4 ms·

The rules are set by the state, but my deep-blue state (California) and every county I've lived in has requested ID, that I say my name, and at least one other

by ttfkam 3y ago

The rules are set by the state, but my deep-blue state (California) and every county I've lived in has requested ID, that I say my name, and at least one other person has verified that I match and reside in the precinct. Nevertheless this is aside from the fact that after I arrived, my name was crossed off. If I returned later or someone else arrived to claim my ballot, it would clearly be detected. And that's the point, right? In-person voter fraud—the only kind of voter fraud that stricter ID requirements would address—is already profoundly difficult to do undetected. So it's not really speculative. Unlike common right-wing claims over the last decade, two million+ extra ballots would not just go unnoticed. Undocumented immigrants can't just show up en masse at random polling places and expect to submit a ballot. It's not enough to just assert widespread voter fraud exists but is somehow currently undetectable. Show us your evidence. I and others have absolutely no argument against election security and the prevention of misconduct. Speaking for myself, I simply take exception to decreasing access to suffrage due to specious claims of malfeasance. Isn't the best case scenario to have as many citizens taking part in the electoral process as possible? Voter fraud detracts from that goal just as much as overzealous restrictions. Republican. Democrat. Independent. I don't care. I want every citizen's vote tallied.

Georgelemental 3y ago
> Unlike common right-wing claims over the last decade, two million+ extra ballots would not just go unnoticed. For sure. The people spreading these baseless lies (Trump, Giuliani, Lindell, etc) should be loudly condemned. But half a dozen fraudulent votes, in a very close city council race, is not totally unimaginable. Or even a few hundred, like in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race (that gave Democrats the critical 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1-099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1-099-felons-vo...
- ttfkam 3y ago
  12? Possible. A few hundred? You're gonna have to produce some evidence.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    Read the link: > And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong. > > Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes.
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      You forgot a very important part of this equation: you have to commit fraud and get away with it undetected for it to be an issue. These folks were found to have voted when they shouldn't have, whether intentional or not. (And I do think intent should definitely come into play here, as it does in most areas of law.) But you and the Washington Examiner blithely skip over the part where the illegitimate votes were found out and dealt with. I NEVER said folks would never attempt to commit voter fraud. I asserted that the kinds of voter fraud associated with in-person voting were never successful even without stricter ID requirements. I asserted that large scale in-precinct ballot stuffing simply would not work. There is one area where someone could vote multiple times—or at least they could more than ten years ago. That was across state lines, where one casts their votes in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, etc. This however was solved ten years ago with the ERIC program, which allowed states to compare their voter rolls to detect federal voter fraud. So when a deeply red state like Louisiana declares their intent to dump ERIC while also championing stricter voter ID requirements, I think it appears clear to an objective observer that the primary concern isn't extra voters but rather who they're voting for. And that feels deeply un-American to me. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation-voter-data-election-integrity https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation...
      - Georgelemental 3y ago
        In the Minnesota case, the felon voters did get away with it, for two years—long enough to potentially affect the results. The Minnesota Majority report on the felon votes was only released in 2010. I'm not alleging any fraud beyond the votes by felons, which we know happened because they were convicted in court.

by ttfkam 3y ago

Georgelemental 3y ago

> Unlike common right-wing claims over the last decade, two million+ extra ballots would not just go unnoticed. For sure. The people spreading these baseless lies (Trump, Giuliani, Lindell, etc) should be loudly condemned. But half a dozen fraudulent votes, in a very close city council race, is not totally unimaginable. Or even a few hundred, like in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race (that gave Democrats the critical 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1-099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1-099-felons-vo...

ttfkam 3y ago
12? Possible. A few hundred? You're gonna have to produce some evidence.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Read the link: > And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong. > > Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes.
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    You forgot a very important part of this equation: you have to commit fraud and get away with it undetected for it to be an issue. These folks were found to have voted when they shouldn't have, whether intentional or not. (And I do think intent should definitely come into play here, as it does in most areas of law.) But you and the Washington Examiner blithely skip over the part where the illegitimate votes were found out and dealt with. I NEVER said folks would never attempt to commit voter fraud. I asserted that the kinds of voter fraud associated with in-person voting were never successful even without stricter ID requirements. I asserted that large scale in-precinct ballot stuffing simply would not work. There is one area where someone could vote multiple times—or at least they could more than ten years ago. That was across state lines, where one casts their votes in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, etc. This however was solved ten years ago with the ERIC program, which allowed states to compare their voter rolls to detect federal voter fraud. So when a deeply red state like Louisiana declares their intent to dump ERIC while also championing stricter voter ID requirements, I think it appears clear to an objective observer that the primary concern isn't extra voters but rather who they're voting for. And that feels deeply un-American to me. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation-voter-data-election-integrity https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation...
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      In the Minnesota case, the felon voters did get away with it, for two years—long enough to potentially affect the results. The Minnesota Majority report on the felon votes was only released in 2010. I'm not alleging any fraud beyond the votes by felons, which we know happened because they were convicted in court.