I need an answer of either "yes" or "no" - universally in absolutely all situations.

Laws/definitions of causation (who caused what)
cannot change based upon whether I or you believe the lie/fraud
is justified, even if you and I agree.

Nor can definitions of causation change/vary with culture, nation, tradition, habit,
no matter how "uncomfortable" those definitions make one feel.

Nor can the definitions change based upon what you believe a response/reaction
should or shouldn't be to the lying/fraud.
e.g. There exists no inconsistency in saying "Yes, lying/fraud is force, and is not justified
in situation X, but that does not mean we should arrest/handcuff/fine that person."

I know Libertarians consider lying/fraud "not force" - not an initiation of force.

I know certain governments consider lying/fraud "force", such as lying to police.
Regardless of whether it is justified or not. Yet inconsistently don't consider lying/fraud
force when politicians use it to get elected, even though those politicians make the laws,
including laws against murder. Or laws against not showing up to court because you
were caught lying to police.

Applies to elections, too.

I still get angry at the thought of disrespectful trolls who had the nerve to blame (or credit) Ralph Nader for GW Bush in 2000. In fact, I have gone out of my way to even bring this up, because I do NOT want to react to others' bullshit/talking points/dogma because I DO NOT want to spread it. As if the blame (or, again, credit) for millions of voters voting for Bush fall on anyone other than the voter themselves. As if Nader "forced" any of them to vote for Bush.

I consider it equivalent to person X disrespecting some suffering soldier for fighting a war
that X supported.

And I remember some ASSHOLE JERK subhuman (Ben Shapiro)
calling Dr Jill Stein an "idiot" in 2016
for exercising HER legal right to demand a recount of votes in Minnesota,
just to keep the votes HONEST. Can you imagine if Dr Stein and Green had stormed
the Capitol in 2016 because we believed the election was fraudulent and illegal?

And I have no respect to anyone who is incapable of generalizing this to countless other perfectly analogous situations.

So, are fraudulent votes and election fraud and voter fraud, when it is objectively proven to exist (not in the case of US 2020 election), force or not?

Life is all about X not taking Y's laws/rules/ethics/philosophies seriously when Y doesn't take X seriously, when X & Y both agree with the general ideology that upholding laws is a virtue for its own sake.

And, no. There is no such thing as "mental illness", contrary to myth. That is just a political insult people use. Unless somebody themselves says they want mental help. Then, sure... let them have whatever drugs they want or need.

I deny the assumption of the question, which is that there is a universal answer.

My dictionary tells me that lying and force are two different things. If we don't abide by the dictionary, there is no clarity anywhere, especially from liars.

Lying to police is not force. It is only lying.

Lying politicians are just that. They are lying.

Election fraud is obviously a lie. And saying there's fraud when there isn't is a lie too. Neither meet the standard for force.

Force is what happens when lies fail.

And attempting to call lying "force" when no force has been applied sounds like something a lying politician would invent.

That's how I see it...does it help?

Nessie

If a medical doctor lies about what a surgical procedure entails, and you say "okay, let's do it", then that doctor can be charged with assault and battery. So there are cases where it's the opposite of what you suggest.

Some lies are crimes. And this particular lie is given the same punishment as actual physical force because the outcome is just as bad as if it was actual physical force.

It's still a lie, though.

Nessie

Right -- it's a lie that counts as coercive because consent was manipulated, in an act that would not have happened but for the lie. So sometimes, in the right context, lies are a key part of what makes some acts forceful.

The question is too broad for anyone to be able to give a universally correct answer that's absolutely applicable in all situations therefore the only answer you'll get is that no, lying is not force.

The deception of telling a lie could be part of a bigger picture which includes things considered as psychological pressure, the applying of pressure on someone to the ends of getting them to do xyz could be described as force.

This is guesswork whilst hypothesising about an unknown number of unknown variables. The only one size fits all answer is no.