How propaganda distorts election debates—and what the evidence actually shows
By Eve R. Doster
Reality #1:
In recent years, the use of propaganda has affected the outcome of many high-profile elections worldwide.
Reality #2:
Both left-leaning and right-leaning citizens are susceptible to its lure.
This week, America Visualized focuses on one of America’s most persistent forms of political propaganda—the claim that our elections are “rigged” and that redistricting and the cessation of early and mail-in voting are necessary solutions.
We’ve all heard the assertions:
“Redistricting mid-cycle is necessary and proper.”
“Millions of illegal votes are cast in every election.”
“Mail-in ballots are the main source of fraud.”
“Voting machines flip votes.”
“Dead people vote.”
“Ballot harvesting and drop boxes enable cheating.”
Importantly, just because a narrative circulates broadly doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, propagandists rely on people not feeling empowered enough to verify their own information, especially if it confirms already held beliefs. But we don’t have to guess or fall back on others’ interpretations of what is true and what is not. Evidence is verifiable; propaganda is not.
For balance, this blog uses evidence from both right- and left-leaning organizations to examine the difference between what’s claimed and what’s proven about elections. Our goal is to help readers learn how to smell a rat—and to recognize that sometimes bad information isn’t just wrong, it’s engineered.
When we learn how to separate claims from evidence, we gain civic clarity. Democracy depends on knowing how to confirm what we’re told. So how is America Visualized verifying our information? To test any claim, we start by isolating its core assertion.
We ask: Who made it? What evidence supports it? Has that evidence been independently verified or supported? And then, we compare the claim against evidence-based sources.
But before we dig in—because the term “online research” is both vague and often little more than unverifiable bias fed to us by an algorithm—let’s be very specific about what an “evidence-based” source is and is not.
Types of Sources We Are Using (and You Should, Too):
Primary sources
Original evidence created at the time of an event or by direct participants. Shows what actually happened before interpretation.
Examples:
- Court filings
- State audit reports
- Official press releases
- Election board statements or
- Firsthand data—not summaries or interpretations
Secondary sources
Analysis, interpretation, or synthesis of primary sources. Adds context or commentary but is one step removed from the event itself.
Examples:
- Newspaper articles
- Academic reviews
- Historical summaries
Peer-reviewed findings
Scholarly studies evaluated by experts in their field. Provide tested findings.
Examples:
- Political science journals
- Election-integrity studies
Legacy journalism
Established news organizations with editorial standards and fact-checking processes—media that can be sued if it lies.
Examples:
- Associated Press
- Reuters
- ProPublica
Types of Sources We Are Not Using (and You Shouldn’t, Either):
Tertiary sources
Compilations or quick references. Useful for overview but not for original evidence.
Examples:
- Unsourced “fact sheets”
- Wikipedia entries
Opinion
Interpretations or beliefs rather than verifiable facts. Useful for understanding public sentiment but not for establishing evidence.
Examples:
- Cable news shows
- Pay-per-view documentaries
- Podcasts
- Memes or
- Social media posts
The Rundown: Claims vs. Reality
Claim 1:
“Redistricting during the mid-election cycle is necessary and proper.”
Reality:
Redistricting mid-cycle (for example, last week’s redistricting vote in Tennessee) departs from tradition and invites partisan manipulation.
- Notre Dame Department of Political Science (2026): States typically begin their congressional redistricting processes following the decennial U.S. census and apportionment.
- Congressional Research Service (2026): Discretionary mid-cycle redraws are rare and controversial because they undermine the democratic method and population-based data.
→ Takeaway:
These changes are often partisan in nature, which can lead to racial gerrymandering and other forms of disenfranchisement.
Claim 2:
“Millions of illegal votes are cast in every election.”
Reality:
Illegal voting has happened, but at negligibly low rates.
- Associated Press (2021): 475 potential cases out of 25 million votes in 2020.
- Brennan Center for Justice: Impersonation fraud rates are between 0.0003 % and 0.0025 %.
- Heritage Foundation Database: Approximately 1,400 proven cases across decades and billions of ballots.
→ Takeaway:
Fraud occurs, but at a scale far too small to alter national outcomes.
Claim 3:
“Mail-in ballots are the main source of fraud.”
Reality:
Isolated incidents only.
- North Carolina 9th District (2018): Ballot tampering by a political operative; election overturned.
- Paterson, N.J. (2020): Four individuals charged with mail-in ballot manipulation.
- Milwaukee (2022): Kimberly Zapata charged for requesting military absentee ballots under false names.
→ Takeaway:
Each case was investigated, prosecuted, and corrected, which is evidence of accountability, not systemic failure.
Claim 4:
“Voting machines flip votes.”
Reality:
Multiple audits of the 2020 election verified results, and false statements about voting machines resulted in massive court-ordered penalties.
- Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News: Court ruled that Fox News’ assertions that Dominion’s voting machines rigged the 2020 U.S. presidential election were knowingly false; $787.5 million settlement paid.
- Georgia (2020): Hand-count audits confirmed machine accuracy.
- CISA: Declared 2020 “the most secure election in American history.”
- Dozens of Federal and State Courts: Dismissed fraud claims for lack of evidence.
→ Takeaway:
The integrity of voting machines was upheld through hand-count audits, expert reviews, and legal accountability.
Claim 5:
“Dead people vote.”
Reality:
Claims of dead people voting were mostly clerical errors or misreading of data.
- Researchers analyzed 4.5 million voter records (2011–2018) in Washington state.
- They found 14 ballots (0.0003 %) that might have been cast after the voter’s death.
- Even these rare cases were likely due to name and birth-date collisions or clerical errors, not fraud.
→ Takeaway:
This form of fraud is extraordinarily rare and exceedingly difficult to pull off.
Claim 6:
“Ballot harvesting and drop boxes enable cheating.”
Reality:
Peer-reviewed studies show no correlation between drop-box use and increased fraud.
- Dinesh D’Souza’s polarizing pay-per-view documentary “2000 Mules” was debunked multiple times for using “faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts, and improper analysis of cellphone location data.”
- Brookings Institution (2025): Analyzed national mail-voting data and found fraud rates around 0.000043 % (about four cases per 10 million ballots).
- Yale University and Stanford University (2025): Found that beliefs about drop-box fraud were partisan perceptions, not supported by empirical data.
→ Takeaway:
Drop boxes and ballot collection don’t increase fraud; studies show claims of cheating are unfounded and partisan in nature.
So, if so many high-profile claims about election integrity have been debunked by experts, why do they persist? For starters, propaganda works, especially when people interpret data through partisan lenses. Also, bad information spreads faster than corrections (propagandists bake this into their strategy.) Lastly, elections are complex and vary from state to state, so many voters misunderstand processes.
The good news is that election officials have several tools to prevent fraud in America and they work. State election manuals outline safeguards including signature verification, chain-of-custody logs, bipartisan poll-worker teams, post-election auditing options, and federal cybersecurity partnerships (CISA, EAC). It’s a tight ship.
So, despite the reassuring fact that American election processes are intact, propaganda itself is a threat. According to the Department of Homeland Security, misinformation campaigns, underfunded infrastructure, harassment of election workers, and foreign influence operations are the greatest threats to American election integrity. It’s these things—not widespread voter fraud—that pose the risks.
In the end, the evidence is unequivocal: voter fraud exists, but only at vanishingly small rates. The documented cases are isolated, investigated, and prosecuted. Claims of widespread fraud collapse under scrutiny from courts and audits. What sustains public trust in elections is not rhetoric, but transparency, bipartisan oversight, and a citizenry willing to understand how the process actually works. Democracy’s strength lies in its openness to verification—not in the partisan narratives that seek to erode it.
Reality #3:
Democracy’s strength lies in verification. May we not be receptacles for BS.
SOURCES:
West, Darrell M. How Disinformation Defined the 2024 Election Narrative. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2024.
Institute for Public Relations. Disinformation Report 2025: Key Findings. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations, 2025.
Barrett, Paul M. Disinformation and the 2020 Election: How Social Media and Domestic Extremism Threaten Democracy. New York: NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, 2019.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Disinformation Primer. Washington, DC: USAID, 2021.
Rooduijn, Matthijs, Sarah de Lange, and Caterina Froio. “Through Thick and Thin: Concept and Scale Development of Left‑Wing and Right‑Wing Populist Attitudes.” Collabra: Psychology 11, no. 1 (2025). University of California Press.
Associated Press. Review Finds No Evidence of Widespread Fraud in 2020 Election. New York: Associated Press, June 2021. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-election-fraud-2020.
Brennan Center for Justice, Local Election Officials Survey 2025 (New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/local-election-officials-survey-2025.
North Carolina State Board of Elections. Order of the State Board of Elections In the Matter of Investigation of Election Irregularities Affecting Counties Within the 9th Congressional District. Raleigh, NC. March 13, 2019. https://dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/Congressional_District_9_Portal/Order_03132019.pdf.
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. “AG Grewal Announces Voting Fraud Charges Against Paterson Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman‑Elect Alex Mendez, and Two Other Men.” June 25, 2020. https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases20/pr20200625a.html.
The Heritage Foundation. “May 2020 Third Ward Paterson City Council Election.” Election Fraud Database. Accessed May 13, 2026. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201164.
State of Wisconsin v. Kimberly Zapata, Case No. 2025AP425‑CR. Filed May 12, 2026. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Record, Wisconsin Judiciary.
US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC, Case No. N21C‑03‑257 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 2023).
Georgia Secretary of State. 2020 General Election Risk-Limiting Audit. November 19, 2020. https://sos.ga.gov/elections/2020-general-election-risk-limiting-audit.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Statement from CISA Director Krebs on Security and Resilience of 2020 Elections. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 12, 2020. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/statement-cisa-director-krebs-security-and-resilience-2020-elections.
Georgia Secretary of State. Investigations Debunk False Claims of Dead Voters in Georgia. Press Release. June 2021.
Crawford, Krysten. “Dead People Don’t Vote: Study Points to an ‘Extremely Rare’ Fraud.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), October 28, 2020. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/dead-people-dont-vote-study-points-extremely-rare-fraud.
Reuters Fact Check. “Fact Check: Does ‘2000 Mules’ Provide Evidence of Voter Fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?” Reuters, May 27, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-us-presidential-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ.
Angel, Samara, Jonathan Katz, and Randi Wright. “Mail Voting Fraud: Data Points to Low Risk and High Benefits for Voters.” Brookings Institution, November 6, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mail-voting-in-the-us-data-points-to-very-low-fraud-and-significant-benefits-to-voters/.
Huber, Gregory A., Andrew B. Hall, and Daniel E. Ho. Disagreements about Threats to Electoral Integrity. Yale University & Stanford University, 2025. https://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/118_paper.pdf.
Congressional Research Service. Mid‑Decade Congressional Redistricting: Key Issues (IF13082). Washington, DC: Library of Congress, March 4, 2026.
McGuire, Daniel. “The Problem with Discretionary Mid‑Cycle Redistricting.” Beyond Politics (University of Notre Dame), March 18, 2026. https://sites.nd.edu/beyond-politics/2026/03/18/the-problem-with-discretionary-mid-cycle-redistricting-by-daniel-mcguire/.
Michigan Department of State. Election Officials’ Manual. Revised January 2025. Section 3: Election Security and Safeguards. Lansing, MI: Bureau of Elections.
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General. DHS Improved Election Infrastructure Security, but Its Role in Countering Disinformation Has Been Reduced. Report No. OIG‑24‑52, September 19, 2024.
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis; Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 2024 U.S. Federal Elections: The Insider Threat. Washington, DC, 2024.