Homeless Living On Skid Row Say They Were Paid To Vote Against Spencer Pratt: 'Like $2'

While Spencer Pratt ran on a platform that involved cleaning up Los Angeles’ filthy streets and sprawling homelessness, his far-left rivals allegedly used those homeless individuals as a cheap way to pad their vote counts.

In the days that followed the election, Raman slowly ate away at Pratt’s once-sizable lead, overtaking him for second place and seemingly securing a spot on the ballot against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass later this year.

That suspicious reversal has fueled speculation of fraud, and this report from TheBlaze probably won’t help alleviate those suspicions:

A pro-Pratt TikTok account posted video of the claims from homeless people recorded in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday morning.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It was like two bucks,” said one unidentified woman who claimed she was paid $2 to vote for Bass.

“Yeah, they come out here all the time,” she added.

The TikTok creator told the New York Post that he was tipped off by a friend who worked in the area and claimed to have seen political volunteers operating in the neighborhood.

One of the men in the video called himself Kevin Shepherd and said he was paid $4 to vote for Bass. He said he negotiated the price up from $2 and that he was also allowed to vote for Raman, but not Pratt.

“They gave you an optional choice,” Shepherd said.

Rene Johnson, 39, claimed she was paid $5 to vote for Bass but was unclear about the documents she signed.

“But, you know, at the time, I didn’t know that that was going on,” she said. “I was just trying to make five bucks, you know? But I didn’t do the fraud.”

The latest allegations fueled significant social media discussion:

No ID. No verified address. Mail-in ballots with no chain of custody oversight. Then people act surprised when elections get questioned. Fix the system.

— ChattLady333 (@ChattLady333) June 11, 2026

@JamesOKeefeIII has video evidence of the #DEMONrat voter #Fraud machine doing its thing right in plain sight. pic.twitter.com/n6NiSz5Xos

— ❌️Scorp❌️ (@PoorBoyzSol) June 10, 2026

Literally no one is surprised at the level of election fraud the Democratic Communists will go to in order to win positions of power. We need the SAVE ACT passed immediately.

— 🇺🇸Deplorable Viking🇩🇰 (@DanishVikingGA) June 11, 2026

Meanwhile, the Washington Times illustrated just how unlikely the outcome of the LA mayoral race actually was:

ChatGPT could not find one example in American history of a third-place candidate surging days after an election to overtake second place — yet that is what we are seeing in the Los Angeles mayoral race, with democratic socialist Nithya Raman besting reality TV star Spencer Pratt over the weekend, possibly edging him out of the runoff.

For mail-in ballots arriving before the election, Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, received 38% of the vote, Mr. Pratt received 28%, and Ms. Raman received 20%. Voter turnout for Ms. Raman on June 2, the day of the election, was so tepid that she gave a concession speech in which she sobbed to her family and friends for having failed.

Then something miraculous happened: a surge in Ms. Raman’s popularity that was not observable before or on June 2. She collected 37% of the mail-in ballots that arrived after the election (a 17% surge), besting Ms. Bass’ 35% (a 3% drop from preelection mail-in votes), and Mr. Pratt’s 19% (a 9% drop).

Just to be clear: Mail-in ballots that arrived after June 2 dropped for everyone except for the person Democrats needed to defeat Mr. Pratt. Ms. Bass stayed around 35% of the vote nearly the entire time; the only wild change was between the No. 2 and No. 3 candidates.

It is simply not mathematically or statistically realistic.

The left is telling us that Democrats vote late by mail, which is certainly true, but it does not explain why Ms. Raman — who is relatively unknown — received a disproportionate share of the late mail-in votes while Ms. Bass’ numbers remained relatively unchanged.

ADVERTISEMENT

No external event could explain this. Before the election, no late-breaking scandals emerged among the candidates, nor were there any endorsements that could have altered the race’s trajectory. However, online buzz suggested that Mr. Pratt, an independent, could make the runoff and secure the No. 2 spot.