[ZNPaaneah]

There has been a deliberate attempt to portray voter fraud as a statistically insignificant factor. However, they have been very deceptive in their use of numbers.

Let's break it down.

In this last election we had 435 congressmen elected, 35 senators and 35 governors. That is slightly over 500 key officials elected. Of those we have 5 very close races. Voter fraud does not take place in elections that are not close, it would be too obvious. So the fact that it doesn't take place in 99% of elections is irrelevant, the issue is if it is taking place in the 1% that are close. No one doubts that these 5 seats are really big. They could give the Democrats a much stronger hold on the house and cut the Republicans lead in the senate to razor thin margins.

Second, a close election means that 0.25% of the vote can make the difference. So then, if 0.001% of the total vote is fraudulent, that would be enough to swing these 5 very close elections. You shouldn't compare the number of fraudulent votes to the total cast, but rather to 1% of the total cast. Then in those elections since they are close you only need 1% of those votes cast to swing them. So really, you should compare the number of fraudulent votes to 1% of 1% or 0.01% of the total votes cast.

However, the pundits are not pointing this out.

Second, they are limiting the discussion to the votes that have been "proven" to be fraudulent. Once again, a very misleading number, and certainly far less than the number of votes "estimated" to be fraudulent. The low number of votes proven to be fraudulent could simply be because the victors are not interested in having an investigation.