5 ms·

I don't think it's a problem that happens, though. If you're going to fraudulently rig an election it's vastly cheaper to do so by rigging the polling station t

I don't think it's a problem that happens, though. If you're going to fraudulently rig an election it's vastly cheaper to do so by rigging the polling station than it is by faking the voters. But by introducing voter ID systems you are very likely to skew elections away from the people least likely to possess accepted ID, i.e. the lowest socio-economic groups.

travisoneill1 8y ago
> I don't think it's a problem that happens, though But how do you know. That's the issue. If P is the probability of getting caught, and C is the number of people caught then N ~= C/P. With our current system it seems like P is close to 0 so even with C = 0 there could be a lot of successful attempts. Rigging a polling place is not viable because it would require coordination between multiple people and leave a clear mathematical trail after. So I would say that, including detection after the fact, that P > 0.5 and that the fact that it hasn't been caught means that N = 0. > But by introducing voter ID systems you are very likely to skew elections away from the people least likely to possess accepted ID, i.e. the lowest socio-economic groups. This is pretty much separate from my point but I am also skeptical about this. If someone can get to the polling place, stand in a line, and do paperwork to vote, then why could they not do pretty much the same thing to get an ID?
- beat 8y ago
  Apples and oranges. Polling costs nothing; ID costs money. Polling places are usually within walking distance of home (at least in urban areas); license bureaus are scattered and distant. My polling place is two blocks from my house. I can walk there, vote, and be home in 20 minutes. Last time I had to renew my license, it was a three hour ordeal that cost me money and an afternoon of work, and the nearest station is miles from my house (in a dense city).
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    This is a good point. Would be fine with SSN as a unique identifier with no paperwork presented. Would be as easy to fake as current system, but would generate an obvious signal when there is a fake number or collision.
- richmarr 8y ago
  > Rigging a polling place is not viable because... This argument is sounds great but doesn't match reality https://i.redditmedia.com/NITi8srtcW0xIfOQXPZda6zJNrpb_jRbwgkIzE8sRv0.png?w=628&s=868dd89ca7495e8ea0d49926dcb274df https://i.redditmedia.com/NITi8srtcW0xIfOQXPZda6zJNrpb_jRbwg... Edit: Link to the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2012/09/20/1210722109.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2012/09/20/1210722109...
  - beat 8y ago
    Ok, rigging a polling place in a well-designed system under rule of law is not viable. Consider the Minnesota example. In MN, all physical ballot handling, whether marked or unmarked, sealed or unsealed, must be done in the presence of members of at least two different political parties. Since the only ways to rig an election at the polling place are to either add, remove, or substitute ballots, this makes such fraud extremely difficult to do, especially at scale.

travisoneill1 8y ago

> I don't think it's a problem that happens, though But how do you know. That's the issue. If P is the probability of getting caught, and C is the number of people caught then N ~= C/P. With our current system it seems like P is close to 0 so even with C = 0 there could be a lot of successful attempts. Rigging a polling place is not viable because it would require coordination between multiple people and leave a clear mathematical trail after. So I would say that, including detection after the fact, that P > 0.5 and that the fact that it hasn't been caught means that N = 0. > But by introducing voter ID systems you are very likely to skew elections away from the people least likely to possess accepted ID, i.e. the lowest socio-economic groups. This is pretty much separate from my point but I am also skeptical about this. If someone can get to the polling place, stand in a line, and do paperwork to vote, then why could they not do pretty much the same thing to get an ID?

beat 8y ago
Apples and oranges. Polling costs nothing; ID costs money. Polling places are usually within walking distance of home (at least in urban areas); license bureaus are scattered and distant. My polling place is two blocks from my house. I can walk there, vote, and be home in 20 minutes. Last time I had to renew my license, it was a three hour ordeal that cost me money and an afternoon of work, and the nearest station is miles from my house (in a dense city).
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  This is a good point. Would be fine with SSN as a unique identifier with no paperwork presented. Would be as easy to fake as current system, but would generate an obvious signal when there is a fake number or collision.
richmarr 8y ago
> Rigging a polling place is not viable because... This argument is sounds great but doesn't match reality https://i.redditmedia.com/NITi8srtcW0xIfOQXPZda6zJNrpb_jRbwgkIzE8sRv0.png?w=628&s=868dd89ca7495e8ea0d49926dcb274df https://i.redditmedia.com/NITi8srtcW0xIfOQXPZda6zJNrpb_jRbwg... Edit: Link to the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2012/09/20/1210722109.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2012/09/20/1210722109...
- beat 8y ago
  Ok, rigging a polling place in a well-designed system under rule of law is not viable. Consider the Minnesota example. In MN, all physical ballot handling, whether marked or unmarked, sealed or unsealed, must be done in the presence of members of at least two different political parties. Since the only ways to rig an election at the polling place are to either add, remove, or substitute ballots, this makes such fraud extremely difficult to do, especially at scale.