5 ms·

> The statement near the end of the abstract - "Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud, actual or perceived." - seems surprising to me, and I'd

> The statement near the end of the abstract - "Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud, actual or perceived." - seems surprising to me, and I'd like to see how they arrived at that conclusion. If I had to take a guess, I'd say that voter fraud was already very low to begin with, and the rare occurrences that do happen wouldn't be helped with ID laws.

mywittyname 5y ago
It's the "perceived" part that I am suspicious of (and I assume the GP too). It makes sense to me that strict ID laws don't do much to fight actual fraud because the systems in place are pretty effective (moreso than ID laws, I'd think, since I've personally rarely had an up-to-date state ID). But how does it not have an effect on perceived fraud, when all of the people perceiving fraud are arguing for strict ID requirements? I think I know the answer (these people perceive fraud in response to their "team's" loss, regardless). But it would be interesting to read what the authors say.
- Kranar 5y ago
  One hypothesis is that the motivation behind voter fraud never had anything to do with evidence suggesting that voter fraud occurs. Voter fraud is an excuse to enact legislation that makes it harder for certain demographics to vote. If that hypothesis is true, then people will never stop believing in voter fraud until said demographics no longer have any significant representation in politics.
- HappySweeney 5y ago
  The perception of fraud is entirely due to loser politicians telling their supporters that they only lost due to fraud, and no amount of voter ID laws will change that.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Not true. Taiwan doesn’t count votes in this highly visible public way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqKt-lPfJuw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqKt-lPfJuw) because of “loser politicians.” Most western European countries also have significant voter security measures, although comparisons are often hard to make because they piggy-back voter registration on the mandatory residence registration process. In Germany for example you get a voting card in the mail, but you have to shlep to your local citizens office with proof of residency (lease, etc.) within 30 days of moving. In Georgia you can register to vote entirely on line, but they check your ID at voting time.
    - HappySweeney 5y ago
      I was referring to the US, specifically.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        You think the appearance of secure elections functions any differently in the US? Whether or not election security is an actual problem, one side saying “just trust the process” is not going to be credible. That’s true in America, and that’s true in Taiwan. Hence the elaborate process in Taiwan.
        HappySweeney 5y ago
        Yes. Before the aforementioned losers began disparaging the system, trust in the election process was high.
        rayiner 5y ago
        Not at all. E.g. this poll from 2004: https://news.gallup.com/poll/13780/americans-worried-about-voter-fraud.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/13780/americans-worried-about-v... > Although a majority of both Republicans and Democrats express some degree of confidence in the nation's voting system, Democrats are far less confident than Republicans. The current poll shows that 59% of Democrats say they are least somewhat confident that their votes will be cast and counted (including just 13% who are very confident), compared with nearly 9 in 10 Republicans (87%, including 44% who are very confident). Right before the 2020 election, 30-40% of people in both parties though the election wouldn’t be conducted fairly: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distrust-this-years-election-results-than-democrats-after-2016/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distru... After the 2016 election, 2/3 of Democrats believed Russia had “tampered with vote tallies” to help Trump win: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
- handrous 5y ago
  > It's the "perceived" part that I am suspicious of (and I assume the GP too). Poll citizens and ask how much voter fraud they think happened in the last election, in their state, before a voter ID law is passed. Wait for a voter ID requirement to be passed, and another election to happen. Ask again. Compare. Repeat a few different places if you want to be thorough. That's one method, anyway. ("Polled citizens' perception of a thing about the world is wildly wrong, and changes in that perception don't follow changes in reality the way you'd hope they would" is a so-common-it's-boring result in political science)

mywittyname 5y ago

It's the "perceived" part that I am suspicious of (and I assume the GP too). It makes sense to me that strict ID laws don't do much to fight actual fraud because the systems in place are pretty effective (moreso than ID laws, I'd think, since I've personally rarely had an up-to-date state ID). But how does it not have an effect on perceived fraud, when all of the people perceiving fraud are arguing for strict ID requirements? I think I know the answer (these people perceive fraud in response to their "team's" loss, regardless). But it would be interesting to read what the authors say.

Kranar 5y ago
One hypothesis is that the motivation behind voter fraud never had anything to do with evidence suggesting that voter fraud occurs. Voter fraud is an excuse to enact legislation that makes it harder for certain demographics to vote. If that hypothesis is true, then people will never stop believing in voter fraud until said demographics no longer have any significant representation in politics.
HappySweeney 5y ago
The perception of fraud is entirely due to loser politicians telling their supporters that they only lost due to fraud, and no amount of voter ID laws will change that.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Not true. Taiwan doesn’t count votes in this highly visible public way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqKt-lPfJuw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqKt-lPfJuw) because of “loser politicians.” Most western European countries also have significant voter security measures, although comparisons are often hard to make because they piggy-back voter registration on the mandatory residence registration process. In Germany for example you get a voting card in the mail, but you have to shlep to your local citizens office with proof of residency (lease, etc.) within 30 days of moving. In Georgia you can register to vote entirely on line, but they check your ID at voting time.
  - HappySweeney 5y ago
    I was referring to the US, specifically.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      You think the appearance of secure elections functions any differently in the US? Whether or not election security is an actual problem, one side saying “just trust the process” is not going to be credible. That’s true in America, and that’s true in Taiwan. Hence the elaborate process in Taiwan.
      - HappySweeney 5y ago
        Yes. Before the aforementioned losers began disparaging the system, trust in the election process was high.
        rayiner 5y ago
        Not at all. E.g. this poll from 2004: https://news.gallup.com/poll/13780/americans-worried-about-voter-fraud.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/13780/americans-worried-about-v... > Although a majority of both Republicans and Democrats express some degree of confidence in the nation's voting system, Democrats are far less confident than Republicans. The current poll shows that 59% of Democrats say they are least somewhat confident that their votes will be cast and counted (including just 13% who are very confident), compared with nearly 9 in 10 Republicans (87%, including 44% who are very confident). Right before the 2020 election, 30-40% of people in both parties though the election wouldn’t be conducted fairly: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distrust-this-years-election-results-than-democrats-after-2016/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distru... After the 2016 election, 2/3 of Democrats believed Russia had “tampered with vote tallies” to help Trump win: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
handrous 5y ago
> It's the "perceived" part that I am suspicious of (and I assume the GP too). Poll citizens and ask how much voter fraud they think happened in the last election, in their state, before a voter ID law is passed. Wait for a voter ID requirement to be passed, and another election to happen. Ask again. Compare. Repeat a few different places if you want to be thorough. That's one method, anyway. ("Polled citizens' perception of a thing about the world is wildly wrong, and changes in that perception don't follow changes in reality the way you'd hope they would" is a so-common-it's-boring result in political science)