3 ms·

> literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots You don't think the state can figure out if you exist? Just making up a name won't get your v

> literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots You don't think the state can figure out if you exist? Just making up a name won't get your vote counted. And if you vote twice, that is also easily detected. Or if you vote in someone else's name. It's popular to claim how easy election fraud is, but the checks and balances aren't nearly that easy to overcome. Maybe what we need is better education about how the voting system actually functions.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Or if you vote in someone else's name To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- edanm 2y ago
  > But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID. Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? And it's only a scant risk-reward balance if voting individually. If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes, that can tip plenty of elections IIRC.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? I never bought a fake ID. But I knew people who did. It was an entirely on-the-phone transaction. Buying a fake ID in America is orders of magnitude easier than false voting. > If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes This is a legitimate concern. It is entirely unaddressed by voter ID requirements.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. I agree, this is fairly easy to do. Signature checking will catch some of it, but the bar is a bit lower. The real problem making this work is detectability. Once someone legitimately tries to vote and gets told they already did, it's going to get noticed quickly. And as you say, the value at an individual vote level is close to zero, which makes the risk/reward ratio pretty terrible.
proc0 2y ago
It's not enough to claim votes are verified. The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process, but I would argue that the process should be something that everyone, even those who don't trust the current party in power, can trust and feel like the process is transparent. Instead challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic, when that's exactly how you get authoritarianism and corruption.
- cherry_tree 2y ago
  What’s preventing 300 people from presenting the same ID? Why is presenting an ID somehow singularly responsible for the process not being opaque?
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Aside from someone who lost a major election making wild claims, what is not trustworthy? Every step of the election process has checks and requirements for strict observation (by opposing party representatives). The effort required to challenge should be proportional in significance to the interruption being requested. AFAIK that's basically how it is now. Want to challenge a vote? Easy. Want to challenge a lot of votes or put a hold on the results until you've had a chance to go digging? That needs to take enough effort that only those with more than a conspiracy theory will attempt it. > Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process Eh, I think this is actually pretty peculiar to just one of the parties. I've never worried about the elections tally when our county clerk was Republican (which has been most of my life). Messing with the votes is a daunting task. Go look at the actual process in your locality, I bet it's the same. > challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic Not true. Conspiracy theories, "I think it's fraudulent because my guy lost", these absolutely ARE anti-democratic. They are intended to tear down the system, not strengthen it. Come with evidence, then you can strengthen the process.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Or if you vote in someone else's name To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
edanm 2y ago
> But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID. Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? And it's only a scant risk-reward balance if voting individually. If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes, that can tip plenty of elections IIRC.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? I never bought a fake ID. But I knew people who did. It was an entirely on-the-phone transaction. Buying a fake ID in America is orders of magnitude easier than false voting. > If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes This is a legitimate concern. It is entirely unaddressed by voter ID requirements.
rootusrootus 2y ago
> To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. I agree, this is fairly easy to do. Signature checking will catch some of it, but the bar is a bit lower. The real problem making this work is detectability. Once someone legitimately tries to vote and gets told they already did, it's going to get noticed quickly. And as you say, the value at an individual vote level is close to zero, which makes the risk/reward ratio pretty terrible.

proc0 2y ago

It's not enough to claim votes are verified. The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process, but I would argue that the process should be something that everyone, even those who don't trust the current party in power, can trust and feel like the process is transparent. Instead challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic, when that's exactly how you get authoritarianism and corruption.

cherry_tree 2y ago
What’s preventing 300 people from presenting the same ID? Why is presenting an ID somehow singularly responsible for the process not being opaque?
rootusrootus 2y ago
> The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Aside from someone who lost a major election making wild claims, what is not trustworthy? Every step of the election process has checks and requirements for strict observation (by opposing party representatives). The effort required to challenge should be proportional in significance to the interruption being requested. AFAIK that's basically how it is now. Want to challenge a vote? Easy. Want to challenge a lot of votes or put a hold on the results until you've had a chance to go digging? That needs to take enough effort that only those with more than a conspiracy theory will attempt it. > Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process Eh, I think this is actually pretty peculiar to just one of the parties. I've never worried about the elections tally when our county clerk was Republican (which has been most of my life). Messing with the votes is a daunting task. Go look at the actual process in your locality, I bet it's the same. > challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic Not true. Conspiracy theories, "I think it's fraudulent because my guy lost", these absolutely ARE anti-democratic. They are intended to tear down the system, not strengthen it. Come with evidence, then you can strengthen the process.