3 ms·
> With all the talk about securing our election process against tampering (which I'm all in favor of), if it doesn't include voter ID, it's not secure. If it d
by Someone1234 7y ago
> With all the talk about securing our election process against tampering (which I'm all in favor of), if it doesn't include voter ID, it's not secure.
If it does include ID it isn't secure. So you've made voting harder but not really made it any harder for bad actors to defraud (because high quality fake State IDs can be ordered, right now, straight for abroad).
Plus statistically voter fraud isn't a real problem, it is well within the margin of error and there's no indication that it has increased. Election fraud seems far more problematic (because it requires fewer bad actors), and that may require more paper ballots and oversight (e.g. stream the vote count online).
- lucasmullens 7y agoThere's no "margin of error" in an election. They're counting an exact number of votes. Are the 537 votes in Florida that tipped the 2000 election "within the margin of error"?
- Someone1234 7y agoSeems like you want to discuss a tangent rather than talking about the lack of data supporting supposed widespread voter fraud. Plus your logic works both ways, if not a single fake vote can be ignored, so too can not a single vote that didn't get cast because of voter ID laws. So if counting exact number of votes is important, how do you justify voter ID laws that disenfranchise far more than fake votes? What if one of those 537 voters got disenfranchised because of voter ID?