3 ms·
I didn't claim there was, but at the same time I'm convinced there easily could be [1] if people play down security and don't take any precautions. Election fr
by nverno 5y ago
I didn't claim there was, but at the same time I'm convinced there easily could be [1] if people play down security and don't take any precautions. Election fraud isn't uncommon around the world, and there is plenty of incentive. [[I do think Americans in general have been pretty good so far, but I'm no expert, and I'm not sure anyone could convince me 100% there is no fraud ever here]]
More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair to maintain faith in the system. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect
[1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- dragonwriter 5y ago> More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect Its obviously not, because lots of people think that it it is unfair in and of itself, and this feeling is buttressed by the fact that politicians pushing for specific versions of it keep getting caught admitting that their motives are more about stopping people that don't vote their way from voting than election security in the usual sense when they think they have a friendly audience.
- nverno 5y agoWhat do they think is unfair? The ID requirement? I get that, but the point was, let's make that not unfair. There isn't anything unfair about making elections more secure in itself. Both security and fairness are valid issues. If a politician is against either of these, it's a bad sign.