Election fraud is exceedingly rare, but President Trump has fixated on rooting it out this year, claiming without evidence that tens of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote. —The Times.

选举欺诈极为罕见，但特朗普总统今年执意要将其铲除，在毫无证据的情况下声称有数万名非公民登记投票。——《纽约时报》

After scouring billions of ballots, we have identified countless instances of voter fraud. They are countless, in part, because we are unwilling and unable to count past thirty-four. Verified election-fraud incidents include the following:

Incident: A noncitizen who lives in Rhode Island visited family in Texas and, while at a local coffee shop, cast multiple votes in a poll titled “JACOB ELORDI OR AUSTIN BUTLER???”

Evidence: Not only did the noncitizen vote four times for one candidate and twice for the other, but she did so with the sixty cents she received as change for her order.

Verdict: Interstate Fraud, multiple instances. Voted (“tipped”) a total of six times. Votes were quite literally purchased. Incorrect preference for Jacob over Austin.

Incident: Herbert D. Pendleton, Sr., remains on his town’s voter roll despite being dead.

Evidence: When Herbert D. Pendleton, Jr., went to vote last year, a poll worker claims that she mistakenly crossed off the father’s name instead of the son’s.

Verdict: Zombie Fraud. Poll workers are clearly willing to make up elaborate tales rather than admit that Herbert D. Pendleton, Sr., rose from the dead.

Incident: A dog was allowed into a polling center at a local gymnasium.

Evidence: The dog’s owner allegedly exclaimed, “Ain’t no rules says a dog can’t play basketball—or vote!”

Verdict: Canine Voter Fraud. After interviews with a dozen people who were not there, we deem it highly likely that the dog filled in part of the ballot—and then sank some threes.

Incident: A green-card holder may have walked by a polling location.

Evidence: Passersby recall the permanent resident “sneaking a peek” at the line of people waiting to cast a ballot.

Verdict: Curiosity Fraud. Were it not for such a long line, and were they not on the other side of four lanes of traffic, and were they not headed to work, and were they not uninterested in voting, the offender would have attempted to cast between ten and twenty fraudulent ballots.

Incident: Mail-in ballots—just that they generally exist.

Evidence: Registered voters all over the country have been, quite literally, “mailing it in.”

Verdict: Lack of Commitment Fraud. Citizens must prove their patriotism by not only voting in person but also by making their way through an extensive and dangerous “American Ninja Warrior”-style obstacle course en route to the ballot box.

Incident: Many members of the public were coerced into voting a certain way by reading the news.

Evidence: As average citizens become more aware of what’s happening, they have been observed to vote in their own best interests, an extremely troubling turn of events.

Verdict: Informed Fraud. Votes must be cast based on vibe, not intellectual engagement. News organizations to be held liable for broadcasting news. Voters to be held liable for expressing free will.

Incident: Danny R. won his school’s race for student-body president on a socialist platform.

Evidence: Danny R. promised that the school district would subsidize Roblox in-game purchases for the entire eighth grade. He ran unopposed.

Verdict: Candidate Fraud. Danny R. does not have the authority to distribute taxpayer dollars. His win was predicated on a false representation of his position’s power. All votes are ruled invalid. East Middle School will forego its student government indefinitely.

Incident: A Canadian tourist voted via text for their favorite “Dancing with the Stars” contestant.

Evidence: The host of a watch party reported their friend, who was visiting from Ontario.

Verdict: Sashay Fraud. Voting via text is far too accessible. “Dancing with the Stars” will now require in-person paper voting and multiple forms of identification.

Incident: A convicted felon who resides full time in Washington, D.C., voted in Florida during the last three elections, each time for himself.

Evidence: The man used mail-in ballots while encouraging vote counters to “find” more votes for his preferred candidates.

Verdict: Not Fraud. In fact, even investigating this incident is traitorous. Incident to be redacted forthwith. ♦