7 ms·

In the US, there's a lot of concern about making it easy for voters to register and stay registered, because in the past officials used this to disenfranchise b

In the US, there's a lot of concern about making it easy for voters to register and stay registered, because in the past officials used this to disenfranchise blacks in the south and minority groups. I think they are not paying enough attention to the risk of intentional voter fraud (by hostile outsiders) in the modern world. In the last election, Russian election manipulation became a big topic because they hacked e-mail servers and placed some fake news ads. Can you imagine what it would have done to the country if they had actually placed fraudulent votes in key districts? Would you have accepted Donald Trump as president if there had been serious questions about whether he'd been elected by fraudulent votes? This is not really that hard to imagine! The system today is pretty vulnerable to manipulation by outsiders, and the discussion about voter disenfranchisement is keeping us from fixing that...

ch4s3 9y ago
That's complete nonsense. The Supreme Court and several district courts have found states like North Carolina to be actively using purges and registration changes for the purpose of disenfranchising voters. Furthermore, if you want to protect the integrity of the vote, registration is the last logical place to start, as in person fraud is vanishingly rare. Only 2 people were charged with doing so in this past election, 2. If we want to secure the machines, that is a totally different scenario, and unrelated to purging voter rolls.
- wang_li 9y ago
  It doesn't get charged often because there are parties that fight tooth and nail to prevent the implementation of processes that would allow the detection of ineligible voters voting. It is shown in every election cycle that there are cases of voters voting who should not be because of their citizenship or felon status or voting in multiple districts. When you say that only 2 have been charged, why is that relevant? What number of people would be disenfranchised if the voting system required photo ID? And I mean people who literally cannot get a photo ID at all, not someone who has to pay $10 or who has to spend a few hours once every four to six years getting their ID renewed.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    You're gonna have to provide proof of that.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      Proof of what? That voting fraud happens? It assuredly happens, as does more generalized election fraud. In my state of Washington there have been confirmed cases of people voting their dead family member's ballot[1]. And in the 2004 Gubernatorial election there were more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory.[2] Or do you mean that parties fight against efforts to make the voting process more trustworthy? Feel free to search voter id lawsuit in your favorite search engine. 1: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governo... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_elect...
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        All of it. Proof that it happens on such a scale as to actually be a problem, and proof that those measures you speak of are not just thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise voters. If you're going to mess with the people's right to vote, you had better have a damn good reason.
      - ch4s3 9y ago
        You own second citation contains the following passage: >ridges removed the five votes from the final count: four for Rossi and one for Ruth Bennett.[32] No evidence was brought before the court of any of the illegal votes benefitted Gregoire.[32] The final margin of victory for Gregoire over Rossi was 133 votes.[33] Rossi did not appeal to the state Supreme Court[34] and the Washington State Republican party settled the case after paying $15,000 in court costs to the Democrats.[35] Judge Bridges' ruling was seen as a comprehensive defeat for Rossi. The judge admitted nearly every piece of evidence the Republican Party offered and then wrote a thorough, tough opinion rejecting the Republicans' claims (while criticizing the administration of the election, particularly in King County); Rossi was left with very little legal ground for a successful appeal. After receiving such a negative verdict, Rossi declined to appeal to the State Supreme Court, claiming that the political makeup of the Court would make it impossible for him to win, thereby ending all legal challenges to the election of Gregoire as the Governor of Washington The plaintiffs, the Washington Republican party wasn't able to provide any evidence that improperly cast ballots disproportionately went to the winner of the election. Additionally the judge noted that many of the "illegal ballots" were simply improperly cast provisional ballots. That means that people casting them weren't trying to commit a crime, they just messed up. Even in this case, there is no proof of substantial voter fraud deciding an election. Or even proof of substantial voter fraud. In fact the judge found that King County had poorly managed the process, which is not a matter of in person fraud, which again, isn't a real problem in the US.
pm24601 9y ago
Russia has its own history. We have ours. Ours is a history of intentional disenfranchisement. The discussion about disenfranchisement is the correct discussion for the US.
s73ver_ 9y ago
Show any evidence whatsoever that the type of voter fraud you're talking about is a problem. Until then, the talking point is worthless.
- danblick 9y ago
  Are you saying, "prove it has happened" or "prove it is a risk"? I doubt it's happened yet, but I think the risk is getting worse every year (technology enables this, like when personal identifying information on large numbers of American voters leak from large companies...)
  - ramy_d 9y ago
    you are spreading FUD which is detracting from a more immediate (and actual) issue
    - travmatt 9y ago
      That’s a feature, not a bug.
      - danblick 9y ago
        That's not really fair. I care about making sure people are able to vote, too. I expressed a concern about election security because I think it's an issue people should give more thought. It's not fair to suggest that means I don't care about the same things you do too.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Except these red herring concerns are the exact same fake concerns that those who are interested in suppressing voters come out with.
  - vkou 9y ago
    How exactly will you use this PII to perpetuate voter fraud? Show up at a polling station with fake ID or PII? Then at another polling station with another piece of fake ID or PII? What's your plan for voting staff checking the records, and finding out that 'you' already cast a ballot at that station? This kind of fraud is incredibly risky, and does not scale (And is trivial to combat). Election fraud by the process of disenfranchising voters (or rigging electronic voting machines,) on the other hand, scales incredibly well. The former is not happening, and would be incredibly difficult to pull off, at great risk to the perpetrators. The latter is happening, and is comparatively trivial to pull off (And nobody goes to jail, when they get caught.) Voter fraud is a red herring.
tdb7893 9y ago
It's vulnerable overall but the actual act of in person voting has very low fraud rates. Most of these things disenfranchise tons of votes while stopping few (often literally none) instances of actual fraud. Edit: it's not that there is no fraud, it's just that there is very little and you are much more likely to change the vote by accidentally disenfranchising people than preventing fraud

ch4s3 9y ago

That's complete nonsense. The Supreme Court and several district courts have found states like North Carolina to be actively using purges and registration changes for the purpose of disenfranchising voters. Furthermore, if you want to protect the integrity of the vote, registration is the last logical place to start, as in person fraud is vanishingly rare. Only 2 people were charged with doing so in this past election, 2. If we want to secure the machines, that is a totally different scenario, and unrelated to purging voter rolls.

wang_li 9y ago
It doesn't get charged often because there are parties that fight tooth and nail to prevent the implementation of processes that would allow the detection of ineligible voters voting. It is shown in every election cycle that there are cases of voters voting who should not be because of their citizenship or felon status or voting in multiple districts. When you say that only 2 have been charged, why is that relevant? What number of people would be disenfranchised if the voting system required photo ID? And I mean people who literally cannot get a photo ID at all, not someone who has to pay $10 or who has to spend a few hours once every four to six years getting their ID renewed.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  You're gonna have to provide proof of that.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    Proof of what? That voting fraud happens? It assuredly happens, as does more generalized election fraud. In my state of Washington there have been confirmed cases of people voting their dead family member's ballot[1]. And in the 2004 Gubernatorial election there were more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory.[2] Or do you mean that parties fight against efforts to make the voting process more trustworthy? Feel free to search voter id lawsuit in your favorite search engine. 1: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governo... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_elect...
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      All of it. Proof that it happens on such a scale as to actually be a problem, and proof that those measures you speak of are not just thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise voters. If you're going to mess with the people's right to vote, you had better have a damn good reason.
    - ch4s3 9y ago
      You own second citation contains the following passage: >ridges removed the five votes from the final count: four for Rossi and one for Ruth Bennett.[32] No evidence was brought before the court of any of the illegal votes benefitted Gregoire.[32] The final margin of victory for Gregoire over Rossi was 133 votes.[33] Rossi did not appeal to the state Supreme Court[34] and the Washington State Republican party settled the case after paying $15,000 in court costs to the Democrats.[35] Judge Bridges' ruling was seen as a comprehensive defeat for Rossi. The judge admitted nearly every piece of evidence the Republican Party offered and then wrote a thorough, tough opinion rejecting the Republicans' claims (while criticizing the administration of the election, particularly in King County); Rossi was left with very little legal ground for a successful appeal. After receiving such a negative verdict, Rossi declined to appeal to the State Supreme Court, claiming that the political makeup of the Court would make it impossible for him to win, thereby ending all legal challenges to the election of Gregoire as the Governor of Washington The plaintiffs, the Washington Republican party wasn't able to provide any evidence that improperly cast ballots disproportionately went to the winner of the election. Additionally the judge noted that many of the "illegal ballots" were simply improperly cast provisional ballots. That means that people casting them weren't trying to commit a crime, they just messed up. Even in this case, there is no proof of substantial voter fraud deciding an election. Or even proof of substantial voter fraud. In fact the judge found that King County had poorly managed the process, which is not a matter of in person fraud, which again, isn't a real problem in the US.

pm24601 9y ago

Russia has its own history. We have ours. Ours is a history of intentional disenfranchisement. The discussion about disenfranchisement is the correct discussion for the US.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Show any evidence whatsoever that the type of voter fraud you're talking about is a problem. Until then, the talking point is worthless.

danblick 9y ago
Are you saying, "prove it has happened" or "prove it is a risk"? I doubt it's happened yet, but I think the risk is getting worse every year (technology enables this, like when personal identifying information on large numbers of American voters leak from large companies...)
- ramy_d 9y ago
  you are spreading FUD which is detracting from a more immediate (and actual) issue
  - travmatt 9y ago
    That’s a feature, not a bug.
    - danblick 9y ago
      That's not really fair. I care about making sure people are able to vote, too. I expressed a concern about election security because I think it's an issue people should give more thought. It's not fair to suggest that means I don't care about the same things you do too.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        Except these red herring concerns are the exact same fake concerns that those who are interested in suppressing voters come out with.
- vkou 9y ago
  How exactly will you use this PII to perpetuate voter fraud? Show up at a polling station with fake ID or PII? Then at another polling station with another piece of fake ID or PII? What's your plan for voting staff checking the records, and finding out that 'you' already cast a ballot at that station? This kind of fraud is incredibly risky, and does not scale (And is trivial to combat). Election fraud by the process of disenfranchising voters (or rigging electronic voting machines,) on the other hand, scales incredibly well. The former is not happening, and would be incredibly difficult to pull off, at great risk to the perpetrators. The latter is happening, and is comparatively trivial to pull off (And nobody goes to jail, when they get caught.) Voter fraud is a red herring.

tdb7893 9y ago

It's vulnerable overall but the actual act of in person voting has very low fraud rates. Most of these things disenfranchise tons of votes while stopping few (often literally none) instances of actual fraud. Edit: it's not that there is no fraud, it's just that there is very little and you are much more likely to change the vote by accidentally disenfranchising people than preventing fraud