The California recall election results have not yet been tabulated or released to the public — yet the leading Republican challenger in the race has already pushed discredited and errant claims of fraud in the election, disputing a loss that hasn’t even officially happened yet.
The latest aggregate of polling data compiled by FiveThirtyEight shows that current Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is in a good place heading into recall election day, with the average of polls showing 57 percent of voters currently want him to retain his position in office. Less than 42 percent of voters support his removal.
Republican candidate Larry Elder, whom many see as the leading GOP choice to replace Newsom should he lose the confidence of voters in the recall, has so far refused to say whether he will accept the election results. Elder’s campaign, however, is already prognosticating his loss — and without evidence of any kind, they are blaming fraud for Newsom’s win.
A website that is paid for by Elder’s campaign, which was published on Monday, is soliciting his supporters to sign their name to a petition demanding that the California state legislature open an investigation to “ameliorate the twisted results” of the election — results that have not yet been tallied.
“We trust in our elected officials to safeguard that ballot box, such that its results will truly reflect our will as Californian’s [sic],” the website states. “However, when those officials, either through laziness or incompetence, allow thieves to steal amidst the dead of night and cheat our ballot box, we can no longer rely on its contents.”
Beyond the claims of fraud being made prematurely, the site claims that a statistical theory called Benford’s Law has “detected fraud in California resulting in Governor Gavin Newsom being reinstated as governor.” However, a bevy of fact-checking articles from last year, prompted by former President Donald Trump’s supporters making similar claims, shows that Benford’s Law itself isn’t a reliable method to prove fraud.
The analysis “is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts,” said Theodore P. Hill, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech, to Reuters last year.
“The IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence,” Hill added. “Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”
Even the author of a paper that suggested Benford’s Law could be used in electoral races to root out fraud stressed there were significant limitations to relying on it.
A deviation from Benford’s Law “on its own should not be considered proof either that election fraud has occurred or that an election was clean,” wrote Walter Mebane, a professor of political science and statistical analysis at the University of Michigan, in 2006.
The Elder campaign’s insistence that fraud resulted in his loss one day before election results were even published comes nearly a week after Trump inserted himself in the recall race, making similar unsubstantiated claims.
In an interview with Newsmax, Trump said, without proof, that mail-in voting, which was used prominently in his own election loss, would secure Newsom’s win (and Elder’s loss) in the California recall election.
“The one thing they’re good at is rigging elections,” Trump said of Democrats, offering no proof of any kind to validate his claims.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.