevent fraud than what we have in the United States.  

For example, 74% entirely ban absentee voting for citizens who live in their country. Another 6% allow it, but have very restrictive rules, such as limiting it to those in the military or are in a hospital, and they require evidence that those conditions are met. Another 15% allow absentee ballots but require that one has to present a photo voter ID to acquire it. Thirty-five percent of European countries completely ban absentee ballots for even those living outside their country.

The pattern is similar for developed countries. Many of these countries have learned the hard way about what happens when mail-in ballots aren’t secured. They have also discovered how hard it is to detect vote buying when both those buying and selling the votes have an incentive to hide the exchange.

France banned mail-in voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in Corsica, where postal ballots were stolen or bought and voters cast multiple votes.

Mail-in ballots were used to cast the votes of dead people.

The United Kingdom, which allows postal voting, has had some notable mail-in ballot fraud cases. Prior to recent photo ID requirements, six Labour Party councilors in Birmingham won office after what the judge described as a “massive, systematic and organised" postal voting The fraud was apparently carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of the local Labour party. There was "widespread theft" of postal votes (possibly around 40,000 ballots) in areas with large Muslim populations because Labour members were worried that the Iraq war would spur these voters to oppose the incumbent government.

 In 1991, Mexico’s 1991 election mandated voter photo-IDs and banned absentee ballots. The then-governing Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) had long used fraud and intimidation with mail-in ballots to win elections. Only in 2006 were absentee ballots again allowed, and then only for those living abroad who requested them at least six months in advance.

Some European countries allow proxy voting, but that is very strictly regulated to minimize fraud. For example, proxy voting requires the verification of photo IDs and signed request forms. In Poland, a power of attorney is necessary to have a proxy vote and then can only be granted by the municipal mayor. In France, you must go in person to the municipality office prior to the elections, provide proof of who you are, provide proof of reason for absence (for example, letter from your employer or medical certificate), and then nominate a proxy.

Proxy voting is not only very limited, but it prevents the problem that absentee ballots are unsecured. Proxy voting requires that the proxy vote in-person in a voting booth. Unsecured absentee ballots create the potential that either fraudulent ballots will be introduced or votes to be destroyed. Some safe guards can at least minimize these problems, such as requiring matching signatures, but even this is not the same as requiring government issued photo voter IDs. Nor does it prevent votes from being destroyed. In addition, one of the controversies in this election was that states such as Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin did not match signatures on the outer envelopes match the voters’ registration records.6 Other states, particularly Pennsylvania, were accused of accepting absentee ballots that didn’t even have the outer envelope where the voter’s signature would be or were missing postmarks.