Election Scams

We need to be aware of what is possible, what is fraud, and what is just bad.

I have a number of new data analyses to present in upcoming editions on this channel, but first, I want to build a foundation of the full range of scams that are possible, which ones are truly illegal, and which ones are not illegal but bad nevertheless.

Trump has now taken the oath of office. Is it worth continuing to analyze and examine the results to expose actual scams and any election fraud?

My response is that I have seen a number of elections that were technically wrong and had incorrect results, and these elections were corrected even significantly after election officials have officially certified the results. I see no reason why a presidential election is not in the same boat.

We have many red flags regarding this election, including a number of scams that were borderline if not blatantly illegal.

• After hearing about how this election would set new records in terms of turnout, it was not a new record, as fewer votes were cast compared with 2020.
  Quote¹:

  • "In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900…”

  • "Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. That is the second highest vote total in U.S. history, trailing only the 81,284,666 votes that Joe Biden won in 2020.”

  • Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast. That was 6,285,500 fewer popular votes than Biden won in 2020, but 774,847 more than Trump won in 2020.

• So Trump did win the popular vote on a plurality basis by 77,284,118 - 74,999,166 = 2,284,952 out of 152,283,284 votes (of just those two, not including third parties). On a percentage basis, that is only 1.5% -- Strangely enough to 5 decimal places... 0.01500. It is within +/- 0.000005 of being exact. How many votes is that? only +/- 761 votes.

• This is exactly the region where I have always theorized that hanky-panky can thrive, because the loser does not want to change too many votes and yet wants to change enough so it will be regarded as a done deal, and need not be scrutinized further. This win was so narrow that we can't immediately rule out that it was influenced by malicious manipulation.

• We all watched what appeared to be a Trump campaign in trouble, with insiders quitting and plans disorganized. Trump could not fill venues that Harris was filling to the brim. The Harris campaign was running at top speed, with stunning media and well orchestrated events. Women’s issues were front and center.

• In a number of places, Trump won despite down-ballot R-party candidates losing. This is unusual, and this type of split-party results raise a red flag. “Bullet Ballots” were found to be a false notion but the split party issue is still relevant (see post).

• Also, in my most recent post, I pointed out the convincing evidence in Nevada, that D-Party votes were unusually limited to an apparent artificial limit.

• Trump and his campaign, including supporters Musk and others claimed that they had inside information and were getting updates during the election.

• Musk ran a sweepstakes scam² where users might win $1 million if they registered to vote.

• Musk contributed more than $120 million to Trumps campaign through a political action committee.

• The recent theft of voting machines and distribution of source code revealed that a “back door” existed in all Dominion-based voting system that would allow election officials to obtain preliminary results (prior to the close of polls) and even to change the results. But we in the election integrity field have known for years that we must assume that any result must not be fully trusted without an audit of paper ballots (or images, since that is sometimes all we can get independently).

• There were many other red flags. See this letter to the DOJ and Merrick Garland begging him to take action.

• Therefore, the motive, means, and opportunity existed for the election to be manipulated. We must review this election without jumping to false conclusions, but with the knowledge that Trump was very motivated to win this election, and by any means, since he was likely facing jail time. Here, we live by EVIDENCE, not bogus claims.

• Risk Limiting Audits were sometimes used to give the impression that the results were carefully reviewed, when in reality, those audits did nothing to check the presidential contest. This was the case in PA, and we will review that in later editions of this newsletter.

Election Scams

We need to be aware of the full gamut of possible scams. Here, I will not go into great detail about each scam. (I use the term “scam” because these action are not necessarily illegal and therefore is not “fraud.”) But as we consider various evidence in this election, we need to know where they fit into the complete spectrum

Pre-Election Rigging

After the 2020 election, many R-party controlled states instituted a vast number of new laws. Not all these were bad laws, but many were. As of about April 2021, the U.S. Census results were applied to the number of seats in the house and the number of electoral votes in the electoral college. The 2024 election was the first presidential election to be held after this critical form of rigging. The electoral college itself is frequently pointed to as the most important type of rigging, as small Red states like Wyoming have far more influence than they deserve when compared with high-population Blue states like California. But this rigging was put into place in original founding documents and will be much harder to change.

Gerrymandering and determining the shapes of congressional districts is probably the most “productive” type of rigging that is done, and this can be undone by using independent commissions to determine those districts. This was done recently in MI and CA and was very successful in undoing the prior rigging. Such gerrymandering is not isolated to one party — both have engaged in it, and it definitely does alter the results.

This is set of scams we must be particularly active to block between elections, because it is when the laws are changed!

[The sections below were previously formatted as tables, but unfortunately, Substack does not support tables, so these are presented as images, and are therefore hard to update, modify and parse. Therefore, we went to bullet lists

Pre-election rigging:

• Choosing voters

  • Scam: Gerrymandering

  • Antidote: Independent redistricting Commissions

  • This category has become a wild battleground because it is one of the most effective single scams. In 2025, the R-party redistricted Texas and then CA and other states responded with D-advantageous redistricting.

• Census Manipulation

  • Scam: Partisan language or scare tactics with the belief that only citizens should be identified for congressional representation.

  • Antidote: No partisan language, citizenship questions, etc.

• Documentation based Suppression

  • Scam: Unreasonable or biased Voter-ID, difficult to obtain IDs.

  • Antidote: Reasonable Voter-ID for registering and if there are concerns when voting in person.

• Prior Felon Voters

  • Scam: High hurdles to regain right to vote.

  • Antidote: Encourage prior felon registration, undo laws that make it costly or difficult to register and vote.

• Voter Roll Purges

  • Scam: Excessive similar-name purges

  • Antidote: Same-day registration

• Voter Roll Accuracy

  • Scam: Sloppy voter rolls allows for possible ballot stuffing

  • Antidote: Information sharing among states and counties, such as ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information Center (see https://ericstates.org) reduces slop. R-leaning counties dropped out.

• Ease of Voting

  • Scam: Limit voting locations and drop boxes; require single-day voting, in-person only. Ban mail voting.

  • Antidote: Convenient locations, plentiful secure drop boxes, extending early voting, mail voting.

Candidates, Policies and Platform

You would think this should be the most important, if not the only topics of importance in elections. Unfortunately, the actual policies and platforms of candidates is rarely discussed.

• Bogus Candidates running

  • Scam: Shill candidates that either drop out but remain on the ballot to split the vote of the opposing party

  • Antidote: Preferential voting systems like Ranked-Choice (RCV), Instant Runoff (IRV) or Single Transferable Vote (STV).

• Policies and Platform

  • Scam: Should be the most important topic but are largely ignored by media that prefers the “horse race,” “Zingers” and dirty laundry. Candidates refuse to take positions on real issues to avoid reducing support.

  • Antidote: Structured required disclosures.

Messaging and Information Warfare

This category of scams is largely legal, even though a great deal of effort has been expended to both rein-in these actions and to allow them to expand.

• Candidate Statements

  • Scam: Lies about self or opponent

  • Antidote: Fact checking..

• Misinformation

  • Scam: Misinformation using biased networks, fake news orgs, podcasters, etc.

  • Antidote: Earned media may need to be regulated along with media buys.

• Bandwagon Effect

  • Scam: Large rallies, lots of signs, hats, etc. with the feeling of being threatened if you do not take part.

  • Antidote: Education and laws against threats.

• Specific Scams

  • Scam: Birth certificates, questions of candidate race, Russia meddling claims, Pizza Gate, Q-Anon, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc. etc.

  • Antidote: Fact Checking.

• Legalized Bribery

  • Scam: PACs and other dark money sources are used for purchasing media time and also creating long-form content.

  • Antidote: Election finance reform with free media coverage with hard limits.

Scams during the Election (not directly modifying votes)

It seems the list of scams in this category continues to grow as the competing parties become more creative. These may appear to be innocent errors but wind up altering the results through a second-order effect.

• General Intimidation

  • Scam: Bomb threats, drop box arson, armed “observers,” or other disruptive activities.

  • Antidote: Strengthening and enforcing laws that prohibit voter intimidation.

• Specific Intimidation

  • Scam: Targeted threats directed at individual voters.

  • Antidote: Strengthening and enforcing laws that prohibit voter intimidation.

• Bribery and Rewards

  • Scam: Offering incentives such as lotteries or financial rewards tied to voter registration or participation.

  • Antidote: Enforcing strict prohibitions on vote buying and related inducements.

• Misdirection

  • Scam: Providing incorrect information about voting locations, dates, or procedures.

  • Antidote: Strong enforcement against deceptive practices and clear official communication channels.

• Ease of Voting Manipulation

  • Scam: Creating long lines, limiting machines, or restricting voting to a single location.

  • Antidote: Adequate allocation of machines and poll workers, short wait times, and flexible voting options such as vote-anywhere policies.

• Confusing Ballot Design

  • Scam: Ballots that are difficult to understand, including poorly designed layouts (e.g., “butterfly ballots”), confusing navigation (such as unclear “Next” vs. “More” options on BMDs), excessive length, or too many languages.

  • Antidote: Use established ballot design best practices, simplify layouts, and reduce ballot length by distributing contests across election cycles where feasible.

• Privacy Intimidation

  • Scam: Claims that voters will be identified and may face embarrassment or retaliation for their choices.

  • Antidote: Strengthen voter privacy protections, avoid overly small reporting groups, and provide clear voter education.

• Threats to Election Workers

  • Scam: Harassment or threats against election workers, often fueled by false claims of fraud.

  • Antidote: Enforce protections for election workers and prosecute intimidation or harassment.

Modifying the Outcome

This category covers scams that are largely illegal and have been problematic in the past. Sometimes, false accusations have been made, such as in ballot harvesting with videos such as “2,000 Mules” which now has been fully debunked and the producers have admitted it is false.

Nevertheless, such scams are sometimes real. Also, modifying the results in the central tabulator is absolutely possible and accepted as a constant hazard by election integrity experts.

Prior to, or during Scanning:

• Blank Mail Ballot Harvesting

  • Scam: Intercepting mail ballots as they are sent out, or creating counterfeit ballots and forging signatures if required.

  • Antidote: Signature comparison.

• Voted Mail Ballot Harvesting

  • Scam: Intercepting ballots after they are completed and before submission; malicious if ballots are discarded or altered.

  • Antidote: Ban unofficial ballot gathering.

• Biased Signature Acceptance / Rejection

  • Scam: Signatures accepted or rejected inconsistently, potentially influenced by partisan bias.

  • Antidote: Audits and oversight.

• Central Scanning Manipulation

  • Scam: Scanning batches multiple times or skipping them; duplicating ballots or modifying paper ballots prior to scanning.

  • Antidote: Strict chain of custody, batch tracking (e.g., travelers or RFID), and camera-based oversight.

• Technicality Suppression

  • Scam: Ballots rejected due to minor errors such as incorrect dates or incomplete envelope information.

  • Antidote: Clear rules established in advance; avoid unnecessary technical requirements that do not affect ballot validity.

• Oval Confusion

  • Scam: Marks bleed through the ballot or placement near edges causes ambiguity, making one selection appear as another.

  • Antidote: Careful design of hand-marked ballots.

• Contest Confusion

  • Scam: Voters cannot clearly determine which contest they are voting on (e.g., Yes/No questions without clear labeling, as seen in PA).

  • Antidote: Clearly label contests, including adding contest names directly to Yes/No options.

• Configuration Error

  • Scam: Ballots include candidates who have withdrawn, but tabulation systems are not updated accordingly.

  • Antidote: Improve Logic and Accuracy testing to detect such issues; include deadline-based proofs in quality assurance testing.

After Scanning:

Changes to the tabulated results can largely be detected with robust audits that include all contests and all ballots in the procedure. We know the machines CAN be hacked and the solution to that is audits, and this is part of the design of elections today. Skipping the audits and declaring victories early are a tradition that we must change.

• Machine (Configuration Hacks)

  • Scam: Swapping or altering votes inside voting machines.

  • Antidote: Hand-marked paper ballots with thorough audits; ballot images secured with cryptographic protections.

• Machine (Unverifiable BMD Output)

  • Scam: Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) encode votes in barcodes that voters cannot independently verify.

  • Antidote: Use hand-marked paper ballots, even if assisted by a machine.

• Software Limitations

  • Scam: Incomplete or duplicate uploads of election data.

  • Antidote: Strong chain of custody for digital media and robust tracking within EMS software.

• Malicious Modification

  • Scam: Direct manipulation of vote data within databases by insiders or remote attackers.

  • Antidote: Strict logging of all database changes within the EMS, avoiding external database tools; supplemented by RLA or BIA audits.

• Corruption (Stopping the Count)

  • Scam: Halting vote counting through legal or procedural maneuvers and declaring victory prematurely.

  • Antidote: Independent courts to enforce completion of the counting process.

• Corruption (Changing Results)

  • Scam: Altering officially announced results after tabulation.

  • Antidote: Strong institutional norms and enforcement to preserve the integrity of certified results.

• Bad Tradition

  • Scam: Announcing winners or conceding elections prior to certification and completion of audits.

  • Antidote: Educating media and candidates to rely only on certified results after all ballots are processed and audits completed.

Checking the Results (Or just acting like it):

As mentioned, checking the results is essential, no matter what voting system is used. Using hand-counting of ballots does not exempt an election from needing additional checking of that process. Generally, we support hand-marked paper ballots with no machines during voting, and then using machines responsibly for tabulating and securing the election, particularly by securing ballot images with cryptographic mechanisms that will make them more trustworthy than changeable paper.

• Mutable Systems (DREs)

  • Scam: Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems (touch-screen machines) allow results to be altered with no independent way to verify them.

  • Antidote: Paper ballots, preferably hand-marked. BMDs with a paper record are an improvement but still not recommended as the primary system.

• Audits (Weak or Absent)

  • Scam: Weak, nonexistent, or delayed audits of paper ballots or ballot images.

  • Antidote: Robust, independent, and redundant audit processes.

• Audit Independence

  • Scam: Election officials auditing their own work, or audits conducted within the same governmental entity.

  • Antidote: Independent review of audits; independent BIA audits where feasible. Public Transparency Protocols have been submitted to the Election Assistance Commission and we will continue to pursue.

• Paper Ballot Transparency

  • Scam: Public inability to review paper ballots due to restricted access and legal barriers.

  • Antidote: Provide ballot images and secure them using cryptographic methods to enable independent verification.

Conclusion:

We must continue to review the 2024 election and leave no stone unturned. The election scams outlined above can help us focus in on aspect that are important, and may have a basis for changing the outcome, versus information warfare that is commonly pointed to as election fraud, but is not.

Can you think of other categories of election scams that do not fit into the categories above? Please let me know in the comments, and I will amend the article when appropriate.

Next Post: Astounding Active Voter Trends in Clark County NV 2024 Election
Previous Post: Convincing evidence of likely manipulation of 2024 Presidential votes in Nevada
All Posts: https://substack.com/@raylutz/posts

1. https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/musks-pac-claims-1-million-winners-not-chosen-by-chance