Recent news stories have exposed a variety of ways in which voting software can be tampered with. A private-equity company has been accused of shoddy work, while Democrats have accused Republicans of placing profit over security. And a recent investigation into a voting software company by Merritt revealed an ominous side to the machines. She discovered that votes had been switched in the midterm elections, so she decided to investigate the company’s employees and advisory board, as well as foreign nationals connected to the companies. Merritt also discovered former government officials who took jobs with voting software companies.
Those allegations are alarming, and the Democrat secretary of state made them up. However, hundreds, even thousands of witnesses testified that the state government did nothing to prevent voter fraud. The only way to prevent fraudulent ballots is to scrutinize the ballots. Otherwise, voters can rig the election to their benefit. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the secretary of state’s office made up a story that made Democrat voters think they were being scammed.
One example of voter fraud is when mail-in ballots are tampered with. A clever algorithm designed by Smartmatic changed the results of millions of ballots, and its founder admits that he changed the votes. Those in the know will say that it was a huge scam, and he’s right. So, if you want to vote and not get robbed, vote in the mail-in method.
Trump’s election team has been accused of voter fraud by the left. But that doesn’t mean that there is no evidence of this. The case was filed under seal, so that the information cannot be disclosed to the public. But the evidence of election fraud is growing all the time. Even the Trump campaign and his attorneys were aware of this fact. And the lawsuits are bringing down the government’s credibility. That’s an extremely dangerous precedent for American democracy.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the Bucks County district attorney spent months investigating 22 complaints of voter fraud. However, the detectives ultimately found that there wasn’t any systematic or widespread election fraud. In one case, two individuals had signed their dead mothers’ names on mail-in ballots. So, the system caught the fraud first. And while it’s possible to suspect that a fraudster was involved, the fact remains that the system caught the fraudulent mail-in ballots.
In the same vein, the Trump campaign had tried to prove voter fraud with evidence, but that effort was unsuccessful. Despite this, Judge Russell rejected the Trump campaign’s claim of massive voter fraud. The judge referred to the evidence as questionable and of little value. He also cited the “unsound” methodology that was used to compile the evidence. The judge stated that there was no evidence that the mail-in ballot fraud caused a significant change in the presidential election.