Democrat Bob Casey is challenging Republican Dave McCormick in a contentious recount battle, with a razor-thin margin of just 24,000 votes—well within the threshold for an automatic recount under state law. This slim difference has ignited widespread scrutiny, not only of the recount process but also of the integrity of the ballots themselves.
Now the eye opener – some Democratic officials have admitted to counting ballots explicitly ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. These ballots were ordered excluded due to violations of Pennsylvania election law. Nevertheless, Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia openly justified her decision to defy the court order, remarking, “People violate laws anytime they want.”
While this controversy over invalid ballots may not drastically change the immediate outcome, as these votes were cast in predominantly Democratic areas, the implications are significant. If the recount proceeds without including these contested ballots, Republican candidate McCormick could gain the upper hand, aligning with the Supreme Court’s directive.
A Bigger Picture
This isn’t merely a minor inconvenience for McCormick—it’s a pivotal issue. As President Biden once said, this is a “big f$#%ing deal!”
Consider the stakes: Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by approximately 150,000 votes. In 2020, he lost the state by just 80,000 votes. Small shifts of 75,000 and 40,000 votes, respectively, could have swung those elections. The contested ballots in this recount also include votes for the presidency. Given the Democratic dominance in the affected areas, it’s reasonable to assume most of these ballots would have favored Kamala Harris.
The bottom line? This isn’t just about tipping the scales for Casey—it’s also about potentially swaying Pennsylvania’s presidential outcome. If the election had been closer, this could have succeeded. And do you really believe the Democratic establishment would have allowed such election irregularities to surface if it were successful?
Why This Matters
The scale of this alleged misconduct, particularly in Bucks County, raises serious questions. Pennsylvania has nearly 7 million voters, and even minor shifts in numbers can alter statewide results. In 2020, such shifts could have changed the presidency. Can anyone confidently assert that this didn’t happen in 2020, given the scale and coordination evident now?
Officials like Ellis-Marseglia cannot predict the impact of their actions in advance. Their deliberate efforts to manipulate election outcomes must be addressed. These violations were intentional and in direct defiance of a clear and public ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This was not an isolated incident but a coordinated attempt by Democratic-leaning election officials to influence the results illegally.
Accountability Is Key
Federal law imposes penalties of up to five years in prison and fines for voter fraud. This punishment should be applied across the board to all involved. As Dante Alighieri famously wrote, “The greater the power, the greater the responsibility—and the greater the guilt when that responsibility is abused.”
Crimes of this magnitude threaten the very foundation of democracy. Figures like John Gotti and Aldrich Ames received life sentences for their transgressions, yet neither committed offenses that directly jeopardized the democratic process. Election fraud of this scale deserves harsher penalties—it’s an existential threat to the nation.
Postscript
Yes, mainstream outlets may dismiss these concerns, turning them into fodder for ridicule. In 2020, suspicions ran high, but now, concrete evidence has emerged, and the perpetrators are known. This isn’t conjecture—it happened. As we’ve seen in Florida, ballot-harvesting schemes can persist undetected for decades. If I were in Trump’s position, I’d ensure these individuals face the full weight of the law. Their actions demand accountability—not just for the sake of one election, but to safeguard the integrity of our democracy moving forward.
