Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were the most common types of voter fraud allegations in the 2024 election?
Executive summary
Allegations in 2024 clustered around a few recurring themes: claims of noncitizen voting, vote-harvesting or ballot‑collection schemes, machine or software tampering, and duplicate or double voting — with many of those claims later described as baseless or unproven by fact‑checkers and audits [1] [2] [3]. Scholarly polling before the election shows Americans perceived multiple types of fraud as plausible, and partisan media and advocacy groups amplified selective or speculative examples after the vote [4] [5].
1. Noncitizen voting: a headline-grabbing allegation
State officials and partisan actors highlighted noncitizen voting as a major concern in 2024; for example, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced investigations into 33 alleged noncitizen voters after state data referrals [2]. These announcements fed a narrative across conservative outlets and state-level enforcement that noncitizen ballots were a meaningful threat to election integrity, even as available reporting shows many such probes were preliminary referrals or under review rather than proven, systemic fraud [2].
2. Vote‑harvesting and ballot collection: contested and litigated claims
Allegations that operatives collected and improperly submitted ballots — often labeled “vote harvesting” — appeared in lawsuits and investigative claims, including litigation moved forward in at least one county where discrepancies were alleged [6]. Advocacy groups and some Republican officials emphasized these claims; news reports and fact‑checking outlets described many of the allegations as speculative or not yet proven, and courts sometimes allowed discovery to proceed without declaring systemic fraud [6] [1].
3. Machine and software tampering: fears, lawsuits, and social amplification
Accusations that vote‑counting machines or software had been altered were repeatedly circulated, amplified on social platforms and in some lawsuits [5] [6]. Platforms and actors with large reach sometimes promoted such theories; Poynter and other fact‑checking outlets documented a steady stream of machine‑tampering claims that lacked independent confirmation, and reporting noted these theories persisted even after routine post‑election audits [1] [6].
4. Duplicate voting and people casting ballots in more than one place
Concrete criminal charges did occur in isolated cases alleging duplicate voting — for example, indictments in Pennsylvania accused individuals of voting in more than one state or more than once in 2024 [3]. Such prosecutions underscore that some instances of technically illegal voting happened, but federal and state officials and audits typically framed these as sporadic, not evidence of mass fraud [3] [7].
5. How perception differed from documented evidence
Academic survey research conducted before the election found many registered voters believed a variety of fraud types could occur, and that conspiratorial thinking correlated with these beliefs [4]. In parallel, fact‑checking organizations tracked many viral claims and found a pattern: broad, repeated assertions of systemic fraud circulated widely while audits and reporting often failed to substantiate them [1] [7].
6. The role of platforms, partisan groups and litigation in amplifying claims
Reporting and watchdog summaries show that social platforms and well‑funded groups played an outsized role in spreading and sustaining allegations: X/Twitter feeds and political action groups promoted posts claiming voter irregularities, and organizations with litigation arms filed suits contesting results in specific localities [5] [6]. Some of these groups presented disputed evidence or selectively edited material that independent fact‑checkers characterized as misleading [5] [1].
7. What officials and audits actually found (and did not find)
Post‑election audits and routine reviews in some states — for example Ohio — reiterated that the election systems functioned properly and did not uncover widespread fraud, even as officials pursued targeted investigations and prosecutions of specific alleged violations [7] [3]. Available sources do not claim these audits fully addressed every allegation nationwide; they document that many systemic claims lacked corroboration in the audited jurisdictions [7].
8. Context and competing viewpoints you should weigh
Advocates pressing fraud claims emphasize investigations, criminal referrals and litigation as proof that problems exist and need policy remedies [2] [6]. Fact‑checkers, academics and some post‑election audits counter that while isolated criminal acts occurred, the broader evidence does not show mass, coordinated fraud sufficient to change outcomes — and that social amplification often outpaced independent verification [1] [7] [4]. Readers should treat high‑visibility assertions as preliminary until courts, audits or prosecutors publish findings.
Limitations: reporting in the supplied set is uneven by jurisdiction and often focuses on high‑profile claims, auditing summaries, and selective prosecutions; available sources do not provide a single, comprehensive list quantifying each allegation type nationwide (not found in current reporting).