3 ms·
The basic reason we're okay with it is there is almost no compelling reason for an individual to falsely claim to be other people -- at least none where the ris
by jowiar 10y ago
The basic reason we're okay with it is there is almost no compelling reason for an individual to falsely claim to be other people -- at least none where the risk/reward factor pays off. The reward for casting a false ballot is almost certainly zero, and the risk factor of, say, a friend in the polling place saying "Hi Steve!" when you tell the people you're John is enough to tip the scales.
Almost any effort to rig an election involves falsifying hundreds or thousands of ballots (or, as we've started to see, depriving said number of their right to vote).
- SilasX 10y agoIn your model, is there "almost certainly zero reward" to the first (legit) vote?
- jowiar 10y agoYes, but you're not committing a felony, risking jail time and fines. Also, you've identified why GOTV is a big deal in campaigns. That said, rounding up a big group of people together to all vote is a whole lot easier than rounding up a big group of people to commit felonies.
- SilasX 10y ago>Yes, but you're not committing a felony, risking jail time and fines. I'm referring to the "reward" side of the ledger only. Do I understand you correctly, that under your model, there's no benefit to voting in the first place? If so, I don't think you're modeling critical dynamics of the system -- I think you would be worried if e.g. only five people were officially allowed to double-vote, even if that wouldn't affect the outcome.