5 ms·

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, i

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.
    - foreach9885 7y ago
      How do you think homeless vote then? You are actually allowed to just list a park or street corner as your "home address" when registering to vote. No effort will be made to validate this; it is on the honor system. > It is recommended homeless registrants list a shelter address as their voting address where they could receive mail. Alternatively, homeless registrants may denote a street corner or a park as their residence, in lieu of a traditional home address. The federal voter registration form and many state forms provide a space for this purpose. [1]: http://nationalhomeless.org/campaigns/voting/ http://nationalhomeless.org/campaigns/voting/
      - tptacek 7y ago
        If you read the PDF attached to the link you provided, it repeatedly discusses registration identification requirements.
- manigandham 7y ago
  How do you know if its non-existent if you cant even measure it from lack of proper identification?
  - vkou 7y ago
    Well, we do have evidence that voter fraud - in the form of preventing people who can vote from voting, through imposition of onerous voting requirements is rampant. Denying the vote to someone who has the right to vote is mathematically just as problematic as granting it to someone who does not have the right.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      True both situations are not good, however right's are still subject to legal requirements when being exercised. For example, the right to bear arms still requires a background check to ensure you can own a weapon. You can also lose your right to vote if you commit a felony but this significant disenfranchisement affecting millions gets no coverage. Why is voting, which is critical to a democracy, considered onerous for requiring identification when driving, employment, banking, business and govt. programs all require it? Isn't that a strange balance?
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    How does an ID enable you to measure voter fraud?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Because you can check and measure who is actually eligible to vote before they vote. Let me ask, why do we have identification for joining a company? Checking employment status? Boarding a flight? Starting a business? Opening a bank account? Getting government assistance? Why would that be necessary but not for voting?
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        I'm not asking about prevention or why voter ID makes sense in general; I'm asking how it enables measurement of voter fraud. We already have a record of everyone who voted and their address and identifying information such as driver's license number or social security number. What additional information does an ID provide?
dredmorbius 7y ago
It's that effective voter manipulation is vastly more effectively accomplished by means *other8 than bussing tens of thousands of bodies (or corpses) to polling booths. Depress voter turnout, run third-party, identity-appealing, or confusingly-similarly named candidates. Print confusing ballots. Run complex initiatives or propositions with little or no discussion. Leverage majorities in one domain (Senate, statehouses, governor's mansions) to achieve, retain, or negate majorities or minorities elsewhere (vacancies are often filled by gubernatorial or state legislature votes, redistricting is often controlled by statehouse majority, a GoP Senate nullifies much of the power of a Dem House). Have a highly partisan secretary of state certifying statewide elections, including for national office. Have a Supreme Court structure based on few judges, narrow and long-lived partisan majorities, full-bank hearings, and obstructed nominations. Non-trasnsparent, un-auditablre, readily-hacked, and highly partisan technical voting systems. Grossly manipulated media. Individual voter fraud simply isn't where it's at.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. One side is deliberately leveraging it for that purpose, and it's the same side that has consistently blocked legislation to increase election security, set standards for voting machines, and more, so as far as I am concerned they're forfeited the right to have their arguments taken seriously after years of bad faith politicking.

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.
  - foreach9885 7y ago
    How do you think homeless vote then? You are actually allowed to just list a park or street corner as your "home address" when registering to vote. No effort will be made to validate this; it is on the honor system. > It is recommended homeless registrants list a shelter address as their voting address where they could receive mail. Alternatively, homeless registrants may denote a street corner or a park as their residence, in lieu of a traditional home address. The federal voter registration form and many state forms provide a space for this purpose. [1]: http://nationalhomeless.org/campaigns/voting/ http://nationalhomeless.org/campaigns/voting/
    - tptacek 7y ago
      If you read the PDF attached to the link you provided, it repeatedly discusses registration identification requirements.
manigandham 7y ago
How do you know if its non-existent if you cant even measure it from lack of proper identification?
- vkou 7y ago
  Well, we do have evidence that voter fraud - in the form of preventing people who can vote from voting, through imposition of onerous voting requirements is rampant. Denying the vote to someone who has the right to vote is mathematically just as problematic as granting it to someone who does not have the right.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    True both situations are not good, however right's are still subject to legal requirements when being exercised. For example, the right to bear arms still requires a background check to ensure you can own a weapon. You can also lose your right to vote if you commit a felony but this significant disenfranchisement affecting millions gets no coverage. Why is voting, which is critical to a democracy, considered onerous for requiring identification when driving, employment, banking, business and govt. programs all require it? Isn't that a strange balance?
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  How does an ID enable you to measure voter fraud?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Because you can check and measure who is actually eligible to vote before they vote. Let me ask, why do we have identification for joining a company? Checking employment status? Boarding a flight? Starting a business? Opening a bank account? Getting government assistance? Why would that be necessary but not for voting?
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I'm not asking about prevention or why voter ID makes sense in general; I'm asking how it enables measurement of voter fraud. We already have a record of everyone who voted and their address and identifying information such as driver's license number or social security number. What additional information does an ID provide?

dredmorbius 7y ago

It's that effective voter manipulation is vastly more effectively accomplished by means *other8 than bussing tens of thousands of bodies (or corpses) to polling booths. Depress voter turnout, run third-party, identity-appealing, or confusingly-similarly named candidates. Print confusing ballots. Run complex initiatives or propositions with little or no discussion. Leverage majorities in one domain (Senate, statehouses, governor's mansions) to achieve, retain, or negate majorities or minorities elsewhere (vacancies are often filled by gubernatorial or state legislature votes, redistricting is often controlled by statehouse majority, a GoP Senate nullifies much of the power of a Dem House). Have a highly partisan secretary of state certifying statewide elections, including for national office. Have a Supreme Court structure based on few judges, narrow and long-lived partisan majorities, full-bank hearings, and obstructed nominations. Non-trasnsparent, un-auditablre, readily-hacked, and highly partisan technical voting systems. Grossly manipulated media. Individual voter fraud simply isn't where it's at.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. One side is deliberately leveraging it for that purpose, and it's the same side that has consistently blocked legislation to increase election security, set standards for voting machines, and more, so as far as I am concerned they're forfeited the right to have their arguments taken seriously after years of bad faith politicking.