You don't suddenly have sporadic instances of fraud. Nobody is bold enough to think he can change presidential elections on his own. Suggesting pawns woke up one day with the idea that they should risk getting convicted and arrested, just in order to elect a different president is absurd.
Everyone knows even if they engage in fraud alone its a drop in the ocean and wouldn't change a thing. Even the dumbest pawns know that. Even the most dumb pawns wouldn't even begin to try to change the results if they never had an indication / suggestion that this would be bigger than just themselves and it would change the results.
And of course, money. But even money must have come from someone with the knowledge that it could change the result, otherwise its wasted money.
The concept of "there was fraud, but not enough to change the results" is contradictory. Nobody would engage in lone wolf fraud for the presidency. That's an insane thing to think to do on your own. If there was fraud, it proves that the perpetrators of the fraud that is known, knew it would change the results - because otherwise they would have no motive.
Fraud is always motivated by the perception it would change something. Even small amounts of fraud proves there was motivation to think results can be changed. Even the most radical democrat wouldn't break the law and go lone wolf cheating on his own because he knows it wouldn't matter.
Yep, this is logical. There is zero point in fraud that doesn't work. There is zero point in uncoordinated individual voter fraud. All the voter fraud cases I can remember of any size involved getting more than a vote here and there. They have prosecuted a few people for double voting, but I think that is more to impress on the lone wolf types that it isn't worth it than anything else.
The existence of any fraud is a confession by the perpetrators of the fraud that fraud can change the results. By catching any fraud you proved that those who perpetrated the fraud admit there could be fraud that would change the result, and those who did the fraud know more than you about the extent of the fraud.
There's no such thing as people committing a meaningless fraud. It's contradictory to human nature.
True. All fraud has meaning, even if that meaning is only clear to the person committing it.
And in this case it is really ridiculous, because there is supposedly a 5 million+ vote difference between Senile Joe and Trump. So are we trying to say that if only 3 million of that was fraud it shouldn't matter?
This election is history book shit. I just hope we are writing the history books.