The introduction is stark: “The United States has a long and unfortunate history of election fraud.” The words stand out in a bold white font against a chilling blood-red backdrop featuring desolate voting booths. The imagery is unmistakable: Fear! Anxiety! The foundations of democracy at risk! However, this isn’t a fringe website; it’s whitehouse.gov, presenting findings from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization aimed at promoting barriers to progressive values.
For years, Trump and his allies have been fixated on the notion of widespread voter fraud. A presidential commission established by Trump in 2017 to investigate claims of massive voter fraud became one of the more notable blunders of his administration, one that deserves more scrutiny. The commission claimed to have found 100,000 instances of voter fraud but failed to provide any evidence. Matt Dunlap, a Democrat and a leading election official in Maine, was denied access to 1,800 documents during his time on the commission. Upon receiving those documents through legal channels, he discovered no support for the claims made by Republican members. The commission was disbanded the following January, long after outlets like Breitbart had spread misinformation regarding the alleged 100,000 instances of fraud to their followers.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration continued to propagate the voter fraud narrative. The whitehouse.gov site states, “This is not an exhaustive list but simply a sampling that demonstrates the many different ways in which fraud is committed.” The choice of wording is telling. If I were attempting to construct a serious, data-driven argument illustrating the prevalence of voter fraud, I wouldn’t rely on a “sampling” to depict “many different ways” fraud could occur. There’s a reason the statistics are vague.
What I gleaned from their collection of “data” is that The Heritage Foundation could only identify sporadic, minor instances of individual voter fraud, without evidence of a mass conspiracy that poses any real threat to democracy. The White House page mentions “1,071 proven instances of voter fraud,” which, given the term “proven,” feels more like a creative way to say, “legally, we can only present cases that led to convictions, so this minuscule sampling is all we’ve got.”
Interestingly, The Heritage Foundation does not specify a timeframe for their data. There are no scientific figures or percentages indicating the prevalence of voter fraud over any particular period. Their site claims to present “a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud” without clarifying what “recent” actually means. Does it go back to 1982? Because that’s how far back their data stretches.
Neither the whitehouse.gov site nor The Heritage Foundation clarifies what types of elections are represented. Is this list limited to instances of voter fraud in national elections, or does it include local elections as well? If so, how local? Statewide? Or even down to county and city levels? While all voter fraud is problematic, wouldn’t it be crucial to know which elections are most vulnerable?
Heritage’s language is often unscientific, using words like “can” instead of “does.” For instance, they state, “fraud can have an impact in close elections.” The reason they use “can” is because they lack the evidence to say “does.” They do not have a single proven case where voter fraud influenced an election outcome. Citizens must be cautious of such misleading language; “can” and “does” carry significantly different meanings.
A responsible organization focused on truth would provide clear variables such as timeframe and location. They would specify, “Between 19XX – 20XX, in elections from Location ABC to Location XYZ, X number of voter fraud instances occurred, indicating X% of electoral interference.” An impartial, data-driven institution would avoid vague terms like “recent,” which can mean anything (the Paleolithic era was “recent” compared to the Big Bang) and would not reference voter fraud from four decades ago.
It would also be relevant to analyze the political leanings of those committing the fraud. The implication from Trump supporters is that any fraud must be perpetrated by Democrats. I randomly searched for a case and found a Republican named John Smith, who was convicted of casting illegal votes in 2010 and 2012. It wouldn’t surprise me if, in addition to voter fraud being extremely rare, instances from both political sides were roughly equal.
The Heritage Foundation and the Trump administration are fully aware they are employing vague and misleading language. They rely on their supporters to see a number over a thousand and jump to broad conclusions about its significance. Many Trump followers assume that each of the 1,000+ instances of voter fraud must represent large, coordinated schemes that influenced numerous elections. They often overlook the reality: 1. Most cases involve individuals acting independently, 2. The data spans a 40-year timeline, 3. Voter fraud occurs on both sides of the aisle, and 4. There has yet to be a single instance definitively shown to have altered an election’s outcome.
The Trump administration and The Heritage Foundation place this information in plain view, confident that their followers won’t engage critically with the data. The truth is simple: The number of people convicted of voter fraud in the U.S. each year is about the same as those killed by lightning strikes. Anyone can do the math.
Anyone, that is, except perhaps a dedicated Trump supporter.
For more insights, check out this article on home insemination techniques at another one of our blogs, or explore the authority on the topic at Make a Mom. Additionally, for further reading on fertility and home insemination, visit Science Daily.
Search Queries:
- Understanding voter fraud in the U.S.
- Examples of voter fraud cases
- The impact of voter fraud on elections
- History of voter fraud allegations
- Analyzing election integrity
Summary:
The examination of the White House’s ‘Voter Fraud’ page reveals a reliance on vague and misleading information. Despite claims of numerous instances of fraud, the data presented lacks context regarding timeframes and election types, and most cases are isolated incidents rather than coordinated efforts. The narrative surrounding voter fraud is often exaggerated, with little evidence to support the notion that it significantly impacts election outcomes.