3 ms·

>You need to identify yourself to register to vote, and to vote you have to arrive at the poll, state your name and address, and sign a sworn statement. The sys

>You need to identify yourself to register to vote, and to vote you have to arrive at the poll, state your name and address, and sign a sworn statement. The system is practically impossible to abuse, evidenced by the fact that there have been almost no documented cases of anyone abusing it. Or it's because it's rarely caught and charges are rarely pressed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-fraud-a-myth-thats-not-what-new-york-investigators-found-1485994200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-fraud-a-myth-thats-not-wh... 61 out of 63 attempts to vote fraudulently were successful, and one was rejected only because the poll worker happened to be the mother of the person they were trying to fraudulently vote as. Until there's widespread and thorough pentesting of the election systems in various states it's impossible to say at what rate fraud does or does not occur.

jeffbee 5y ago
Who cares? Retail one-at-a-time vote fraud doesn't scale, is extremely risky (it's a felony) and doesn't happen at problematic levels. On the other hand, disenfranchising the 13% of black Americans who lack a photo ID is obviously going to swing elections.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  There's plenty of ways to commit voter fraud. The fact that the most blatant and easy to catch was so successful should be worrisome to anyone.
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
https://archive.ph/9NSmg#selection-3761.52-3765.466 https://archive.ph/9NSmg#selection-3761.52-3765.466
eesmith 5y ago
Is this written by the Larry Levy from Bracewell & Giuliani (yes, that Rudy Giuliani), and who worked on Giuliani's 2008 primary bid? (That is, in addition to being vice chair of th Republican National Lawyers Association, as described.) If so, perhaps he's a bit, I dunno, biased? I point this out not to say that connection must taint the source, but because there have been many investigations for the types of in-person voter fraud tested here ("died, moved out of the jurisdiction, or been convicted of a felony at least two years earlier"). And they've found bupkis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St... for many of the relevant studies and court cases. You'll notice that real-world data should be more convincing as a pen test like the WSJ editorial described specifically excluded the estimated probability needed for a valid risk assessment. Someone could crash a tank through my front door to grab my laptop. A tiger team might even demonstrate that on a similar building to mine. But I'm not going to install anti-tank barricades to reduce the chance that already unlikely event will happen. Permit me therefore to remain suspicious about a WSJ op-ed piece written by what appears to be someone with a strong financial and/or political reason to cast doubt on existing election security even if that doubt is unjustified. EDIT: The 'Alan Schulkin, came under pressure resign after he was caught on tape telling the truth' is from a Project Veritas video, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#New_York_City_elections_official_video_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#New_York_City_... : > In a follow-up interview with the New York Post, Schulkin stated, "I should have said 'potential fraud' instead of 'fraud'". Referring to the Project Veritas operative who secretely recorded him, Schulkin said, "She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her", noting that in his haste to get away from her he "was agreeing with her when I shouldn’t have been." You'll note that Levy writes "telling the truth", but doesn't present the evidence that this is actually the truth.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Worse than getting your information from the opinion section of the WSJ is imagining that empowering a local petty tyrant to refuse a ballot to a voter is a good idea. Their policy and training is to issue a provisional ballot to virtually anyone. You really don’t want local poll workers trying to adjudicate everyone’s signature or photograph. The problem in the NY investigation was that the dead people were still registered. The report was not directed at the performance of the election department on Election Day, it was directed at the maintenance of the voter file.

jeffbee 5y ago

Who cares? Retail one-at-a-time vote fraud doesn't scale, is extremely risky (it's a felony) and doesn't happen at problematic levels. On the other hand, disenfranchising the 13% of black Americans who lack a photo ID is obviously going to swing elections.

HideousKojima 5y ago
There's plenty of ways to commit voter fraud. The fact that the most blatant and easy to catch was so successful should be worrisome to anyone.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

https://archive.ph/9NSmg#selection-3761.52-3765.466 https://archive.ph/9NSmg#selection-3761.52-3765.466

eesmith 5y ago

Is this written by the Larry Levy from Bracewell & Giuliani (yes, that Rudy Giuliani), and who worked on Giuliani's 2008 primary bid? (That is, in addition to being vice chair of th Republican National Lawyers Association, as described.) If so, perhaps he's a bit, I dunno, biased? I point this out not to say that connection must taint the source, but because there have been many investigations for the types of in-person voter fraud tested here ("died, moved out of the jurisdiction, or been convicted of a felony at least two years earlier"). And they've found bupkis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St... for many of the relevant studies and court cases. You'll notice that real-world data should be more convincing as a pen test like the WSJ editorial described specifically excluded the estimated probability needed for a valid risk assessment. Someone could crash a tank through my front door to grab my laptop. A tiger team might even demonstrate that on a similar building to mine. But I'm not going to install anti-tank barricades to reduce the chance that already unlikely event will happen. Permit me therefore to remain suspicious about a WSJ op-ed piece written by what appears to be someone with a strong financial and/or political reason to cast doubt on existing election security even if that doubt is unjustified. EDIT: The 'Alan Schulkin, came under pressure resign after he was caught on tape telling the truth' is from a Project Veritas video, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#New_York_City_elections_official_video_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#New_York_City_... : > In a follow-up interview with the New York Post, Schulkin stated, "I should have said 'potential fraud' instead of 'fraud'". Referring to the Project Veritas operative who secretely recorded him, Schulkin said, "She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her", noting that in his haste to get away from her he "was agreeing with her when I shouldn’t have been." You'll note that Levy writes "telling the truth", but doesn't present the evidence that this is actually the truth.

jeffbee 5y ago
Worse than getting your information from the opinion section of the WSJ is imagining that empowering a local petty tyrant to refuse a ballot to a voter is a good idea. Their policy and training is to issue a provisional ballot to virtually anyone. You really don’t want local poll workers trying to adjudicate everyone’s signature or photograph. The problem in the NY investigation was that the dead people were still registered. The report was not directed at the performance of the election department on Election Day, it was directed at the maintenance of the voter file.