WiNK

Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election?

(Image credit: The New York Times)

It's been roughly 17 days since the events of Election Day transpired and we've seen our democratic system be turned inside out. It's not something that was exactly unprecedented, especially in light of the Coronavirus pandemic. But I'd argue that while the unique circumstances of this year have tested the election process they certainly haven't broken it. But as I'm sure you now know many have claimed just the opposite.

Starting on Election Night, President Trump prematurely declared victory despite the fact that many states had yet to be called and even more votes had yet to be counted. Just two days after, the president called for ballot-counting to stop across the country and employed lawsuits against specific states to prevent or challenge subsequent ballot-counting procedures specifically in states that had yet to be called, but were leaning towards Biden. He also cited the fact that these so-called 'poll-watchers' had been denied access to observe the proceedings despite the reality that these 'poll-watchers' are disgruntled members of his base who really had no legal precedent to be at these polling places in the first place.

In addition, the Trump campaign/administration has claimed that late-arriving mail-in ballots were improperly mixed with legal votes which according to them, has invalidated ballot results in several key states. Most of the suits associated with these claims have been quickly dismissed by judges, citing a general lack of evidence. However, that's not to say that any of these claims couldn't be substantiated in a court of law given the right circumstances. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court could issue a ruling at any time on the Republican Party of Pennsylvania's request for an emergency injunction to block the processing of mail and absentee ballots that were received during the three days after the normal deadline on Election Day. The high court could also decide to conduct a full review of GOP arguments that the deadline extension was unconstitutional.

So, are any of these claims valid? Well, I'm here to explore just that. The New York Times called dozens of officials in every state and found no evidence of voter fraud. The president and his base have claimed that rampant voter fraud stole victory from him. Officials contacted by The Times said that there seemed to be no irregularities that affected the outcome. According to The Times, "top election officials across the country said in interviews and statements that the process had been a remarkable success despite record turnout and the complications of a dangerous pandemic." And just recently, FBI Director Christopher Wray said, "The bureau has not seen evidence of widespread voting fraud," a contention that undercuts President Donald Trump's recent warnings about the integrity of the election.

Wray commented further stating, "We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise." Wray told that to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Wray's remarks came only a day after Trump again claimed, without evidence, that mail-in voting is susceptible to massive fraud, perhaps by foreign adversaries. Unequivocally, this is an issue of a president refusing to commit to a peaceful transition.

On September 23rd, during a White House press conference President Trump was asked by a reporter if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power "win, lose or draw" to Mr. Biden. Trump said, "I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots... and the ballots are a disaster."

When the journalist countered that "people are rioting," Mr. Trump interjected: "Get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very - you'll have a very peaceful - there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation." It seems evident that the only condition Trump has for a peaceful transition is his own incumbency.

In every election since 1896, it has always ended with the loser of the election sending or delivering a concession speech and committing to a peaceful transition of power. There's no constitutional precedent for a president unwilling to commit to a peaceful transition of power which is exactly why these statements are so harmful.

In the 2016 Election, Trump also threatened that would refuse to accept the results if were to lose. He won that election but the difference between Donald Trump of four years ago and Donald Trump of today is he didn't have the powers of the presidency to back him up.

Personally, I like to shy away from being too opinionated in my articles but I've come to the conclusion that there are fundamental truths in this world and fundamental truths in our democracy. And fundamentally, a president that refuses to respect the results of our democratic system is inherently violating the principles that have governed this country for 239 years. The real fraud here is the inane propaganda that's being spread and is inspiring conspiracy theories and doubt in our democratic system. If indeed there is massive evidence of voter fraud that comes out within the next few weeks I'll be the first to recant my statements. But as I see it now, the efforts to prove some type of fraud occurred are misguided. In the next few weeks or months, it's possible that we could see evidence of voter fraud on the national scale, and I'm willing to accept that reality if it ends up being true. However, at this point there is no credibility to these claims. As far as responsibility goes, it's high time for the president to respect the results of the election and make a commitment towards a peaceful and organized transition of power in the two months ahead of Inauguration Day.