What does “There is no widespread voter fraud sufficient to impact the result of the election” mean?
Tags: Trump, Election 2020, Media Criticism, Politics, Critical Thinking

The meaning seems fairly obvious to me, but the interpretation that keeps getting repeated by damn near everyone is so obviously different, it seems clear there’s a disconnect. So let’s parse that sentence for a minute, and let’s figure out if it’s a statement of opinion, or a statement of fact. There’s really three parts to it, that can be broken into three questions. 1: Was there voter fraud? 2: Was there widespread voter fraud? 3: If yes to either (or both) of those, was it sufficient to impact the result of the election?

1: “Was there voter fraud?” Voter fraud is a broad term that can encompass many actions. But this is still an easy question to answer. First, a caveat; “There is no voter fraud” is not “there is no widespread voter fraud.” Further, the statement “there is no voter fraud” is demonstrably untrue; there was a conviction in Limestone County, Texas, for example. I didn’t go looking to determine how many convictions there are, because I’m not looking to prove “Trump was right” — I’m not insane. I’m just trying to parse the language and prove the distinctions. So, off the cuff, there’s already proven voter fraud. There’s also multiple allegations, and evidence (yet to be fully investigated, adjudicated, and proven whether it’s conclusive) of other cases. So, the answer to “Was there Voter Fraud” is a clear Yes. We do not know if there were instances of Voter Fraud that have not been detected or caught, because that’s the nature of crimes that have not been detected or caught.

2: Was there “widespread voter fraud.” This a trickier thing to parse, because it requires us to define or interpret the word “widespread” in the context of this discussion. Are we referring to the number of votes? If so, are we referring to it in relation to the number of votes nationally, or the number of votes in the given county or state where the allegedly fraudulent votes were cast? Are we referring to the number of jurisdictions it allegedly happened in? Are we breaking that down at the State Level, or is it widespread if it happened in enough counties? How many is enough?

In effect, in order to answer the question here, we have to define what we mean by the question. On its own, the question itself is too subjective. The definition I have in my mind might be different than the definition you have in yours. If I recall correctly, Rudy Giuliani has alleged they have evidence of fraud in at least six states, and that it impacts potentially hundreds of thousands of votes. In a race where some states were decided by less than twenty thousand votes. Six out of fifty doesn’t sound like that much, but would swing the election. That number of votes could swing some of those states. I’m not saying it is widespread, I’m simply pointing out the subjective nature of this term. So, Was it widespread? Verdict: Indeterminate because the word is too subjective without a consensus on how we define it in this context.

3. What does it mean to be “sufficient to impact the outcome of the election”? Well, I think we’d all agree that part is pretty obvious; if it could lead to someone else being elected, it would impact the outcome. But there is one point of contention; what if it could impact the outcome of the election on the Local, or State level, but not the Federal Level?

Either way; If the answer to 1 or 2 is yes, and we have already determined that (at least for 1) it is, was it sufficient to impact the outcome of the election? See, here’s where it turns into a complete Charlie Foxtrot. “Sufficient to impact the outcome of the election” is a conclusion. It’s a conclusion that, in order to agree with or to refute, any person seeking to formulate their own opinion on the matter would need more data than is presently available. The only way to actually determine this would be to do a complete audit and investigation and attempt to rule out voter fraud in all at-issue jurisdictions, and see what the outcome would be once it was accounted for.

Everyone propagating the line at the beginning of this article, the sentence I’ve been parsing, is seemingly implying the requisite audits and investigations have already been completed and proven what they need to, but the ongoing incomplete audits and recounts are a testament they have not. Of course, people can decide they believe, based on the data they have, that the sentence is more likely than not to be true, and can thus be repeated as if it is true. But that makes it a statement of belief, not a statement of fact. Conclusion: Insufficient data to determine whether or not any voter fraud, whether widespread or not, was sufficient to impact the outcome of the election.

What was the point of this exercise? Am I attempting to argue that Trump Won, or Should Win? Hah, no. That’s almost as funny as the people who pretend it’s only The Republicans who are the problem, while ignoring the rot and corruption in the Democratic Party, or the people who pretend it’s only The Democrats who are the problem, while ignoring the rot and corruption in the Republican Party, all accusing me of being for the other party. Truthfully, I don’t have a dog in the fight anymore; as I said in my other article, I believe this nation has embraced tribalism on both sides of the aisle, and is done for. As for the candidates, we’re screwed either way. Anyone who believes a Biden-Harris Administration won’t be disastrous is as delusional as anyone who believes a Trump Administration is going to lead us to prosperity.

No, the point of this exercise is to get those who read it to think critically. A skill I believe the vast majority of people have either forgotten how to utilize, or chosen to let stagnate in favor of kneejerk reactions based on their partisan divides and personal biases. The point is to get people to analyze headlines like the one I began this article with, and actually think through the steps instead of just accepting the narrative whichever side you listen to is spoon-feeding you. Let’s see if it sticks.