Hillary Clinton and Electoral Fraud

Why we need an investigation into electoral fraud favoring Hillary Clinton

Spencer Gundert
11 min readApr 28, 2016


I would have voted for Hillary Clinton three months ago. I believed that our elections are just, verifiable, and democratic—but then discovered how easy it is to hack a voting machine without a trace. I told myself that previous elections hadn’t necessarily been rigged—but then found evidence proving me wrong. I convinced myself that it didn’t mean this Democratic nomination was rigged — until I uncovered the truth.

I am an ardent skeptic turned fervent believer.

Over the course of this article, I will demonstrate that electoral fraud was committed favoring Hillary Clinton with a plethora of sources: exit poll data, statistics, mainstream and independent media articles, expert quotes and analysis, videos, anecdotes, and so forth. All of these sources can be accessed through clickable hyperlinks (the underlined text).

How to Rig an Election

First, our elections are remarkably easy to rig. The simplest and increasingly widespread way to do so is through our electronic voting machines.

For example, a study from the Brennan Center for Justice found that 43 out of 50 states use machines at least 10 years old for 2016 elections, making their security systems outdated and extremely easy to hack. In addition, according to nonpartisan and non-profit organization, Verified Voting, some of the machines do not even print a paper receipt of the votes, so their results are unverifiable:

“Far too many states use unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines, and many states have made their situation worse by adding some forms of Internet voting for some voters, which cannot be checked for accuracy at all. Even in states where verifiable systems are used, too often the check on the voting system’s function and accuracy is not done.

The leader of this voting machine movement is Election Systems and Software, which incorporates a company formerly known as Diebold Election Systems, whose machines have repeatedly been proven easy to hack. For example, on a Fox News segment in 2006, Princeton University Professor Ed Felten stated, “It only takes a few seconds to insert a virus into [Diebold’s] voting machine…and the computer virus [switches] the votes.” He demonstrated it by hacking a Diebold Accuvote-TS (touchscreen) machine on air, contending that others could do it “at any time before election date” and the votes would be flipped permanently.

This isn’t restricted to just Diebold. In elections between 2002 and 2014, Virginia used touchscreen voting machines with the password protections “abcde” and “admin.” They could be hacked from each polling place’s parking lot. Meanwhile, in 2012, the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory discovered that some of our voting machines “can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education…while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.”

This contrasts elections all over the world, where the majority of countries strictly use hand-counted paper ballots, leaving citizens far more confident in the results. Yet, the United States spends substantially more time, money, and energy telling people to vote rather than ensuring the process in which they do so is just.

As proof, in 2004, computer programmer Clint Curtis testified under oath that he helped hack voting machines in an election. He wrote computer software for Tom Feeney in 2000 to flip the vote to “whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win,” not realizing it would be used for fraud. The election officials could “never see” the software and that, to detect it, “you would have to view it either in the source code, or you’d have to have a receipt, and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won’t see it…It’s a simple program…a hundred lines of code, tops.”

Clint Curtis further testified:

“If you have exit polling data that is significantly off from the vote, then [the election’s] probably hacked.”

Which brings me to my next point…

Exit Polls: Why They Have Been Significantly Off

“Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable…Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent. ‘Exit polls are almost never wrong,’ Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ‘so reliable,’ he added, ‘that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.’ In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down. And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

There are two main types of election polls: pre-election and exit.

Pre-election polls predict how people will vote; exit polls tell how people voted.

As Edison Research’s executive vice president Joe Lenski states, all exit polls are conducted by Edison Research and distributed to six media organizations: Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Associated Press. Exit polls are private, anonymous, and adjusted before release to account for every group or demographic that chooses not to respond for any reason.

When the polls close in each primary, media organizations release the full exit polling data. Afterwards, Edison Research compares them to actual voting results and makes adjustments. For instance, the exit polls initially showed a 4 point win by Hillary Clinton in New York at 9 PM, but were changed to 12 points at 9:45 once Edison obtained voting results.

Therefore, the best time to determine the actual exit poll results is right after voting closes. However, this year in the Democratic primaries, the exit polls have been consistently, significantly, and systemically off:

Table compiled by Theodore Soares and attained from richardcharnin.wordpress.com

I verified the table with tweets from fivethirtyeight.com and PDFs of the first reported exit polling data, also accessible as images. This table was attained through Election Integrity, a Facebook and Google group of over 1,000 people dedicated to uncovering and preventing election fraud. While some confessed that election research and data can be a minefield, they unanimously agreed upon this:

When the exit polls are way off, either the polls are wrong, electoral fraud was committed, or both.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. mentioned, research shows that exit polls are almost always spot on. When one or two are incorrect, they could be statistical anomalies, but the more incorrect they are, the more it substantiates electoral fraud.

This is shown by the data, which is extremely suspicious: discrepancies in eight of the sixteen primaries favoring Clinton in voting results over exit polling data are outside of the margin of error. That’s half of them outside the margin of error: 2.3% greater in Tennessee, 2.6% in Massachusetts, 4% in Texas, 4.7% in Mississippi, 5.2% in Ohio, 6.2% in New York, 7% in Georgia, and 7.9% in Alabama.

This is extremely, extremely abnormal.

The margin of error is designed to prevent this, accounting for the difference in percentage totals between the first exit polls and actual voting results for both candidates combined (as noted by the table’s third footnote). For instance, if Hillary Clinton outperforms the exit polls by 2.5% and Bernie Sanders underperforms by 2.5%, and the margin of error is 5%, then the exit poll is exactly on the margin of error. When an exit poll or two is outside of the margin, this denotes failure in the polling; when eight defy it — egregiously so — that indicates systemic electoral fraud.

Keep in mind, these are the discrepancies in favor of Clinton between exit polls and voting results, from lowest to highest: -6.1%, -1.9%, 1.1%, 1.7%, 3.4%, 3.9%, 4.1%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5.2%, 8%, 8.3%, 9.3%, 9.9%, 10%, 11.6%, 12.2%, and a whopping 14%.

The discrepancies alone demand an investigation of electoral fraud. These are not just small, isolated errors, but systemic and alarming differences that point towards Hillary Clinton beating exit polls in an impossible way.

Nevertheless, one may still contend that 1) exit polls are “unreliable” and 2) Bernie supporters are more “enthusiastic” to take exit polls than Clinton supporters.

However, if exit polls were done that poorly, we wouldn’t bother using them in the first place. In addition, they would be all over the place numerically, instead of consistently and considerably skewed towards Hillary Clinton. Besides, exit pollsters are, frankly, not idiots; they’ve had decades to hone, adjust, and perfect their methods, and have many elections to compare results to.

Therefore, they account for any and all unlikely changes, including response bias — the possibility that Bernie supporters are more enthusiastic. Moreover, Donald Trump supporters are arguably more enthusiastic while deriving from a similar anti-establishment base. Since Edison Research compiles the exit polls singlehandedly and the Republican race has easily been more polarizing, divisive, and contentious, one would expect that Republican exit polls would be even more skewed.

Except they haven’t been. They’ve been spot on almost every time.

I was able to find tweets of almost all of the first Republican exit polls from fivethirtyeight.com, PhD student and election tracker Taniel, and CBS live blogs. Here is a table comparing their data and the actual voting results:

If you have more data, feel free to add it in the comments.

In every primary I could find data for, the Republican primaries have been almost exactly right, with every data point in the margin of error, during a more polarizing, contentious, and hard-to-predict race. Hence, this should be enough to prove my point: if exit polls were unreliable, then the Republican primaries would have equally bad exit polling data, but they don’t, not even by a long shot.

It demands an independent investigation, with the nomination results and voting ballots thoroughly, fairly, and properly audited.

But this isn’t the only evidence of electoral fraud…

How Voter Suppression Proves Electoral Fraud

“We really are the only advanced democracy on Earth that systematically and purposely makes it really hard for people to vote…We sort of just assume, yeah, that’s I guess how it is. There’s no other country on Earth that does that.” — President Barack Obama, April 2016

According to the Electoral Integrity Project, America’s elections rank dead last out of every “long-established democracy.” Problems include “the quality of the electoral laws, voter registration, the process of drawing district boundaries, as well as the regulation of campaign finance.”

This all links directly to rampant voter suppression in this year’s Democratic primaries. I researched countless anecdotes of it for nearly three months, and after every primary, this was what I found:

I could not find any instances of voter suppression disadvantaging Hillary Clinton. Yet, it unquestionably affected Bernie Sanders.

For better understanding, here’s a look at the facts behind voter suppression:

Fact 1: Polling places were closed in Arizona, New York, Rhode Island, and other voting locations. Fewer polling places leads to longer lines, and thus, voters get discouraged from voting when they otherwise would. This consistent, unusual closure hints at electoral fraud, since Bernie Sanders’s base (younger voters) tends to vote later in the day because they have school, jobs, and generally more responsibilities. Clinton’s base consists of elderly voters (65 and older), who are often retired, vote in by mail significantly more, and have more time throughout the day to vote; therefore, they don’t have to endure long lines as frequently.

One example is in Arizona, where some voters waited up to five and a half hours to vote. One voter professed that after waiting all that time, he couldn’t vote because his Democratic registration was changed. Furthermore, the media called the primary for Hillary Clinton with less than 1% of the votes reported, disregarding the extremely long lines of people still trying to vote.

Fact 2: At least three states are under lawsuit and audits for voter suppression—Arizona, New York, and Illinois. Lawyers and election officials of these states have tried to impede or block all of them. If electoral fraud didn’t actually take place, then why block the audits and lawsuits?

Because it did. In Chicago, an auditing group testified that the results of hand-counted votes from voting machines were changed to match the machines’ false electronic counts. In one instance, 21 Sanders votes were erased and 49 Clinton votes were added, which one auditor noted is then multiplied by “about 500 active machines in the field” — indisputably election fraud. As for Arizona, hacker group Anonymous demonstrated how easy it is to hack and manipulate the voter database, as verified by a Reddit commenter, who said:

“Speaking as a database guy, one could hypothetically pull a list of names from the voter file that had indicated they were ‘strongly in support’ of Bernie Sanders, and write a script to update only their party affiliation. This might be the work of about an hour.”

In addition, a hacker would only have to search in a voter database for Independents who had recently changed their affiliation to Democratic, or young Democratic voters under the ages of 30 or 45, because the overwhelming majority of both groups favor Sanders.

Fact 3: Dishonesty from election officials has largely affected Bernie Sanders. For instance, voter signatures were forged to change Democratic registrations to Republican. Moreover, 126,000 voters were purged from Democratic registration lists in Brooklyn, with one commenter noting, “Is it just a coincidence that the area with the highest numbers of purged voters happens to be an area with high numbers of young, white, educated, liberals [Bernie’s base of supporters]?”

Another commenter stated:

“I’ve had reports from at least a dozen friends, family members, and friends of friends in other areas who have been switched. All Bernie supporters: I have yet to hear of this happening to a Clinton supporter.”

To verify this, I researched for months, poring over every comment of the threads I cited above and many more, news articles, forums, audits and lawsuit reports, and so forth. I did not read of any significant number of Clinton supporters having their registrations switched, while voter registration changes immensely affected Bernie Sanders.

This is undeniably voter suppression.

In summary, just like the mentioned discrepancies between voting results and exit polls, voter suppression has overwhelmingly damaged Bernie Sanders, leaving Clinton unharmed. Again, one or two could be anomalies, but systemic voter suppression is a distinct indicator of electoral fraud.

Summing Up

The perpetrators behind this electoral fraud are unknown. Until the voting ballots and results are fully investigated, the truth will remain clouded and our election results will never be verified.

Our democracy lives on transparency, fairness, and justice, and when our elections are blatantly corrupted and fraudulent, that democracy dies. We can either stay silent and watch our country disintegrate or stand up and fight for our rights. So, if you are disturbed by my findings, please share this as widely as you can and demand independent investigations into our elections.

Our democracy depends on it.