7 ms·

People complaining about voter fraud shouldn't be taken seriously. If you cared about the integrity of US elections, voter fraud isn't where you'd start. It's

People complaining about voter fraud shouldn't be taken seriously. If you cared about the integrity of US elections, voter fraud isn't where you'd start. It's a fraction of a percent compared to the election rigging that happens in the open. Campaign finance makes a mockery of the campaign process. Voter id laws disenfranchise more people than fraudulently vote. Gerrymandering creates unfair advantages with malicious boundaries. Regular closing of the polls disenfranchises more people than vote fraudulently. Voter fraud might be a problem, but it's minuscule compared to fraud of the elections themselves.

DevX101 6y ago
If vote by mail is secure enough for Utah, Oregon, and citizens over the age of 65, it's secure enough for everyone.
- samfriedman 6y ago
  Not to mention our military.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  All of Colorado, as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mcculley 6y ago
I did some analysis of vote data in Florida and found some fraud: https://enki.org/2018/12/07/finding-unusual-voters/ https://enki.org/2018/12/07/finding-unusual-voters/ I'm not convinced it is large scale enough to sway an election. It's mostly just a failure of the counties to coordinate with each other to prevent double votes. Florida has had unrestricted absentee ballot voting by mail since 2002. Over 2.5 million Florida voters used it in the last two elections, so I think the recent noise about voting by mail is just a distraction. I do think we need better coordination across the states. I am convinced that there are people with residences in multiple states getting more than one vote. Unfortunately, not all of the states are as transparent as Florida is with the vote data.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- elpin 6y ago
  Hey, the website that you use to host your report you cite (quark.cards) has an expired certificate, and a whois shows it belongs StackFrame, just FYI since I saw you listed as working there. I noticed the "Wikipedia's list of American supercentenarians" you cite to cross reference which describes itself as "a list of the longest lived American supercentenarians according to the GRG." [0] is not an exhaustive list of all supercentenarians. For example, the wikipedia page only lists 4 people who are currently alive, but looking at Wikipedia's underlying reference [1] there's at least 7 who are validated and currently alive, and I see around another 9 who have passed away since ~2019. Additionally, looking at Wikipedia's underlying source [1] it says "The total number Supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued in the news media as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over. The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. For the USA, we predict something like [60 - 75] Supercentenarians". This seems like it means Wikipedia's underlying source predicts they're capturing at best ~10% of all who exist in the US. I'm wondering if theres any census data or other sources that could help with this- guessing not since Wikipedia would likely cite that instead if it existed. Could use their extrapolation (60-75) of expected # of Supercentenarians to Florida along with the fact that Florida has an older population to just get a gut check if the # you found seems reasonable. I find the idea and approaches looking into the voting data interesting, and I'll definitely look more into the the other reports you released when I get a chance. > "found some fraud." As a final note, I'd just suggest that we all be super careful when levying charges like this given 1) it seems you just found some circumstantial non-peer reviewed evidence of fraud 2) how important trust is in our electoral systems to the function of open societies and 3) the vast majority of research points to voting fraud being almost non-existent. Questioning these institutions is incredibly important and part of an open an effective democratic system, but we have to be careful and specific with what we assert and our evidence. This is true especially now, with political factions across the US actively seeking to undermine our faith in electoral system using bad-faith and non-fact based arguments for political gain. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_supercentenarians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_supercentenar... [1]: http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx
yndoendo 6y ago
Voting by party line should be removed from ballots. This actually encourages partisanship versus having voters lookup and understand the candidates they are voting for.
- pstuart 6y ago
  Breaking up the 2 party duopoly would be good too. I have no idea how.
  - prklmn 6y ago
    Ranked choice voting would be a good start.
    - nocoolnametom 6y ago
      RCV is a fantastic idea, but it is very difficult to get it installed on a large scale. Only one state has tried (Maine) but their state Constitution as currently worded seems to disallow it (as their Supreme Court has warned them). So for many states you'd first have to amend the Constitution to allow for RCV (or go for broke and try to get RCV enshrined in your Constitution) and then hope that those who benefited from the previous First-Past-the-Post systems will act against their interest to implement it by law or will refrain from enacting laws to overturn a citizen's referendum (which is my home state of Utah's preferred way of invalidating all citizen referendum). That said, while it's not a perfect solution it leans so heavily towards resolving many existing issues that I've long decided that if any politician publicly supports it as part of their campaign they'll have my vote.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Progressive Democrats and Never Trump Republicans need to vacate their respective parties. No idea how you and I could effect that change though -- awkward thing about "democracy", we only get the choices presented to us by those in power.
    - pstuart 6y ago
dilap 6y ago
Stuff like this gives me pause: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-late-votes-broke-big-for-13432727.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-la... I don't think it's at all inconceivable that voting fraud could be a real issue. Though I agree and then some w/ the larger issues you mention. IMO democracy as we practice it is (quite obviously) failing us (in CA and SF anyway). The "Sortition" idea recently shared on HN sounds very promising (not that I think there's a chance in hell we'll see it tried!).
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  That article has nothing to do with voter fraud. All it shows is that higher turnout seems to hurt Republicans. I won't shed any tears about the demise of a political party that relies on voter suppression to stay in office. From the article itself: "The Democrats are creating a new, highly efficient tool to turn out voters," said Neugebauer, the GOP consultant. "If Republicans can’t find a way to match it, we’re going to lose more elections all over the country."
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Oh please: > Few people noticed when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. In the past, California allowed only relatives or people living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. The new law allowed anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — “harvesting” them, in political slang. Is there any developed country that allows someone other than public employees to handle ballots like this?
    - klyrs 6y ago
      Are there widespread cases of fraudulent harvesting? Cases of harvesters telling people how to vote? Is there anything stopping Republicans and Libertarians from running ballot harvesting operations to turn out the vote in districts where they have popular support?
      - 6y ago
snarf21 6y ago
The thing I heard that is most laughable is that he has voted via mail! He is "allowed to" but no one else is because fraud.
- JungleGymSam 6y ago
  I don't believe the concept of "voting by mail" is at question. It's the method of getting the ballots into individuals' hands. Sounds like you're referring to absentee ballots where someone registers in advanced for an absentee ballot and has it sent to them. _I believe_, in this case, vote by mail ballots are sent to currently registered voters by default. That means there are a flood of official ballots, meant for an individual, that are sitting in mailboxes, being sent to deceased people or people that have moved districts, etc. Those ballots can be filled in by someone else and can be intercepted to prevent counting. That's how I understand the situation to be.
  - takeda 6y ago
    I can't speak about other states, but in California (particularly Los Angeles) to get ballot in mail you need to request it (there's an option to request permanent vote by mail, but still most people don't do that, I suppose the pandemic will change that). All the mail in ballots require a signature which is typically verified against the signature in DMV or one you provided during registration. Sometimes the ballots are rejected because it doesn't match. You can actually check online if your vote was counted. If you decide to cast a vote in person and you received ballot by mail, you can surrender your mail ballot too get in person one. If you don't provide one, you can cast a provisional one, which will be counted only of they don't receive mail in ballot, if they do you also will be in trouble. John Olivier also had response [1] about voter fraud. [1] https://youtu.be/l-nEHkgm_Gk?t=10m8s https://youtu.be/l-nEHkgm_Gk?t=10m8s
rayiner 6y ago
I’m not sure how the question of whether there is fraud now bears on whether there will be fraud and opportunity for abuse if our fairly minimal voter ID laws are relaxed further. The California law allowing “ballot harvesting” is utterly wacky. At the end of the day, why is it unreasonable to have similar voter laws to say France or Germany? Maybe you get a ballot in the mail, but you have to show up with a photo ID. This doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  A big difference is that photo IDs in those countries are consistent and free, and in the case of Germany compulsory. US state IDs are all over the place in terms of issuing requirements and ease of obtainment, and there are in practice a lot of people that don’t have them (on the order of 10% of voting-age citizens).
- rsynnott 6y ago
  So, first of all, people in Germany at least are allowed vote by post: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/informationen-waehler/briefwahl.html https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/inf... Germany and France have a mandatory national ID that everyone has. European countries which _don't_ have mandatory national ID will generally accept a wide variety of things. For instance, in Ireland, we can use a bank card, a social security card, a birth cert, an employee or student ID card, and so on. Essentially everyone will have one of these. If the US used this sort of approach I don't think there'd be so much concern. The problem comes in requiring ID which certain classes of people are likely not to have. I don't think any US state has proposed an Irish-style approach to this; most seem to want either a driving license or a purpose-designed ID.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > So, first of all, people in Germany at least are allowed vote by post: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/inf.. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/inf.... 33 states allow by-mail voting without any specific reason (or have mail-in elections to begin with). This includes many big republican states like Georgia and Florida (with Texas being the notable exception--there, you need to certify you'll be away from your polling place on election day). > For instance, in Ireland, we can use a bank card, a social security card, a birth cert, an employee or student ID card, and so on. Essentially everyone will have one of these. > The problem comes in requiring ID which certain classes of people are likely not to have. I don't think any US state has proposed an Irish-style approach to this; most seem to want either a driving license or a purpose-designed ID. You misperceive where the battle lines actually are in the US: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-.... No state requires a "driving license or purpose-designed ID for voting. 14 states, including most of the largest ones, require no documentation whatsoever. Here in Maryland, I voted by walking down to the fire station, writing my address on a ballot, and signing it. These states are significantly more permissive than Ireland. The next batch of states requires some form of ID, or other documentation, but usually you can vote anyway by providing identifying information and signing an affidavit. In Texas, for example, you need some sort of photo ID, and if you don't have one, you sign a declaration saying you don't have one. These is about as permissive as Ireland. Maybe a bit more permissive, because you can usually still vote even if you don't have an official ID. Only 7 states have a "strict" voter ID law. These just require some form of photo ID. All but Wisconsin allows you to vote and then come back 3-5 days alter with your photo ID. This sounds roughly comparable to Ireland, maybe a bit more restrictive insofar as you need a photo ID (employee or student ID card) as opposed to a non-photo ID (bank card). When you hear people in the U.S. talk about voter ID laws being used for "voter suppression" those people want all the state laws to be like Maryland, where there is zero verification. Ireland's laws would get lumped in with those of evil Republican states like Texas. Likewise, when you hear about "voter purges" for the most part they're talking about any attempt to maintain an accurate list of who is registered to vote (in a country where it's not mandatory to update your address with the local government). In LA and California, the voter rolls have 112-114% as many people as the number of eligible voters in the county: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-finds-millions-of-extra-registrants-on-voting-rolls-warns-california-pennsylvania-north-carolina-colorado-virginia-to-clean-up-voting-rolls-or-face-a-fed https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-.... According to those counties, they classify those voters into "active" and "inactive" lists, but in fact people on either list can still show up and cast a ballot and have it counted. When states like Georgia try to remove voters from the rolls that didn't respond to multiple notices sent to their home address, or haven't voted in many years, people call that "voter suppression."
_-david-_ 6y ago
>Voter id laws disenfranchise more people than fraudulently vote. A lot of people in the US are very much opposed to voter id but many western countries have it? Why is the US the only country where people seem to claim it disenfranchises people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  It's because the US doesn't have a national ID system and a significant fraction of the population doesn't have an ID and can't get one easily. This isn't even a secret or anything, GOP operatives openly admit that the purpose of these voter ID laws is to suppress minority voters: https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-admit-voter-id-law...
- aw1621107 6y ago
  IIRC it has to do with how easy/hard it is to get said ID. The claim is that IDs in the US are much more difficult to get for some demographics than others due to time/monetary costs and/or the difficulty of acquiring the required documents, so requiring an ID to vote would mean that otherwise eligible voters may be prevented from voting. Some other countries have a nationally issued ID that citizens are given for little or no cost. In those cases, voter ID laws would be much less controversial. I don't know whether this is the case for all countries where voter ID laws are not controversial.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Just to be clear, I am in favor of free id cards and requiring an id card (either the free one or a driver's license) if you want to vote. Voter ID laws would still be controversial in the US because people would say that poor people would not be able to make it to the place where they can pick up their id card. Poor people are less likely to have a vehicle and are more likely to work multiple jobs causing them to work past closing time at the DMV or wherever they would get the ID. The other issue is that it is not actually clear if voter id laws actually cause people to not be able to vote. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-vote...
giardini 6y ago
wry_discontent says >"Voter fraud might be a problem, but it's minuscule compared to fraud of the elections themselves."< What do you mean by "fraud of the elections themselves"?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I think he explained what he meant by the previous paragraph.
  - giardini 6y ago
    There's no proven fraud in voter id laws, gerrymandering or "regular closing of the polls{sic]": - Voter id laws are necessary. Nearly every democratic nation in the world uses voter id laws: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+nations+use+voter+id+laws&t=opera&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+nations+use+voter+id+laws... -gerrymandering is commonplace. Both Republicans and Democrats do it: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-gerrymandering-4057603 https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-gerrymandering-4057603 There is no clear possible political solution to gerrymandering. When Democrats get control of state legislatures they gerrymander to their benefit; when Republicans get control they do the same. or - regular closing of the polls. Polls must close early enough so that the vote can be counted and go in. The hours are rarely if ever extraordinary.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
People complaining about NSA abuse should not be taken seriously. If you cared about privacy, NSA abuse is not where you would start. Its a fraction of a percent compared to the fingerprinting and cookie tracking that happens in the open. The NSA abuses may be a problem, but its minuscule to the tracking commercial surveillance on the internet itself.

DevX101 6y ago

If vote by mail is secure enough for Utah, Oregon, and citizens over the age of 65, it's secure enough for everyone.

samfriedman 6y ago
Not to mention our military.
ilikehurdles 6y ago
All of Colorado, as well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mcculley 6y ago

I did some analysis of vote data in Florida and found some fraud: https://enki.org/2018/12/07/finding-unusual-voters/ https://enki.org/2018/12/07/finding-unusual-voters/ I'm not convinced it is large scale enough to sway an election. It's mostly just a failure of the counties to coordinate with each other to prevent double votes. Florida has had unrestricted absentee ballot voting by mail since 2002. Over 2.5 million Florida voters used it in the last two elections, so I think the recent noise about voting by mail is just a distraction. I do think we need better coordination across the states. I am convinced that there are people with residences in multiple states getting more than one vote. Unfortunately, not all of the states are as transparent as Florida is with the vote data.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
elpin 6y ago
Hey, the website that you use to host your report you cite (quark.cards) has an expired certificate, and a whois shows it belongs StackFrame, just FYI since I saw you listed as working there. I noticed the "Wikipedia's list of American supercentenarians" you cite to cross reference which describes itself as "a list of the longest lived American supercentenarians according to the GRG." [0] is not an exhaustive list of all supercentenarians. For example, the wikipedia page only lists 4 people who are currently alive, but looking at Wikipedia's underlying reference [1] there's at least 7 who are validated and currently alive, and I see around another 9 who have passed away since ~2019. Additionally, looking at Wikipedia's underlying source [1] it says "The total number Supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued in the news media as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over. The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. For the USA, we predict something like [60 - 75] Supercentenarians". This seems like it means Wikipedia's underlying source predicts they're capturing at best ~10% of all who exist in the US. I'm wondering if theres any census data or other sources that could help with this- guessing not since Wikipedia would likely cite that instead if it existed. Could use their extrapolation (60-75) of expected # of Supercentenarians to Florida along with the fact that Florida has an older population to just get a gut check if the # you found seems reasonable. I find the idea and approaches looking into the voting data interesting, and I'll definitely look more into the the other reports you released when I get a chance. > "found some fraud." As a final note, I'd just suggest that we all be super careful when levying charges like this given 1) it seems you just found some circumstantial non-peer reviewed evidence of fraud 2) how important trust is in our electoral systems to the function of open societies and 3) the vast majority of research points to voting fraud being almost non-existent. Questioning these institutions is incredibly important and part of an open an effective democratic system, but we have to be careful and specific with what we assert and our evidence. This is true especially now, with political factions across the US actively seeking to undermine our faith in electoral system using bad-faith and non-fact based arguments for political gain. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_supercentenarians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_supercentenar... [1]: http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx

yndoendo 6y ago

Voting by party line should be removed from ballots. This actually encourages partisanship versus having voters lookup and understand the candidates they are voting for.

pstuart 6y ago
Breaking up the 2 party duopoly would be good too. I have no idea how.
- prklmn 6y ago
  Ranked choice voting would be a good start.
  - nocoolnametom 6y ago
    RCV is a fantastic idea, but it is very difficult to get it installed on a large scale. Only one state has tried (Maine) but their state Constitution as currently worded seems to disallow it (as their Supreme Court has warned them). So for many states you'd first have to amend the Constitution to allow for RCV (or go for broke and try to get RCV enshrined in your Constitution) and then hope that those who benefited from the previous First-Past-the-Post systems will act against their interest to implement it by law or will refrain from enacting laws to overturn a citizen's referendum (which is my home state of Utah's preferred way of invalidating all citizen referendum). That said, while it's not a perfect solution it leans so heavily towards resolving many existing issues that I've long decided that if any politician publicly supports it as part of their campaign they'll have my vote.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Progressive Democrats and Never Trump Republicans need to vacate their respective parties. No idea how you and I could effect that change though -- awkward thing about "democracy", we only get the choices presented to us by those in power.
  - pstuart 6y ago

dilap 6y ago

Stuff like this gives me pause: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-late-votes-broke-big-for-13432727.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-la... I don't think it's at all inconceivable that voting fraud could be a real issue. Though I agree and then some w/ the larger issues you mention. IMO democracy as we practice it is (quite obviously) failing us (in CA and SF anyway). The "Sortition" idea recently shared on HN sounds very promising (not that I think there's a chance in hell we'll see it tried!).

lalaland1125 6y ago
That article has nothing to do with voter fraud. All it shows is that higher turnout seems to hurt Republicans. I won't shed any tears about the demise of a political party that relies on voter suppression to stay in office. From the article itself: "The Democrats are creating a new, highly efficient tool to turn out voters," said Neugebauer, the GOP consultant. "If Republicans can’t find a way to match it, we’re going to lose more elections all over the country."
- rayiner 6y ago
  Oh please: > Few people noticed when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. In the past, California allowed only relatives or people living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. The new law allowed anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — “harvesting” them, in political slang. Is there any developed country that allows someone other than public employees to handle ballots like this?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Are there widespread cases of fraudulent harvesting? Cases of harvesters telling people how to vote? Is there anything stopping Republicans and Libertarians from running ballot harvesting operations to turn out the vote in districts where they have popular support?
    - 6y ago

snarf21 6y ago

The thing I heard that is most laughable is that he has voted via mail! He is "allowed to" but no one else is because fraud.

JungleGymSam 6y ago
I don't believe the concept of "voting by mail" is at question. It's the method of getting the ballots into individuals' hands. Sounds like you're referring to absentee ballots where someone registers in advanced for an absentee ballot and has it sent to them. _I believe_, in this case, vote by mail ballots are sent to currently registered voters by default. That means there are a flood of official ballots, meant for an individual, that are sitting in mailboxes, being sent to deceased people or people that have moved districts, etc. Those ballots can be filled in by someone else and can be intercepted to prevent counting. That's how I understand the situation to be.
- takeda 6y ago
  I can't speak about other states, but in California (particularly Los Angeles) to get ballot in mail you need to request it (there's an option to request permanent vote by mail, but still most people don't do that, I suppose the pandemic will change that). All the mail in ballots require a signature which is typically verified against the signature in DMV or one you provided during registration. Sometimes the ballots are rejected because it doesn't match. You can actually check online if your vote was counted. If you decide to cast a vote in person and you received ballot by mail, you can surrender your mail ballot too get in person one. If you don't provide one, you can cast a provisional one, which will be counted only of they don't receive mail in ballot, if they do you also will be in trouble. John Olivier also had response [1] about voter fraud. [1] https://youtu.be/l-nEHkgm_Gk?t=10m8s https://youtu.be/l-nEHkgm_Gk?t=10m8s

rayiner 6y ago

I’m not sure how the question of whether there is fraud now bears on whether there will be fraud and opportunity for abuse if our fairly minimal voter ID laws are relaxed further. The California law allowing “ballot harvesting” is utterly wacky. At the end of the day, why is it unreasonable to have similar voter laws to say France or Germany? Maybe you get a ballot in the mail, but you have to show up with a photo ID. This doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

johncolanduoni 6y ago
A big difference is that photo IDs in those countries are consistent and free, and in the case of Germany compulsory. US state IDs are all over the place in terms of issuing requirements and ease of obtainment, and there are in practice a lot of people that don’t have them (on the order of 10% of voting-age citizens).
rsynnott 6y ago
So, first of all, people in Germany at least are allowed vote by post: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/informationen-waehler/briefwahl.html https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/inf... Germany and France have a mandatory national ID that everyone has. European countries which _don't_ have mandatory national ID will generally accept a wide variety of things. For instance, in Ireland, we can use a bank card, a social security card, a birth cert, an employee or student ID card, and so on. Essentially everyone will have one of these. If the US used this sort of approach I don't think there'd be so much concern. The problem comes in requiring ID which certain classes of people are likely not to have. I don't think any US state has proposed an Irish-style approach to this; most seem to want either a driving license or a purpose-designed ID.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > So, first of all, people in Germany at least are allowed vote by post: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/inf.. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/inf.... 33 states allow by-mail voting without any specific reason (or have mail-in elections to begin with). This includes many big republican states like Georgia and Florida (with Texas being the notable exception--there, you need to certify you'll be away from your polling place on election day). > For instance, in Ireland, we can use a bank card, a social security card, a birth cert, an employee or student ID card, and so on. Essentially everyone will have one of these. > The problem comes in requiring ID which certain classes of people are likely not to have. I don't think any US state has proposed an Irish-style approach to this; most seem to want either a driving license or a purpose-designed ID. You misperceive where the battle lines actually are in the US: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-.... No state requires a "driving license or purpose-designed ID for voting. 14 states, including most of the largest ones, require no documentation whatsoever. Here in Maryland, I voted by walking down to the fire station, writing my address on a ballot, and signing it. These states are significantly more permissive than Ireland. The next batch of states requires some form of ID, or other documentation, but usually you can vote anyway by providing identifying information and signing an affidavit. In Texas, for example, you need some sort of photo ID, and if you don't have one, you sign a declaration saying you don't have one. These is about as permissive as Ireland. Maybe a bit more permissive, because you can usually still vote even if you don't have an official ID. Only 7 states have a "strict" voter ID law. These just require some form of photo ID. All but Wisconsin allows you to vote and then come back 3-5 days alter with your photo ID. This sounds roughly comparable to Ireland, maybe a bit more restrictive insofar as you need a photo ID (employee or student ID card) as opposed to a non-photo ID (bank card). When you hear people in the U.S. talk about voter ID laws being used for "voter suppression" those people want all the state laws to be like Maryland, where there is zero verification. Ireland's laws would get lumped in with those of evil Republican states like Texas. Likewise, when you hear about "voter purges" for the most part they're talking about any attempt to maintain an accurate list of who is registered to vote (in a country where it's not mandatory to update your address with the local government). In LA and California, the voter rolls have 112-114% as many people as the number of eligible voters in the county: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-finds-millions-of-extra-registrants-on-voting-rolls-warns-california-pennsylvania-north-carolina-colorado-virginia-to-clean-up-voting-rolls-or-face-a-fed https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-.... According to those counties, they classify those voters into "active" and "inactive" lists, but in fact people on either list can still show up and cast a ballot and have it counted. When states like Georgia try to remove voters from the rolls that didn't respond to multiple notices sent to their home address, or haven't voted in many years, people call that "voter suppression."

_-david-_ 6y ago

>Voter id laws disenfranchise more people than fraudulently vote. A lot of people in the US are very much opposed to voter id but many western countries have it? Why is the US the only country where people seem to claim it disenfranchises people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws

lalaland1125 6y ago
It's because the US doesn't have a national ID system and a significant fraction of the population doesn't have an ID and can't get one easily. This isn't even a secret or anything, GOP operatives openly admit that the purpose of these voter ID laws is to suppress minority voters: https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-admit-voter-id-law...
aw1621107 6y ago
IIRC it has to do with how easy/hard it is to get said ID. The claim is that IDs in the US are much more difficult to get for some demographics than others due to time/monetary costs and/or the difficulty of acquiring the required documents, so requiring an ID to vote would mean that otherwise eligible voters may be prevented from voting. Some other countries have a nationally issued ID that citizens are given for little or no cost. In those cases, voter ID laws would be much less controversial. I don't know whether this is the case for all countries where voter ID laws are not controversial.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Just to be clear, I am in favor of free id cards and requiring an id card (either the free one or a driver's license) if you want to vote. Voter ID laws would still be controversial in the US because people would say that poor people would not be able to make it to the place where they can pick up their id card. Poor people are less likely to have a vehicle and are more likely to work multiple jobs causing them to work past closing time at the DMV or wherever they would get the ID. The other issue is that it is not actually clear if voter id laws actually cause people to not be able to vote. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-vote...

giardini 6y ago

wry_discontent says >"Voter fraud might be a problem, but it's minuscule compared to fraud of the elections themselves."< What do you mean by "fraud of the elections themselves"?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I think he explained what he meant by the previous paragraph.
- giardini 6y ago
  There's no proven fraud in voter id laws, gerrymandering or "regular closing of the polls{sic]": - Voter id laws are necessary. Nearly every democratic nation in the world uses voter id laws: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+nations+use+voter+id+laws&t=opera&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+nations+use+voter+id+laws... -gerrymandering is commonplace. Both Republicans and Democrats do it: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-gerrymandering-4057603 https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-gerrymandering-4057603 There is no clear possible political solution to gerrymandering. When Democrats get control of state legislatures they gerrymander to their benefit; when Republicans get control they do the same. or - regular closing of the polls. Polls must close early enough so that the vote can be counted and go in. The hours are rarely if ever extraordinary.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

People complaining about NSA abuse should not be taken seriously. If you cared about privacy, NSA abuse is not where you would start. Its a fraction of a percent compared to the fingerprinting and cookie tracking that happens in the open. The NSA abuses may be a problem, but its minuscule to the tracking commercial surveillance on the internet itself.