Inconsequential Voter Fraud

Post #1714

Democrats have been saying that, while there is “some” voter fraud which has been caught by oversight mechanisms, the “amount” of voter fraud which has been caught by those mechanisms has been inconsequential to the election results. Here is the Guardian quoting David Becker saying the amount of potential fraud is inconsequential:

At just 9 thousands of 1% of the vote (0.009%), people like David Becker believe that the known portion of fraud (there is also an unknown portion) is inconsequential. But let’s get perspective on that number by reminding ourselves by how much Bush won Florida in 2000:

Oops. It looks like the known share of noncitizens on voter rolls in New Jersey is actually a consequential amount, because sometimes elections do get decided by a margin of victory of just 9 thousandths of 1% (0.009%) of the total votes cast. Even worse, when a federal verification tool is utilized on New Jersey voter rolls, you find a 0.04% value:

That’s an amount of potential voter fraud which is 4x larger than it would need to be to have overturned the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The evidence suggests that even the known portion of potential voter fraud is already consequential, let alone when you add in the unknown portion of fraud which is yet to be discovered by research.

Reference

[Democrats say that 0.009% of the total vote is inconsequential] — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/new-jersey-noncitizen-republicans-election-fraud

[Bush had a margin of victory in Florida of 0.009% of the total vote] — https://www.history.com/articles/closest-presidential-elections

[federal verification tools return an estimate 4x larger than the Governor’s estimate] — https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2026/07/21/hundreds-of-noncitizens-voted-in-new-jersey-after-dmv-mistakenly-registered-them/