5 ms·

To the contrary: There were only four known cases of voter fraud in the 2016 elections[0]; more stringent voting requirements suppresses voting, especially by p

To the contrary: There were only four known cases of voter fraud in the 2016 elections[0]; more stringent voting requirements suppresses voting, especially by poor, black and/or Latinx voters.[1] It certainly seems the case that more damage has been done to society via corporations to which no human person can be associated than by voter fraud. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/?utm_term=.1bd9a0995e5d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/1...

mberning 7y ago
Are you saying poor people and brown people don’t know how to get a state ID? That’s pretty ridiculous and in the latter case racist.
foreach9885 7y ago
Because we have unauthenticated voting in most blue states, we can not know how rampant voter fraud is. The only detectable voter fraud would be extreme corner cases, where they have a confession, or some other kind of evidence. Because as of right now, we are not allowed to verify who it is that is voting. Frankly, the federal government should not accept the outcomes of any elections from California, until they can hold a real election.
fastball 7y ago
In [current year], arguably every US citizen should have some form of photo ID. It's pretty useful for a lot more than just voting. For example, more and more banks / financial institutions are using automated systems + a picture of your photo ID in order to confirm your identity when opening up a bank account, etc. Seems like we should focus on making sure poor/minorities have easy/free access to IDs, rather than keeping the voting process lax.
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  Great, do that, then require an ID to vote. The other way around is taking away peoples' fundamental rights.
  - fastball 7y ago
    Why not both at the same time?
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  The proponents of voter ID always want to put the requirement in place first but not the resources to make it happen. Until that changes, I am deaf to their 'concern'.
souprock 7y ago
It's pretty circular reasoning to argue against methods for detecting voter fraud on the basis that we haven't detected voter fraud. If there is voter fraud, it might go away if we got reliable detection. Fraud is less likely when being caught is certain, and it is far more likely when being caught is about as likely as getting hit by lightening. Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. That needs to be fixed, and the only way to fix it is to have a means to prove that there is no voter fraud.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  GP isn't arguing against detecting voter fraud. They're arguing against making the registration process harder in order to prevent (basically nonexistent) voter fraud. The reason people in the U.S. are worried about voter fraud is that one side of the political spectrum is pushing the narrative — without any real evidence — that voter fraud is rampant. We shouldn't make it more difficult to vote in order to fix a made-up problem.
  - foreach9885 7y ago
    Until we can authenticate voters, elections are invalid by default. How would you even prove that fraud is NOT happening, when many US states are essentially on the honor system? In California, I can register to vote from a Russian IP address without any form of ID or proof of residence. It's even easier than getting food stamps. Let me know if you want me to dig up proof for you.
    - zucker42 7y ago
      Luckily, some people will get suspicious when you ask for the ballot to be sent to Moscow.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      In fact, California voter registration requires both identification and proof of residency. Please do provide the proof you're referring to.
cabaalis 7y ago
I wish I could read the second link, but not interested in bypassing their income (and not interested enough to pay them :) ) I'd like to know their research. I had to sign up with my address, and I have to prove my identity when I vote. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even a low-tech ink mark used by some places seems perfectly fine. The law is full of tradeoffs, and I think proving you have voted only once and where you are allowed to vote is perfectly legitimate.
- mbrumlow 7y ago
  Side topic on bypassing their income. If you are not going to pay them, and not going to view it -- then they lost the income -- you might as well bypass the pay wall..

mberning 7y ago

Are you saying poor people and brown people don’t know how to get a state ID? That’s pretty ridiculous and in the latter case racist.

foreach9885 7y ago

Because we have unauthenticated voting in most blue states, we can not know how rampant voter fraud is. The only detectable voter fraud would be extreme corner cases, where they have a confession, or some other kind of evidence. Because as of right now, we are not allowed to verify who it is that is voting. Frankly, the federal government should not accept the outcomes of any elections from California, until they can hold a real election.

fastball 7y ago

In [current year], arguably every US citizen should have some form of photo ID. It's pretty useful for a lot more than just voting. For example, more and more banks / financial institutions are using automated systems + a picture of your photo ID in order to confirm your identity when opening up a bank account, etc. Seems like we should focus on making sure poor/minorities have easy/free access to IDs, rather than keeping the voting process lax.

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
Great, do that, then require an ID to vote. The other way around is taking away peoples' fundamental rights.
- fastball 7y ago
  Why not both at the same time?
anigbrowl 7y ago
The proponents of voter ID always want to put the requirement in place first but not the resources to make it happen. Until that changes, I am deaf to their 'concern'.

souprock 7y ago

It's pretty circular reasoning to argue against methods for detecting voter fraud on the basis that we haven't detected voter fraud. If there is voter fraud, it might go away if we got reliable detection. Fraud is less likely when being caught is certain, and it is far more likely when being caught is about as likely as getting hit by lightening. Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. That needs to be fixed, and the only way to fix it is to have a means to prove that there is no voter fraud.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
GP isn't arguing against detecting voter fraud. They're arguing against making the registration process harder in order to prevent (basically nonexistent) voter fraud. The reason people in the U.S. are worried about voter fraud is that one side of the political spectrum is pushing the narrative — without any real evidence — that voter fraud is rampant. We shouldn't make it more difficult to vote in order to fix a made-up problem.
- foreach9885 7y ago
  Until we can authenticate voters, elections are invalid by default. How would you even prove that fraud is NOT happening, when many US states are essentially on the honor system? In California, I can register to vote from a Russian IP address without any form of ID or proof of residence. It's even easier than getting food stamps. Let me know if you want me to dig up proof for you.
  - zucker42 7y ago
    Luckily, some people will get suspicious when you ask for the ballot to be sent to Moscow.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    In fact, California voter registration requires both identification and proof of residency. Please do provide the proof you're referring to.

cabaalis 7y ago

I wish I could read the second link, but not interested in bypassing their income (and not interested enough to pay them :) ) I'd like to know their research. I had to sign up with my address, and I have to prove my identity when I vote. That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even a low-tech ink mark used by some places seems perfectly fine. The law is full of tradeoffs, and I think proving you have voted only once and where you are allowed to vote is perfectly legitimate.

mbrumlow 7y ago
Side topic on bypassing their income. If you are not going to pay them, and not going to view it -- then they lost the income -- you might as well bypass the pay wall..