5 ms·

I think what he's saying is that there should more voter id laws and making sure people who really have the legal right to vote can vote and those who don't do

by sabujp 10y ago

I think what he's saying is that there should more voter id laws and making sure people who really have the legal right to vote can vote and those who don't do not. As a person who's in charge of making sure our systems are secure, I must say that the amount of security in the voting process and the verification of the person voting is almost non-existent. At least in San Jose / Santa Clara county where I went to cast an early vote, there's no verification of who you say you are. They only ask for your name and address (pretty easy to get). Maybe they have access to DMV records (a recent photo of you) on the computer they're looking at, when you provide them you're info? If so that's a good step, but I doubt they do that (what about for people who don't drive)? They also do zero checking when you're dropping off someone else's ballot in person. There's a spot on the back of the envelope where it's required to put the name of the person who's dropping of the ballot if it's not the person who cast the ballot, and no one even checks that.

snsr 10y ago
Aside from Diebold etc.[1], the only fraud happening in our elections are a) gerrymandering and b) racist voter suppression laws like those in North Carolina, where a state senator admitted as much in a televised interview. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy
- maehwasu 10y ago
  That's an extremely strong claim to back up with no evidence. The commenter above you has given at least anecdotal evidence of substantial opportunity for fraud, and we already know motive is strong on both sides.
  - specialist 10y ago
    What measure of proof do you require?
    - tropo 10y ago
      Well, how about the same ID you'd need to board a plane or buy alcohol or deal with being stopped by a cop? Let's start with that. To reduce forgery, match the ID against an image of it on a computer. Better yet, scan it into a computer and have the computer do the matching. Also, take a new picture. This can be used to help catch and prosecute any remaining fraud. More importantly, such fraud would be strongly discouraged by the increased possibility of being caught.
      - specialist 10y ago
        Hmmm. Let's try again. GP wrote: "...the only fraud happening in our elections are a) gerrymandering and b) racist voter suppression laws..." You wrote: "That's an extremely strong claim to back up with no evidence." I asked: "What measure of proof do you require?" Honestly, I expected something related to proving gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, or something.
- trendia 10y ago
  If John votes and pretends to be Jim (who doesn't vote), how would we know?
  - specialist 10y ago
    In my jurisdiction, John had to show some kind of ID. Recent utility bill with matching address. Worker photo ID. It was a pretty long list. The idea is the state will no disenfranchise you for making a mistake while making the cost (risk) of bulk voter fraud higher as to be infeasible.
- ythl 10y ago
  How do you know people aren't double voting in areas that don't check IDs? Seems like an easy untraceable/unprovable way to commit voting fraud.
  - grzm 10y ago
    In my experience in the US, you have a registered polling station where you are allowed to cast your ballot. When you arrive, they cross your name off the list. If I'm only allowed to vote in one location, and that location only allows me to vote once, that should prevent double voting, even if I'm not who I say I am. Or rather, I'm not going to vote twice as the same person. Is this the case across the US? Whether the voter registration rolls are up-to-date, that's another matter as well. And double voting is only one type of fraud.
  - specialist 10y ago
    Meta: Please do not down vote legit questions. Election administration in the USA is arcane. This is a teachable moment.
  - mrsteveman1 10y ago
    Trump supporters just tried this and were in fact caught. Nobody with sense would try, it carries severe punishment (it's a felony) for virtually no benefit to the person taking the risk, and really virtually no effect on the election either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
  - snsr 10y ago
    > How do you know people aren't double voting in areas that don't check IDs? Because it doesn't fucking matter? Also going to need to see some receipts for that.
specialist 10y ago
When voting in person, the poll worker is checking your name & address against what's listed in the poll book. Not listed? You get a provisional ballot. Two people try to vote as the same person? That'll be caught and investigated. Show up to vote as someone else (who doesn't vote)? Well, that's plausible. Most of these kinds of "fraud" are actually voter registration "errors", where someone votes in the wrong jurisdiction. Like Ann Coulter did. As for postal ballots, ya. The voter signature and proxy name are mostly for after the fact investigations if problems need to be resolved. You should attend your canvassing board meetings to hear all the nonsense. Husband and wives swapping envelopes. A couple putting two ballots into one envelope to save a stamp. Ballot from a prior election. Soiled ballots. Missing ballot, so voter just used another piece of paper (still legal). Etc, etc. That spouses, job bosses, church leaders, command officers "help" others vote (the correct way) is established and well documented. But society seems to have decided that the benefits of enfranchisement outweigh the downsides. Remarkably, comparatively, there's very little abuse of postal ballots. We're talking 10s and 100s vs 1,000s and 100,000s who are disenfranchised by other means. Caging, gerrymandering, underprovisioning voting machines and polls sites in key areas, not counting any votes on spanish language ballots, calling in a bomb scare and shutting down the central count which then has a mysterious miraculous election result, ad nauseam. There's no shortage of problems with our districting, campaigning, elections, voting, tabulation, vendor relations, etc. If you only care to look. But please don't make the mistake that retail voter fraud is a significant factor.

by sabujp 10y ago

snsr 10y ago

Aside from Diebold etc.[1], the only fraud happening in our elections are a) gerrymandering and b) racist voter suppression laws like those in North Carolina, where a state senator admitted as much in a televised interview. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy

maehwasu 10y ago
That's an extremely strong claim to back up with no evidence. The commenter above you has given at least anecdotal evidence of substantial opportunity for fraud, and we already know motive is strong on both sides.
- specialist 10y ago
  What measure of proof do you require?
  - tropo 10y ago
    Well, how about the same ID you'd need to board a plane or buy alcohol or deal with being stopped by a cop? Let's start with that. To reduce forgery, match the ID against an image of it on a computer. Better yet, scan it into a computer and have the computer do the matching. Also, take a new picture. This can be used to help catch and prosecute any remaining fraud. More importantly, such fraud would be strongly discouraged by the increased possibility of being caught.
    - specialist 10y ago
      Hmmm. Let's try again. GP wrote: "...the only fraud happening in our elections are a) gerrymandering and b) racist voter suppression laws..." You wrote: "That's an extremely strong claim to back up with no evidence." I asked: "What measure of proof do you require?" Honestly, I expected something related to proving gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, or something.
trendia 10y ago
If John votes and pretends to be Jim (who doesn't vote), how would we know?
- specialist 10y ago
  In my jurisdiction, John had to show some kind of ID. Recent utility bill with matching address. Worker photo ID. It was a pretty long list. The idea is the state will no disenfranchise you for making a mistake while making the cost (risk) of bulk voter fraud higher as to be infeasible.
ythl 10y ago
How do you know people aren't double voting in areas that don't check IDs? Seems like an easy untraceable/unprovable way to commit voting fraud.
- grzm 10y ago
  In my experience in the US, you have a registered polling station where you are allowed to cast your ballot. When you arrive, they cross your name off the list. If I'm only allowed to vote in one location, and that location only allows me to vote once, that should prevent double voting, even if I'm not who I say I am. Or rather, I'm not going to vote twice as the same person. Is this the case across the US? Whether the voter registration rolls are up-to-date, that's another matter as well. And double voting is only one type of fraud.
- specialist 10y ago
  Meta: Please do not down vote legit questions. Election administration in the USA is arcane. This is a teachable moment.
- mrsteveman1 10y ago
  Trump supporters just tried this and were in fact caught. Nobody with sense would try, it carries severe punishment (it's a felony) for virtually no benefit to the person taking the risk, and really virtually no effect on the election either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
- snsr 10y ago
  > How do you know people aren't double voting in areas that don't check IDs? Because it doesn't fucking matter? Also going to need to see some receipts for that.

specialist 10y ago

When voting in person, the poll worker is checking your name & address against what's listed in the poll book. Not listed? You get a provisional ballot. Two people try to vote as the same person? That'll be caught and investigated. Show up to vote as someone else (who doesn't vote)? Well, that's plausible. Most of these kinds of "fraud" are actually voter registration "errors", where someone votes in the wrong jurisdiction. Like Ann Coulter did. As for postal ballots, ya. The voter signature and proxy name are mostly for after the fact investigations if problems need to be resolved. You should attend your canvassing board meetings to hear all the nonsense. Husband and wives swapping envelopes. A couple putting two ballots into one envelope to save a stamp. Ballot from a prior election. Soiled ballots. Missing ballot, so voter just used another piece of paper (still legal). Etc, etc. That spouses, job bosses, church leaders, command officers "help" others vote (the correct way) is established and well documented. But society seems to have decided that the benefits of enfranchisement outweigh the downsides. Remarkably, comparatively, there's very little abuse of postal ballots. We're talking 10s and 100s vs 1,000s and 100,000s who are disenfranchised by other means. Caging, gerrymandering, underprovisioning voting machines and polls sites in key areas, not counting any votes on spanish language ballots, calling in a bomb scare and shutting down the central count which then has a mysterious miraculous election result, ad nauseam. There's no shortage of problems with our districting, campaigning, elections, voting, tabulation, vendor relations, etc. If you only care to look. But please don't make the mistake that retail voter fraud is a significant factor.