5 ms·

It’s really sad that we have such low visibility into actual voter fraud. It seems our elections are broken in such a way that no one is interested in fixing th

It’s really sad that we have such low visibility into actual voter fraud. It seems our elections are broken in such a way that no one is interested in fixing them lest they lose some particular advantage. It’s enough that now I’ve had enough. I want ID required. I want real paper trails. I want to know exactly how many ballots were issued and where each of them was sent. I want to enforce laws such as cutoffs. People who say there’s no evidence of voter fraud. How would you even know?

chasing 8y ago
This isn't voter fraud. It's election fraud. Requiring an ID impedes voters. Sounds counter-intuitive, but it turns out it's true. And the problem it purports to solve doesn't actual exist.
torstenvl 8y ago
> It’s enough that now I’ve had enough. I want ID required. I understand and agree with the sentiment. I worry, though, about placing too many administrative hurdles in front of a fundamental right. ID is already required; but I assume you mean photo ID. But photo IDs aren't free, and neither is transportation or time off work. Some part of me is concerned that photo ID laws amount to a poll tax. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >I worry, though, about placing too many administrative hurdles in front of a fundamental right >Some part of me is concerned that photo ID laws amount to a poll tax. All the arguments against ID requirements, poll taxes and other measures used to disenfranchise poor people can be turned right around and used to argue against licensing requirements, fees and other typical tactics used to keep (mostly poor) people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Either restricting people's fundamental human rights is ok or it isn't. I know which hill I'm dying on.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > Either restricting people's fundamental human rights is ok or it isn't. Are you equating the right to bear arms (as part of a well regulated militia) with fundamental human rights? I think that one might need a bit more explanation.
    - benjohnson 8y ago
      My opinion is that the individual right to self-defense is a fundamental human right.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. Applying the argument to firearms restrictions is like applying the right to have a voice in governance by requiring a specific type of governance (such as a true democracy instead of a representative one). I don't believe there's a fundamental human right to have a firearm any more than I think there is one to have a nuclear bomb. Both can be (and have been) used for defense, but we do not allow individuals (or even all countries!) to have both. A firearm is one tool of many that can be used to defend yourself. Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). Note: This isn't to say I think we should ban guns or anything, I just think as fundamental rights go, what was presented originally was not equivalent in my eyes, as explained above.
        dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        >Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. There is a fundamental human right to defend yourself from physical violence. If there are tools that are used for that task then it follows that one has a fundamental human right to posses tools that give one the means to do so. If the year was 1018 we'd be discussing bows and swords instead of firearms. In 3018 we'll be discussing lasers or something like that. In 2018 (or 1788 for that matter) the tool is firearms. >Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). While I understand where you're coming from I think you're wrong because I don't believe there is a meaningful distinction. The union of all fundamental human rights is greater than the sum of them individually and each right is so important in the context of the others that a threat to any one human right is a threat to them all. >Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). So is it ok that the government routinely tries to side step the people's right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and right to due process because people can still vote for a government that won't do that? I don't think the right to vote is any more important than any other fundamental human right.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  > Some part of me is concerned that photo ID laws amount to a poll tax. Here in Argentina, everyone has a national ID ("DNI") and it cost about US$10 and you have to pay it two or three times in your lifetime, not every year or at every election. I don't understand how something like can be so expensive to make someone avoid voting. (Anyway, here you can get your national ID for free if you really can't pay for it.)
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    That’s pretty reasonable, but here we have a patchwork of states with different laws and requirements. From my own experience, I moved from one state to another and it took two trips to the necessary official office (DMV) with a total of about 4 working hours out of my week. Is everyone willing to do this or able to?
    - hulahoof 8y ago
      It depends how frequently you move interstate/are required to re-prove your identity. If it's several times over the course of your life it's definitely reasonable. Maybe not once it approaches yearly.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > I don't understand how something like can be so expensive to make someone avoid voting. Because the point of making it expensive is to make people stop voting. It's not an accident, or an oversight. It's the purpose.
ascagnel_ 8y ago
Voter fraud (not to be confused with this case of election fraud) isn't visible because there isn't enough signal to reliably separate it from noise. Here's a 2017 link[0] to a Brennan Center article (left-leaning but non-partisan think-tank) that pulls together a bunch of studies about voter fraud. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 8y ago
> I want to know exactly how many ballots were issued and where each of them was sent. Are you talking about how they're routed within the government for counting purposes? Or are you suggesting that the name and address of everyone who requests an absentee ballot should be released publicly? If it's the latter, I don't think I see eye-to-eye with you. That seems like a pretty major invasion of privacy to me.
manicdee 8y ago
Nah mate, what you need is a federal level election handling organisation which sets consistent procedures in place across all states for federal elections. Take the Australian Electorally Commission as a model of something that isn’t totally broken by design, and work from there. There are strict controls over who is or is not allowed to do what with a ballot at every stage of its life. You need a single federal body handling federal elections, and consistent procedures in place for state level elections. You also need to get rid of gerrymandering, perhaps having electorate boundaries set by the electoral commission independent of the state.
- pas 8y ago
  > gerrymandering Just stop with the small districts, use ranked voting (or single transferable vote) and for a lot bigger regions.
  - manicdee 8y ago
    Yeah, multi-seat electorates will provide more more representative representation certainly.
    - pas 8y ago
      Huh? Currently in a "first past the post" voting system every district has a lot of votes that are lost. If a candidate wins with 51%, then 49% of those votes are lost. Gone. Poof. And gerrymandering exploits this by creating a lot of these districts, let's say that likely results in 60-40%. Those 40%s are lost. One way to solve that is to bundle districts, because if you bundle 10 such 60-40 districts, then you should end up with 6-4 instead of 10-0.

chasing 8y ago

This isn't voter fraud. It's election fraud. Requiring an ID impedes voters. Sounds counter-intuitive, but it turns out it's true. And the problem it purports to solve doesn't actual exist.

torstenvl 8y ago

> It’s enough that now I’ve had enough. I want ID required. I understand and agree with the sentiment. I worry, though, about placing too many administrative hurdles in front of a fundamental right. ID is already required; but I assume you mean photo ID. But photo IDs aren't free, and neither is transportation or time off work. Some part of me is concerned that photo ID laws amount to a poll tax. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>I worry, though, about placing too many administrative hurdles in front of a fundamental right >Some part of me is concerned that photo ID laws amount to a poll tax. All the arguments against ID requirements, poll taxes and other measures used to disenfranchise poor people can be turned right around and used to argue against licensing requirements, fees and other typical tactics used to keep (mostly poor) people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Either restricting people's fundamental human rights is ok or it isn't. I know which hill I'm dying on.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Either restricting people's fundamental human rights is ok or it isn't. Are you equating the right to bear arms (as part of a well regulated militia) with fundamental human rights? I think that one might need a bit more explanation.
  - benjohnson 8y ago
    My opinion is that the individual right to self-defense is a fundamental human right.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. Applying the argument to firearms restrictions is like applying the right to have a voice in governance by requiring a specific type of governance (such as a true democracy instead of a representative one). I don't believe there's a fundamental human right to have a firearm any more than I think there is one to have a nuclear bomb. Both can be (and have been) used for defense, but we do not allow individuals (or even all countries!) to have both. A firearm is one tool of many that can be used to defend yourself. Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). Note: This isn't to say I think we should ban guns or anything, I just think as fundamental rights go, what was presented originally was not equivalent in my eyes, as explained above.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        >Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. There is a fundamental human right to defend yourself from physical violence. If there are tools that are used for that task then it follows that one has a fundamental human right to posses tools that give one the means to do so. If the year was 1018 we'd be discussing bows and swords instead of firearms. In 3018 we'll be discussing lasers or something like that. In 2018 (or 1788 for that matter) the tool is firearms. >Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). While I understand where you're coming from I think you're wrong because I don't believe there is a meaningful distinction. The union of all fundamental human rights is greater than the sum of them individually and each right is so important in the context of the others that a threat to any one human right is a threat to them all. >Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). So is it ok that the government routinely tries to side step the people's right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and right to due process because people can still vote for a government that won't do that? I don't think the right to vote is any more important than any other fundamental human right.
gus_massa 8y ago
> Some part of me is concerned that photo ID laws amount to a poll tax. Here in Argentina, everyone has a national ID ("DNI") and it cost about US$10 and you have to pay it two or three times in your lifetime, not every year or at every election. I don't understand how something like can be so expensive to make someone avoid voting. (Anyway, here you can get your national ID for free if you really can't pay for it.)
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  That’s pretty reasonable, but here we have a patchwork of states with different laws and requirements. From my own experience, I moved from one state to another and it took two trips to the necessary official office (DMV) with a total of about 4 working hours out of my week. Is everyone willing to do this or able to?
  - hulahoof 8y ago
    It depends how frequently you move interstate/are required to re-prove your identity. If it's several times over the course of your life it's definitely reasonable. Maybe not once it approaches yearly.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > I don't understand how something like can be so expensive to make someone avoid voting. Because the point of making it expensive is to make people stop voting. It's not an accident, or an oversight. It's the purpose.

ascagnel_ 8y ago

Voter fraud (not to be confused with this case of election fraud) isn't visible because there isn't enough signal to reliably separate it from noise. Here's a 2017 link[0] to a Brennan Center article (left-leaning but non-partisan think-tank) that pulls together a bunch of studies about voter fraud. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 8y ago

> I want to know exactly how many ballots were issued and where each of them was sent. Are you talking about how they're routed within the government for counting purposes? Or are you suggesting that the name and address of everyone who requests an absentee ballot should be released publicly? If it's the latter, I don't think I see eye-to-eye with you. That seems like a pretty major invasion of privacy to me.

manicdee 8y ago

Nah mate, what you need is a federal level election handling organisation which sets consistent procedures in place across all states for federal elections. Take the Australian Electorally Commission as a model of something that isn’t totally broken by design, and work from there. There are strict controls over who is or is not allowed to do what with a ballot at every stage of its life. You need a single federal body handling federal elections, and consistent procedures in place for state level elections. You also need to get rid of gerrymandering, perhaps having electorate boundaries set by the electoral commission independent of the state.

pas 8y ago
> gerrymandering Just stop with the small districts, use ranked voting (or single transferable vote) and for a lot bigger regions.
- manicdee 8y ago
  Yeah, multi-seat electorates will provide more more representative representation certainly.
  - pas 8y ago
    Huh? Currently in a "first past the post" voting system every district has a lot of votes that are lost. If a candidate wins with 51%, then 49% of those votes are lost. Gone. Poof. And gerrymandering exploits this by creating a lot of these districts, let's say that likely results in 60-40%. Those 40%s are lost. One way to solve that is to bundle districts, because if you bundle 10 such 60-40 districts, then you should end up with 6-4 instead of 10-0.