I heard these arguments so often. And to be honest, even before the election too – when I was discussing with one American in the private message where he endlessly insisted the mass mail in balloting would be okay, and any frauds will be too small to make a difference.
But main problem is, what is the percentage of the votes be fraudulent before it is considered “a real problem”?
In #Singapore, EVERY VOTE counts. No fraud, not even ONE vote is allowed. So the entire idea that, a small percentage of #fraud is okay, is entirely out of my logical window.
So the while I can appreciate the entire argument that, the frauds are “likely to be too small to make a difference” – there is actually no official guide into , what is “big enough”.
1% of the votes? Is that big or small? Is 1% of the vote fraudulent considered “widespread voter fraud”?
or 0.1%? is 0.1% widespread?
Let me show you the difference in key swing states:
#Arizona (11 electoral votes) – >0.3% (10k+ votes difference)
#Georgia (16 electoral votes) – >0.2% (12k+ votes difference)
#Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) – >0.7% (19k+ votes difference)
JUST this 3 states alone, if discovered that the fraud is beyond the above listed difference in size above, Biden will drop to 269, and Trump wins the electoral college vote count.
10k +12k +19k = around 42,000 votes determines the presidency.
You know what is the percentage of this to the entire number of “vote casted”?
42,000/156,651,273 = 0.000268 = 0.0268%
0.0268% vote fraud is sufficient to change the world history.
So is this widespread?
