>>But the article is so poorly written (and edited, with clear inaccuracies left in), and provides so little actual evidence, that I don’t know what to make of all this. I always take stuff that Newsmax publishes with a grain of salt... <<
After reading about 125 comments, it appears to me that no one watched the video that accompanied the article, which I agree was very poorly written. I also agree that Newsmax articles need to be taken with a grain of salt in many cases.
That said, here’s what Vaughn (perhaps the smartest person to ever run for public office if his self-cited credentials are true) found that should disturb us all. Everyone needs to watch at least the first six or seven minutes of the video.
First, as he campaigned through District 15 he found that many “voters” were not at legitimate addresses, or too many “voters” lived at one address. So he sent out around 15,000 first class mailings to the voters in his district, using the address provided with their voter registration (The 15,000 is approximate—I don’t recall what he said exactly.) Of those letters, 9,200 (this number is what he said, for sure) came back marked as undeliverable by the post office.
9,200 registrations in Assembly District 15 were, in other words, bogus. How’s that compare to the size of the vote in that district Nov 8th? Vaughn got a little over 5,000 votes and his opponent got a little over 12,000, so Vaughn was essentially obliterated. But was he really? Here’s why watching the video is important for clarification.
How many of those 9,200 false registrations (per the post office, which should be a reasonably reliable source, especially since they noted the reason for non-delivery, ranging from no such address, to unknown at that address, etc.) actually voted in District 15?
Per Vaughn, after finding such a huge number of false registrations he then took a sample of 200 of the returned mail and checked actual voting rolls in his district. Now if only one or two people had actually voted of that 200, the chance of the election being stolen from him would be minuscule. However, he found that 185 of the sample of 200 were listed on the rolls as having voted in the Nov 8th election!!! That is a huge sample, for starters, and a gobsmacking percentage of that sample actually voted, that being 185/200, or 92.5%.
If, to shade his result just a bit, assuming just 90% of that 9,200 total voted and assuming further that every one of those bogus votes was marked for his Democrat opponent, then his opponent got 8,280 fraudulent votes in his 12,014 total, reducing his actual total to under 4,000 votes. In fact, to tie Vaughn only 75% of the 9,200 invalid registrations needed to be voted for his opponent.
Furthermore, many people who actually were registered found upon arriving at the polls that their vote had already been cast by someone else. They were required to vote on provisional ballots and those ballots were never counted apparently, because the election wasn’t close enough to consider them. These were most likely GOP voters and they were essentially prevented from having their vote counted. None of them would have shown up in Vaughn’s analysis because the post office would have delivered Vaughn’s letter to them when he sent out that initial mass mailing to test registration validity, because their registrations were valid. These were likely votes for Vaughn, and an examination of the provisional ballots would be quite interesting in that regard.
Clearly this is a big deal and needs to be investigated. Clark Co. appears to me to have 31 assembly districts and each had around 20-30,000 votes cast in them. Clinton won Clark County by around 80,000 votes, but only won Nevada by around 20-30,000 votes. If just a few of the 31 assembly districts had the level of fraudulent voting implied by Vaughn’s work (around 8,000 votes), then it’s quite possible that:
1) Clinton lost Nevada
2) The Senate seat was stolen as well.
3) Several assembly seats were stolen in addition to Vaughn’s
4) And who knows what else, for Clark County was the tail that wagged the dog named Nevada on Nov 8th.
In fact, if the level of potential fraud revealed in that video is even close to accurate, Nevada might very well be a Red State, not a Blue State. Watch the video. It should go viral.
In my previous comment I discussed the video that shows the potential for massive fraud in Nevada by Democrats.
However, now the water is over the dam. A recount will do no good because even if fraudulent registration was rampant, as appears highly likely, unless Nevada polling stations keep a record of who cast which ballot. That’s unlikely, although possible. The reason I think it’s unlikely is because if a person can be matched to his ballot, then it can’t be a secret ballot, although possibly if the person is matched to the ballot to the extent that they know it’s his ballot, but are prevented from reading its contents, then maybe the ballot can be tossed completely?
I know when we vote locally (not Nevada), our ballots are assigned a number corresponding to the order we voted in, but I don’t know if that number can be associated back to our names and registration data. Maybe a poll worker in Nevada can explain what’s possible there in terms of checking ballot validity after the ballot is cast?
You’re correct, I had not watched the video. I just watched it, and agree that the allegations by Mr. Vaughan need to be investigated. As I had written in my prior e-mail, if his allegations are close to being true then election fraud could be responsible for thecDemocrats winning the oresidential race, the Senate race, at least one U.S. House race and numerous state legislative races.