Godsunworthyservant
Active Member
I feel that one must look at these "polls" in context. First, I look at who has done the poll. In this case, it's from the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is well know for their far right leanings and has publicly rejected climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. They are infamously known for their unabomber billboard, which featured a picture of Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber) with the caption "I still believe in global warming, do you?" They pulled two more featuring Charles Manson and Fidel Castro but defended the campaign with the statement "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.", which of course is an inherently false statement. So, for me, their resume doesn't inspire confidence in this poll unless I can find reliable sources that corroborate the findings. I have searched and can find none. To the contrary, I find the vast majority of reliable sources totally refute the idea of widespread fraud.
Coming clean: 1 in 5 admits 2020 election fraud - Washington Examiner
About 20% of 2020 voters now claim they took advantage of election laws that loosened up because of the coronavirus crisis to commit fraud, including filling out ballots for others, according to a shocking report being unveiled Tuesday.Some admitted they voted in states they don’t live in, and...www.washingtonexaminer.com
What are y'alls thoughts about this poll conducted by The Heartland Institute/Rasmussen.
The next thing I look at is the poll itself. How was it conducted, and most importantly, how many participants were questioned. This poll was a mainly an internet opt-in poll which are notoriously the least reliable according to most sources. Pew did a poll where they found that as high as 90% of people took the poll multiple times (since there's no way for an internet poll to tell). It also found that up to 80% gave multiple non-sequitur answers and that up to 70% of supposedly US polls were answered from IPs in foreign countries. As for the number of participants, I couldn't find where they publicly listed that. (most polls publish that data) So, the analytics don't really inspire my confidence.
Then we have to look at what others say. I found that every reliable source I can find who studied the claims in depth found that there was no basis in fact for widespread fraud claims. . I'll quote a few facts from the Heritage Foundation Voter Fraud Study. The Heritage Foundation is another conservative think tank who has published what may well be one of the most comprehensive studies on voter fraud ever undertaken. They have done an exhaustive study of state by state cases. Here are just a couple of representative examples. In Texas, from 2005 to 2022, they found a total of 103 verified cases out of 107 million votes cast during that same period. Only 6 were related to the 2020 election. In Arizona, of 3.3 million votes cast, they found only 4 verified cases of fraud. So, other polls from reputable sources show that voter fraud is very rare. The other thing I found telling was that when Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick offered up to $1m from his campaign funds for anyone who reported a case of voter fraud that could be proven, at a price of $25,000 per incident, he only had to pay out for 1 case. That was paid to Eric Frank, a Democratic poll worker in PA who reported Ralph Holloway Thurman, a Republican who after voting once, attempted to vote a second time as his son. That;s all. Even with a $25,000 incentive they only found one single instance. Makes me wonder why we are still going down this rabbit hole.
Now, let's look at what this poll actually says. Here is the fraud they found. Of the respondents who voted by mail, 21% said they helped a friend or family member such as a child or spouse. (therein lies the 1 in 5 claim) 17% of those who voted by mail said that someone either helped them or filled out the ballot for them. 17% of mail-in voters said they voted in a state where they no longer resided. So, even if you believe these numbers (which I must question based the above remunerated reasons) there's nothing here to suggest that any of these findings had any impact whatsoever on the election results. With that, my feelings on the poll are as follows, it's another attempt by someone with an agenda trying to make people fear that the elections can't be trusted. I'm not biting!
Upvote
0
