CPRC’s Research on Vote Fraud in the News: Washington Times, Washington Examiner, NewsMax, and more
President Biden received hundreds of thousands of “excess” votes in Democratic-controlled areas in the 2020 election, according to an academic study on voter fraud that suggests the push to relax voting standards created new opportunities for electoral mischief.
John R. Lott Jr., the man behind the research, teased out those numbers by comparing Democratic-dominant areas to Republican-dominant places over the past two presidential elections, particularly in places where claims of election fraud were reported in 2020.
Looking at six swing states, the data he crunched found that voter turnout in Republican areas increased from 2016 to 2020 while voter turnout among Democrats dropped — except in places where voter fraud was claimed.
That accounted for 255,000 “excess” votes for Mr. Biden above what would be expected, Mr. Lott said. His paper has been accepted for publication in Public Choice, a peer-reviewed journal specializing in the intersection of economics and political science.
“More heavily Democratic counties actually had a slightly lower turnout in 2020, except for counties where vote fraud was alleged. In those counties, you had a huge increase in turnout,” Mr. Lott told The Washington Times in an interview explaining his findings.
“In some of those swing states, you had counties where vote fraud was alleged. In some of those swing states, you had counties where vote fraud wasn’t alleged. And yet you only had huge increases in turnout where vote fraud was alleged,” he said.
Taking another tack, Mr. Lott looked at specific voting precincts that touched each other but where one was inside a Republican-dominant county and the other inside a Democratic-leaning county where there were fraud accusations.
He found that in-person voting for the neighboring precincts was about the same, but absentee or mailed balloting tilted toward Democrats in the Democratic precincts.
Mr. Lott said there is no clear reason why absentee turnout alone should increase in just the Democratic jurisdiction, which suggests shenanigans were afoot.
“You’re comparing two tiny areas that are very homogenous, very similar to each other, across the street from each other, and the thing that differs from these two, for the absentee ballots, is where the ballots were counted,” the researcher said.
Mr. Lott runs the Crime Prevention Research Center and has been a major figure in gun and crime debates over the years. He served in the Justice Department’s office of legal policy at the end of the Trump administration, where he first conducted his election research.
His findings raise questions about the outcome of the 2020 election and about the path forward.
President Trump’s defenders filed dozens of cases alleging voter fraud in 2020, but they were generally dismissed by judges saying there wasn’t any concrete evidence of problems or, in some cases, no proof that mishaps were large enough to overturn the official count.
Actual specific instances of voter fraud have been prosecuted in past elections, including 2020, but they are isolated incidents. Voting rights advocates say the small numbers prove fraud isn’t an issue.
Mr. Lott said his numbers work to counter that sentiment, suggesting the level of mischief is significantly larger than the few cases formally brought before courts.
“Time after time, the news media keeps on saying there’s no evidence of vote fraud there. I think it’s at least a little bit harder for them to go and claim that,” Mr. Lott said.
William F. Shughart II, editor of Public Choice and professor at Utah State University, called the peer-reviewed paper “provocative.”
“By comparing differences in election results for 2020’s presidential candidates between in-person and mail-in ballots in matched samples of precincts in selected U.S. states, It offers a novel way of detecting ‘irregularities’ in postal voting,” he said in an email. . . . .
A new deep dive into discrepancies in the ballot counts of six key battleground states in the 2020 election has turned up more than 250,000 “excess votes” for President Joe Biden, and maybe far more.
The key point in the upcoming peer-reviewed study for the journal Public Choice by economist and noted gun expert John Lott Jr. is that the excess voting may challenge — or explain — Biden’s margin of victory over former President Donald Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. . . .
A new study on the 2020 presidential election found more than 250,000 “excess votes” for President Joe Biden, RealClearPolitics reports.
Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott, a former senior adviser for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, conducted the study.
“New research of mine is forthcoming in the peer-reviewed economics journal Public Choice, and it finds evidence of around 255,000 excess votes (possibly as many as 368,000) for Joe Biden in six swing states where [former President] Donald Trump lodged accusations of fraud,” Lott wrote in a Monday commentary for RealClearPolitics. . . .
At least 255,000 excess votes were cast in the 2020 presidential election across six battleground states, according to a new study that examined individual voting precincts.
Economist John Lott, president of the Crime Research Prevention Center, is the author of the peer-reviewed study, which looked at precincts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The study, set to be published in the academic journal Public Choice, compares precincts where there were allegations of voter fraud to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no fraud allegations. In each comparison, the two precincts examined fall on opposite sides of a county line—in some cases across the street.
Precincts are county-level election subdivisions, usually with fewer than 1,000 voters. Precincts in counties with fraud allegations had significantly higher voter participation than adjacent precincts in counties without alleged fraud, the study found.
A new report by John Lott, Jr. at the journal Public Choices reveals Joe Biden received more than 250,000 excess votes for president in the 2020 election.
Lott says there were 255,000 excess votes and possibly as many as 368,000 for Biden in the key states.
A new study into 2020 election discrepancies in six battleground states claims that there were at least 250,000 “excess votes” for Joe Biden, and potentially many more.
The claim is made in a forthcoming peer-reviewed study conducted by economist and gun expert John Lott Jr. for the journal Public Choice. The study awaits final approval but it says that many as 368,000 excess votes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin may have tipped the election to Joe Biden, according to Lott, who reported his findings at Real Clear Politics.
“Biden only carried these states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by a total of 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was 159,065.”
Lott insists that the point of his work “isn’t to contest the 2020 election,” but rather to point out “that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with.”
“Americans must have confidence in future elections,” he says.
Lott also blames some Trump allies, like Sidney Powell, for discrediting valid concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election by promising to “Release the Kraken” and then providing no evidence.
Lott, however, argues that he has the receipts. He reviewed voter registration rolls, in-person vote counts, absentee voting, and provisional ballots in various counties where fraud allegedly took place and compared them to like counties where these metrics should have been similar. Instead, he found statistically improbable differences, suggesting that fraud may have occurred.
“In 2016, there was no unexplained gap in absentee ballot counts. But 2020 was a different story,” Lott explained. “Just in Fulton County, Georgia, my test yielded an unexplained 17,000 votes – 32% more than Biden’s margin over Trump in the entire state.” . . .
