4 ms·

Your own links say that it happens, but then hand wave it away as not significant. Your [1]: >However, in only 26 cases was there a conviction or a guilty ple

Your own links say that it happens, but then hand wave it away as not significant. Your [1]: >However, in only 26 cases was there a conviction or a guilty plea by the citizen. From your [2]: >n the state of Washington, for example, six cases of double voting and nineteen instances of individuals voting in the name of the dead yielded twenty-five fraudulent votes From your [3]: >Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year. I'm not saying it's widespread, but I suspect that there have been local elections where the outcome was changed due to fraudulent votes. The question is do we care that each fraudulent vote voids the vote of a legitimate voter? And if something such as voter ID requirements were in place, would that have any value? Would requiring states to cross check their voter registration have any value? As an aside, people seem to enjoy comparing the US to places like Canada and Germany on many different things, health care, progressive tax rates, commitment to green policies, immigration, etc. yet surprisingly no one ever says brings up voter ID, which both of those countries require.

mikeash 9y ago
Very few people object to the concept of voter ID. They object to its implementation in the US, which is virtually always done to disenfranchise legitimate voters. The fight against voter ID laws is really a fight against voter laws accompanied by biased ID requirements and intentional difficulties foisted on the opposition voters.
- zo1 9y ago
  How exactly can you have a citizen that is unable to get a government-issued ID? That is a failure of the government. They either have the documents and/or government records to prove that they are a citizen, or they're not a citizen. A law requiring citizens to have IDs to vote is not the problem. The problem is the processes that aren't assisting citizens that struggle to get IDs.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > How exactly can you have a citizen that is unable to get a government-issued ID? That is a failure of the government. This isn't a prima facie truth. I agree that IDs should not be a challenge to procure. But a reasonable electorate may, as Americans have, choose to prioritize other things.
  - ifhd 9y ago
    because that's exactly the point. Make it as hard as you can to get IDs, make those IDs required to vote. There, you just effectively disenfranchised a group. Then you gerrymander the districts a bunch to split up blocs of voters and prevent them having a majority. Then you reduce the voting hours, eliminate early voting, and reduce number of places you can vote. This causes massive lines, making it harder to vote.1
  - mikeash 9y ago
    You're treating it as two separate problems, but in reality they're intertwined. In an ideal world, you create a voter ID policy in order to ensure the integrity of the vote. You figure out sensible policies to ensure that every eligible voter can vote, and enact them. Separately, you create an ID system that all citizens can use. In reality, voter ID policies are often created with the intent of making it more difficult for certain groups to vote. They figure out policies to ensure that voters on the "right" side can vote, and voters on the "wrong" side can't. For example, they might accept a form of ID commonly held by one group, and not accept a different form of ID commonly held by the other group. Or they might restrict hours or shut down ID offices in areas populated by the "wrong" side to make it more difficult for them to obtain acceptable ID. Both of these have actually been done in various states. Voter ID laws and making it more difficult for certain groups to obtain ID are two sides of the same coin here.
vkou 9y ago
Washington uses mail-in ballots. Obviously, filling in, and mailing a ballot for a dead, comatose, or absentee relative is possible. When we're talking about voter disenfranchisement, though, we're not talking about mail-in ballots. We're talking about people showing up at polling stations, and being unable to vote.
- wang_li 9y ago
  >When we're talking about voter disenfranchisement, though, we're not talking about mail-in ballots. We're talking about people showing up at polling stations, and being unable to vote. A counted ballot cast by an ineligible voter disenfranchises a eligible voter. How is that less of an issue than preventing someone from casting a ballot in the first place? If the second is a concern then the first should be also.
  - vkou 9y ago
    It's not an issue. People passing laws that disenfranchise voters aren't doing it in states with mail-in ballots. Your examples of voter fraud are in a mail-in ballot state. Please provide equivalent, widespread, impactfull, examples in an in-person voting state. You won't because you can't. Never mind that adding an extra vote to a voting pool does not have the same effect as denying a person the right to vote. Stealing half a penny from a million people is not viewed the same as stealing $5,000 from one person. Perhaps it should be, but its not.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      I'm not in favor of preventing legal voters from voting, yet one could just as easily say that you cannot provide an example where preventing people without ID from voting would have widespread impact on the results of an election. >Never mind that adding an extra vote to a voting pool does not have the same effect as denying a person the right to vote. It has exactly that effect, unless you are saying that allowing a person to vote and then removing that person's ballot from the ballot box has no effect on their right to vote. Is that what you are saying? Otherwise every ineligible vote for one candidate nullifies a lawful vote for a competing candidate.

mikeash 9y ago

Very few people object to the concept of voter ID. They object to its implementation in the US, which is virtually always done to disenfranchise legitimate voters. The fight against voter ID laws is really a fight against voter laws accompanied by biased ID requirements and intentional difficulties foisted on the opposition voters.

zo1 9y ago
How exactly can you have a citizen that is unable to get a government-issued ID? That is a failure of the government. They either have the documents and/or government records to prove that they are a citizen, or they're not a citizen. A law requiring citizens to have IDs to vote is not the problem. The problem is the processes that aren't assisting citizens that struggle to get IDs.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > How exactly can you have a citizen that is unable to get a government-issued ID? That is a failure of the government. This isn't a prima facie truth. I agree that IDs should not be a challenge to procure. But a reasonable electorate may, as Americans have, choose to prioritize other things.
- ifhd 9y ago
  because that's exactly the point. Make it as hard as you can to get IDs, make those IDs required to vote. There, you just effectively disenfranchised a group. Then you gerrymander the districts a bunch to split up blocs of voters and prevent them having a majority. Then you reduce the voting hours, eliminate early voting, and reduce number of places you can vote. This causes massive lines, making it harder to vote.1
- mikeash 9y ago
  You're treating it as two separate problems, but in reality they're intertwined. In an ideal world, you create a voter ID policy in order to ensure the integrity of the vote. You figure out sensible policies to ensure that every eligible voter can vote, and enact them. Separately, you create an ID system that all citizens can use. In reality, voter ID policies are often created with the intent of making it more difficult for certain groups to vote. They figure out policies to ensure that voters on the "right" side can vote, and voters on the "wrong" side can't. For example, they might accept a form of ID commonly held by one group, and not accept a different form of ID commonly held by the other group. Or they might restrict hours or shut down ID offices in areas populated by the "wrong" side to make it more difficult for them to obtain acceptable ID. Both of these have actually been done in various states. Voter ID laws and making it more difficult for certain groups to obtain ID are two sides of the same coin here.

vkou 9y ago

Washington uses mail-in ballots. Obviously, filling in, and mailing a ballot for a dead, comatose, or absentee relative is possible. When we're talking about voter disenfranchisement, though, we're not talking about mail-in ballots. We're talking about people showing up at polling stations, and being unable to vote.

wang_li 9y ago
>When we're talking about voter disenfranchisement, though, we're not talking about mail-in ballots. We're talking about people showing up at polling stations, and being unable to vote. A counted ballot cast by an ineligible voter disenfranchises a eligible voter. How is that less of an issue than preventing someone from casting a ballot in the first place? If the second is a concern then the first should be also.
- vkou 9y ago
  It's not an issue. People passing laws that disenfranchise voters aren't doing it in states with mail-in ballots. Your examples of voter fraud are in a mail-in ballot state. Please provide equivalent, widespread, impactfull, examples in an in-person voting state. You won't because you can't. Never mind that adding an extra vote to a voting pool does not have the same effect as denying a person the right to vote. Stealing half a penny from a million people is not viewed the same as stealing $5,000 from one person. Perhaps it should be, but its not.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    I'm not in favor of preventing legal voters from voting, yet one could just as easily say that you cannot provide an example where preventing people without ID from voting would have widespread impact on the results of an election. >Never mind that adding an extra vote to a voting pool does not have the same effect as denying a person the right to vote. It has exactly that effect, unless you are saying that allowing a person to vote and then removing that person's ballot from the ballot box has no effect on their right to vote. Is that what you are saying? Otherwise every ineligible vote for one candidate nullifies a lawful vote for a competing candidate.