4 ms·

A couple of problems with this view. The first is that voter fraud is not easy to detect. When I voted all I had to do was walk in, sign a sheet by my name, and

A couple of problems with this view. The first is that voter fraud is not easy to detect. When I voted all I had to do was walk in, sign a sheet by my name, and go vote. There was no verification or validation of anything. I could have just as well signed by another individual's name. If I was smart I'd do it somewhere closer to the closing of poll times to help minimize the chances that they'd show up. I could then go from station to station doing similar things. The second is that the past does not predict the future. Politics getting kind of absurd in the US. People are radicalizing to an extreme degree. When people are assaulting and trying to intimidate one another because of relatively minor differences of political opinion, it should be assumed that voter fraud is going to be an increasingly severe threat to election integrity. Maybe most importantly of all. You don't want to wait until it's a severe issue to stop it. At that point you risk having already have lost the faith of the electorate and that's only going to lead to bad outcomes. You want to preempt bad actors.

salvar 8y ago
And as soon as any of these individuals came in to vote and saw that someone had already voted fraudulently on their behalf, an investigation would start. And you'd get maybe what, three or four votes in exchange for the very real possibility of facing severe punishment? Why aren't more instances of voters realizing that someone has already voted on their behalf if this is so easy and smart?
- pwg 8y ago
  > Why aren't more instances of voters realizing that someone has already voted on their behalf if this is so easy and smart? I can see two reasons (there are likely more): 1) If someone is going to vote as another, and they are smart about it, they will do some pre-research to pick out likely non-voters to become. Voting as someone else who is not going to vote would not likely be caught, because that non-voter will have no opportunity to notice the 'heist' since they do not go vote. 2) At least in the US, with low voter turnout (55% for the 2016 election is quoted by this page [1]) then someone has a somewhat large chance of simply randomly picking a non-voter as their "surrogate", and if they do win that pick, then that non-voter will not notice due to their not going to the polls. Now, whether either of these strategies would allow an individual to amass sufficient votes to change an outcome is unknown. Even "close" races in the US often have a few thousand votes difference in the final counts, so for someone (or some group) to change an outcome they either have to find enough #1's above to amount to several thousand votes or have to "win" at #2 picks enough without "losing" at a #2 pick enough to get caught out. So it feels like it would be difficult to pull off a few thousand of these, in a single day, without getting caught unnless a fairly large group is involved. And the problem then (with large groups) likely shifts to keeping the entire group quiet about their activity (i.e., leaks from a group member become the downfall point, not other voters noticing double voting). [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout...
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The number of "likely's" in your statement should tell you something about this proposal. What's likely? How many operatives get caught on "likely"? Because you are proposing - at the bottom end - trying to get at least a few hundred fraudulent votes in, to swing a very close race. That's coordinated votes too - somehow you want to orchestrate this (and this is exactly what's always proposed as being the problem by voter ID advocates). Let's be generous and say each operative can achieve 10 votes at different polling stations. This is hugely optimistic. So to get to a hundred votes (probably not enough in even the closest races) you need to (a) find 100 non-voters who you know won't turn up that polls (hint: you can't - it's all probabilities) (b) find 10 people to pull this off. And to be clear: this is recruiting 10 people to commit serious state and/or federal crimes. Which has a couple of problems - how do you find them? Why do they agree to do it? And what's the probability of any one of them getting caught? - and it is a probability. Remember in this example the numbers are hugely optimistic - so the probability someone gets caught rises rapidly to 100% as you increase the numbers. which leads us to (c): someone will get caught. Throughout this whole effort you're literally one poll worker happening to know a person, or getting a bad feeling and calling that person's address afterwards, or a neighbor or member of the community hearing "I'm Julie Smith of this address" and going "wait that's not her" - because you're trying to infiltrate a community here, and the odds on election day the poll workers and voters know the names and faces of the people you propose to pretend to be, is also pretty high. So - someone, one of your operatives, gets caught. Why do they stay quiet about the operation? They're facing criminal charges and jail time. They can be offered a deal if they roll over on your other operatives or you. How much are you proposing to buy their silence with? Why do they take the risk in the first place if not for monetary incentive? Ah you say - but maybe it's a whole lot of independent actors doing it. Which okay, let's go with that - how do these people, in sufficient numbers, do enough local research to not get caught in sufficient quantity? - remembering that, when people do the "I just show up and say I'm someone else thing" as "activism" - they get caught. EDIT: Also worth noting - unless the election rolls are actually destroyed, you also need to keep this all secret forever. If anyone has a crisis of conscience later and leaks it, then at minimum you - the coordinator - definitely go to jail since everyone will happily roll on you to avoid it.
    - 8y ago
- makomk 8y ago
  I don't know about the US, but here in the UK voters turn up and discover that someone has voted "on their behalf" merely by accident - the poll staff aren't perfect and sometimes simply mark off the wrong person's name as having voted. This is common enough that, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't lead to any kind of serious investigation. (Apparently, there was even one UK council election in Barnes, Richmond-upon-Thames back in 1976 where an ineligible couple voted, were marked off as being a similarly-named couple who later turned up to vote, and correcting this actually changed the result. This correction was only possible because unlike in the US we don't have a fully secret ballot - every ballot paper is serialized and traceable to the person who cast it. I don't think anyone was charged with anything over this. Probably wouldn't even have been investigated if the affected voter didn't see the close result and kick up a fuss.)
  - danaris 8y ago
    At least in my jurisdiction, it's not simply a matter of the poll worker "marking off" your name: they find your name in the book, then they push the book across the table to you so you can make your own signature in the box next to your name. If someone is attempting to commit in-person voter fraud, they'll need to sign the name that matches the line they put it in. If they're just mistakenly signing on the wrong line, that will, first of all, probably be obvious to both them and the poll worker immediately, and even if not, it will probably be obvious to anyone coming along behind and checking if there's a discrepancy. (Unless the signature is well and truly illegible, and if that's the case, they can check it against the signature from the previous election for that person.)
hannasanarion 8y ago
> I could have just as well signed by another individual's name. So you change one vote while taking the risk that you won't be able to match their signature under pressure, or that their signature will already be there because they've voted already or will find yours when they vote later, exposing your scheme. With that chance of failure, is the ten years in jail worth it?
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  How do you propose I'd be caught? This isn't a rhetorical question. It's just not at all apparent to me. Nearly all detected 'voter fraud' is not actually fraud, but people making ostensibly honest mistakes - such as convicted felons or people on probation voting. And that's because that is basically leaving video footage and your business card at the scene of a crime. For what it's worth, I agree that the risk:reward is pretty messed up. But we're not the metronome for politics in the US. People are doing all sorts of stupid things, and seemingly getting even more radical. I'm sure you'd agree that there are plenty of people that would think by adding a few votes they'd be doing their part to 'save the world.' I mean there are people assaulting each other over political differences. People are going literally crazy from politics.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >How do you propose I'd be caught? At the vast majority of polling places it's more complicated than "sign a sheet by my name". You fill out a form and tell them your address and the poll worker looks your name up. If you are signing next to a name, the poll worker verifies that you're signing next to the correct name (the one you told them). In that case, if you tell the poll worker that your name is Bob Smith and it turns out Bob Smith has already voted, you're now probably going to jail. If enough people to make a difference start doing that, it's going to be noticed. However, even in your case where you just sign next to a name (I've never seen a polling place like this by the way, and I think your polling place should implement better security), there's a good chance that the person who's name you signed comes in after you. If this happens often enough to matter, there will be an investigation, and they'll probably stop the policy of letting you look at the list of who's voted before you tell them your name. We know this doesn't happen often because numerous voter fraud commissions over the years were unable to find any evidence of this. >" I'm sure you'd agree that there are plenty of people that would think by adding a few votes they'd be doing their part to 'save the world.'" Apparently not, because no there have no reports of people being turned away because someone else already voted as them. There was a Trump supporter who was convicted for trying to vote twice in 2016, but his most recent voter fraud commission was unable to find any evidence of serious voter fraud--despite desperately trying to do so.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The first is that voter fraud is not easy to detect. Yes, it is. > When I voted all I had to do was walk in, sign a sheet by my name, and go vote. There was no verification or validation of anything. I could have just as well signed by another individual's name. You have unusually lax security at your polling places; the standard method is more like providing your name and address, having a poll worker find the matching name/address combo on a list, and then being presented with a page to sign; it's true that the just sign in method you describe is somewhat subject to a “find a blank space right before closing time and sign there” attack, but it's equally the case that that can be (and is every place I've ever voted) mitigated without voter ID. > If I was smart I'd do it somewhere closer to the closing of poll times to help minimize the chances that they'd show up. I could then go from station to station doing similar things. If you start after 90% of people have voted and then do it at multiple sites (with a smaller share remaining that will vote at each site), you are fairly likely to get detected—not more likely than not. If you've got a dozen or so people doing that at every federal election (every two years), you'd have a higher expected rate of detected in person voter fraud than we actually have in the US.

salvar 8y ago

And as soon as any of these individuals came in to vote and saw that someone had already voted fraudulently on their behalf, an investigation would start. And you'd get maybe what, three or four votes in exchange for the very real possibility of facing severe punishment? Why aren't more instances of voters realizing that someone has already voted on their behalf if this is so easy and smart?

pwg 8y ago
> Why aren't more instances of voters realizing that someone has already voted on their behalf if this is so easy and smart? I can see two reasons (there are likely more): 1) If someone is going to vote as another, and they are smart about it, they will do some pre-research to pick out likely non-voters to become. Voting as someone else who is not going to vote would not likely be caught, because that non-voter will have no opportunity to notice the 'heist' since they do not go vote. 2) At least in the US, with low voter turnout (55% for the 2016 election is quoted by this page [1]) then someone has a somewhat large chance of simply randomly picking a non-voter as their "surrogate", and if they do win that pick, then that non-voter will not notice due to their not going to the polls. Now, whether either of these strategies would allow an individual to amass sufficient votes to change an outcome is unknown. Even "close" races in the US often have a few thousand votes difference in the final counts, so for someone (or some group) to change an outcome they either have to find enough #1's above to amount to several thousand votes or have to "win" at #2 picks enough without "losing" at a #2 pick enough to get caught out. So it feels like it would be difficult to pull off a few thousand of these, in a single day, without getting caught unnless a fairly large group is involved. And the problem then (with large groups) likely shifts to keeping the entire group quiet about their activity (i.e., leaks from a group member become the downfall point, not other voters noticing double voting). [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout...
- XorNot 8y ago
  The number of "likely's" in your statement should tell you something about this proposal. What's likely? How many operatives get caught on "likely"? Because you are proposing - at the bottom end - trying to get at least a few hundred fraudulent votes in, to swing a very close race. That's coordinated votes too - somehow you want to orchestrate this (and this is exactly what's always proposed as being the problem by voter ID advocates). Let's be generous and say each operative can achieve 10 votes at different polling stations. This is hugely optimistic. So to get to a hundred votes (probably not enough in even the closest races) you need to (a) find 100 non-voters who you know won't turn up that polls (hint: you can't - it's all probabilities) (b) find 10 people to pull this off. And to be clear: this is recruiting 10 people to commit serious state and/or federal crimes. Which has a couple of problems - how do you find them? Why do they agree to do it? And what's the probability of any one of them getting caught? - and it is a probability. Remember in this example the numbers are hugely optimistic - so the probability someone gets caught rises rapidly to 100% as you increase the numbers. which leads us to (c): someone will get caught. Throughout this whole effort you're literally one poll worker happening to know a person, or getting a bad feeling and calling that person's address afterwards, or a neighbor or member of the community hearing "I'm Julie Smith of this address" and going "wait that's not her" - because you're trying to infiltrate a community here, and the odds on election day the poll workers and voters know the names and faces of the people you propose to pretend to be, is also pretty high. So - someone, one of your operatives, gets caught. Why do they stay quiet about the operation? They're facing criminal charges and jail time. They can be offered a deal if they roll over on your other operatives or you. How much are you proposing to buy their silence with? Why do they take the risk in the first place if not for monetary incentive? Ah you say - but maybe it's a whole lot of independent actors doing it. Which okay, let's go with that - how do these people, in sufficient numbers, do enough local research to not get caught in sufficient quantity? - remembering that, when people do the "I just show up and say I'm someone else thing" as "activism" - they get caught. EDIT: Also worth noting - unless the election rolls are actually destroyed, you also need to keep this all secret forever. If anyone has a crisis of conscience later and leaks it, then at minimum you - the coordinator - definitely go to jail since everyone will happily roll on you to avoid it.
  - 8y ago
makomk 8y ago
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK voters turn up and discover that someone has voted "on their behalf" merely by accident - the poll staff aren't perfect and sometimes simply mark off the wrong person's name as having voted. This is common enough that, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't lead to any kind of serious investigation. (Apparently, there was even one UK council election in Barnes, Richmond-upon-Thames back in 1976 where an ineligible couple voted, were marked off as being a similarly-named couple who later turned up to vote, and correcting this actually changed the result. This correction was only possible because unlike in the US we don't have a fully secret ballot - every ballot paper is serialized and traceable to the person who cast it. I don't think anyone was charged with anything over this. Probably wouldn't even have been investigated if the affected voter didn't see the close result and kick up a fuss.)
- danaris 8y ago
  At least in my jurisdiction, it's not simply a matter of the poll worker "marking off" your name: they find your name in the book, then they push the book across the table to you so you can make your own signature in the box next to your name. If someone is attempting to commit in-person voter fraud, they'll need to sign the name that matches the line they put it in. If they're just mistakenly signing on the wrong line, that will, first of all, probably be obvious to both them and the poll worker immediately, and even if not, it will probably be obvious to anyone coming along behind and checking if there's a discrepancy. (Unless the signature is well and truly illegible, and if that's the case, they can check it against the signature from the previous election for that person.)

hannasanarion 8y ago

> I could have just as well signed by another individual's name. So you change one vote while taking the risk that you won't be able to match their signature under pressure, or that their signature will already be there because they've voted already or will find yours when they vote later, exposing your scheme. With that chance of failure, is the ten years in jail worth it?

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
How do you propose I'd be caught? This isn't a rhetorical question. It's just not at all apparent to me. Nearly all detected 'voter fraud' is not actually fraud, but people making ostensibly honest mistakes - such as convicted felons or people on probation voting. And that's because that is basically leaving video footage and your business card at the scene of a crime. For what it's worth, I agree that the risk:reward is pretty messed up. But we're not the metronome for politics in the US. People are doing all sorts of stupid things, and seemingly getting even more radical. I'm sure you'd agree that there are plenty of people that would think by adding a few votes they'd be doing their part to 'save the world.' I mean there are people assaulting each other over political differences. People are going literally crazy from politics.
- learc83 8y ago
  >How do you propose I'd be caught? At the vast majority of polling places it's more complicated than "sign a sheet by my name". You fill out a form and tell them your address and the poll worker looks your name up. If you are signing next to a name, the poll worker verifies that you're signing next to the correct name (the one you told them). In that case, if you tell the poll worker that your name is Bob Smith and it turns out Bob Smith has already voted, you're now probably going to jail. If enough people to make a difference start doing that, it's going to be noticed. However, even in your case where you just sign next to a name (I've never seen a polling place like this by the way, and I think your polling place should implement better security), there's a good chance that the person who's name you signed comes in after you. If this happens often enough to matter, there will be an investigation, and they'll probably stop the policy of letting you look at the list of who's voted before you tell them your name. We know this doesn't happen often because numerous voter fraud commissions over the years were unable to find any evidence of this. >" I'm sure you'd agree that there are plenty of people that would think by adding a few votes they'd be doing their part to 'save the world.'" Apparently not, because no there have no reports of people being turned away because someone else already voted as them. There was a Trump supporter who was convicted for trying to vote twice in 2016, but his most recent voter fraud commission was unable to find any evidence of serious voter fraud--despite desperately trying to do so.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The first is that voter fraud is not easy to detect. Yes, it is. > When I voted all I had to do was walk in, sign a sheet by my name, and go vote. There was no verification or validation of anything. I could have just as well signed by another individual's name. You have unusually lax security at your polling places; the standard method is more like providing your name and address, having a poll worker find the matching name/address combo on a list, and then being presented with a page to sign; it's true that the just sign in method you describe is somewhat subject to a “find a blank space right before closing time and sign there” attack, but it's equally the case that that can be (and is every place I've ever voted) mitigated without voter ID. > If I was smart I'd do it somewhere closer to the closing of poll times to help minimize the chances that they'd show up. I could then go from station to station doing similar things. If you start after 90% of people have voted and then do it at multiple sites (with a smaller share remaining that will vote at each site), you are fairly likely to get detected—not more likely than not. If you've got a dozen or so people doing that at every federal election (every two years), you'd have a higher expected rate of detected in person voter fraud than we actually have in the US.