Should voters be required to show ID? (2 Viewers)

[DrJ]

No, because the article I originally posted referenced overall numbers, and pointed out that voter turnout among overall voters, Democrats, and blacks was up MORE in these states in comparison to ones that didn't have these laws. Across both states that had these laws. Ursa posted a link that referenced just Hispanic votes in Georgia only, which as you can see is a small subset of these numbers, and then tried to act like they were representative of all minorities. Which is obviously ridiculous cherry picking. Furthermore, minorities wasn't even the point that was being debated - we were originally talking about Democrat voters.

Your original article is conclusory, data-thin, and an Op-Ed in the WSJ by a guy from the Heritage Foundation. It proves nothing.

It's going to be impossible for either side to "prove" their case in this. All we can do is use the statistics that are available to us. And in this case the statistics suggest the exact opposite of what you guys are.

 

[DrJ]

Here's the article and pertinent quotes once again, for the people that have problems with reading and going back to the last page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

Now can you see problems in every point he's making? Or do you need someone else to do that for you?

Feel free, take a stab. I could use some amusement.

 

[DrJ]

Here's the article and pertinent quotes once again, for the people that have problems with reading and going back to the last page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

Now can you see problems in every point he's making? Or do you need someone else to do that for you?

Feel free, take a stab. I could use some amusement.

So you can't see them yourself is what you're saying.

You're the one suggesting there's a problem. Have at it.

 

[DrJ]

Here's the article and pertinent quotes once again, for the people that have problems with reading and going back to the last page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

Now can you see problems in every point he's making? Or do you need someone else to do that for you?

Feel free, take a stab. I could use some amusement.

So you can't see them yourself is what you're saying.

You're the one suggesting there's a problem. Have at it.

I'm definitely stating that there are problems. I'm asking if you see them yourself or if you need help and have someone point them out for you.

I'm welcoming you to do so.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

No, because the article I originally posted referenced overall numbers, and pointed out that voter turnout among overall voters, Democrats, and blacks was up MORE in these states in comparison to ones that didn't have these laws. Across both states that had these laws. Ursa posted a link that referenced just Hispanic votes in Georgia only, which as you can see is a small subset of these numbers, and then tried to act like they were representative of all minorities. Which is obviously ridiculous cherry picking. Furthermore, minorities wasn't even the point that was being debated - we were originally talking about Democrat voters.

Your original article is conclusory, data-thin, and an Op-Ed in the WSJ by a guy from the Heritage Foundation. It proves nothing.

It's going to be impossible for either side to "prove" their case in this. All we can do is use the statistics that are available to us. And in this case the statistics suggest the exact opposite of what you guys are.

Part of the problem is that the original WSJ article was suspect. It was written by Hans von Spakovsky, who got in trouble in the Justice Department for voter suppression and now works at the Heritage Foundation. And most of it compared voting in 2004 to voting in 2008, when Obama was on the ballot. It's pretty tough to make any real conclusions from that in isolation. Having the first black nominee for president on the ballot is going to skew things.Now, he does compare voting trends in Georgia and Indiana to voting trends in other states, but then doesn't really offer any explanation for the data. Is he suggesting that Democratic turnout in those states went up because of the voter ID requirement? How does that make any sense?The link from the Brennan Center only talked about Hispanic voting in Georgia because it was correcting some misinformation about that subject that had been on a radio show. They weren't cherrypicking. The Brennan Center has done far more comprehensive work on this subject, including something I linked earlier in this thread. Their conclusions differ from yours.

 

[DrJ]

No, because the article I originally posted referenced overall numbers, and pointed out that voter turnout among overall voters, Democrats, and blacks was up MORE in these states in comparison to ones that didn't have these laws. Across both states that had these laws. Ursa posted a link that referenced just Hispanic votes in Georgia only, which as you can see is a small subset of these numbers, and then tried to act like they were representative of all minorities. Which is obviously ridiculous cherry picking. Furthermore, minorities wasn't even the point that was being debated - we were originally talking about Democrat voters.

Your original article is conclusory, data-thin, and an Op-Ed in the WSJ by a guy from the Heritage Foundation. It proves nothing.

It's going to be impossible for either side to "prove" their case in this. All we can do is use the statistics that are available to us. And in this case the statistics suggest the exact opposite of what you guys are.

Part of the problem is that the original WSJ article was suspect. It was written by Hans von Spakovsky, who got in trouble in the Justice Department for voter suppression and now works at the Heritage Foundation. And most of it compared voting in 2004 to voting in 2008, when Obama was on the ballot. It's pretty tough to make any real conclusions from that in isolation. Having the first black nominee for president on the ballot is going to skew things.Now, he does compare voting trends in Georgia and Indiana to voting trends in other states, but then doesn't really offer any explanation for the data. Is he suggesting that Democratic turnout in those states went up because of the voter ID requirement? How does that make any sense?The link from the Brennan Center only talked about Hispanic voting in Georgia because it was correcting some misinformation about that subject that had been on a radio show. They weren't cherrypicking. The Brennan Center has done far more comprehensive work on this subject, including something I linked earlier in this thread. Their conclusions differ from yours.

I don't care who is reporting it - the numbers are what they are. If you have some better numbers please provide them.It's definitely impossible to prove the exact reason behind why the numbers changed as they did, but it does certainly seem that these numbers fly in the face of what you guys are suggesting about voter supression. #2 and #5 in increase in overall voter turnout is a pretty strong argument. As a whole it seems to suggest that voter turnout has very little to do with photo ID laws - there's little to no correlation.It's also notable that they made them free to voters in the states that require them. The prosecutors couldn't find a single witness to say they couldn't get an ID in front of the Supreme Court. And the court itself ruled that there was substantial state interest in protecting the election against fraud, despite there being basically no evidence that fraud had occured. All the exact opposite of what those against this are suggesting.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I don't care who is reporting it - the numbers are what they are. If you have some better numbers please provide them.

It's definitely impossible to prove the exact reason behind why the numbers changed as they did, but it does certainly seem that these numbers fly in the face of what you guys are suggesting about voter supression. #2 and #5 in increase in overall voter turnout is a pretty strong argument. As a whole it seems to suggest that voter turnout has very little to do with photo ID laws - there's little to no correlation.

It's also notable that they made them free to voters in the states that require them. The prosecutors couldn't find a single witness to say they couldn't get an ID in front of the Supreme Court. And the court itself ruled that there was substantial state interest in protecting the election against fraud, despite there being basically no evidence that fraud had occured. All the exact opposite of what those against this are suggesting.

With respect to the statistical analysis, here's a full page on the Brennan Center website of links to studies on this issue. I haven't read them, maybe some support your position. I'll try to look at some when I get the chance.As for the "no witnesses" thing, the district court findings in the Wisconsin case have been linked here a bunch of times, where there were like 40 affidavits from voters that had challenges obtaining IDs. I don't remember the procedural posture of the Indiana case that went to the Supreme Court -- was the law already in effect at the time or was the lawsuit filed prior to the law be applied?

 

[The Commish]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

"um, no, I'm Joe Blow"

 

[DrJ]

I don't care who is reporting it - the numbers are what they are. If you have some better numbers please provide them.

It's definitely impossible to prove the exact reason behind why the numbers changed as they did, but it does certainly seem that these numbers fly in the face of what you guys are suggesting about voter supression. #2 and #5 in increase in overall voter turnout is a pretty strong argument. As a whole it seems to suggest that voter turnout has very little to do with photo ID laws - there's little to no correlation.

It's also notable that they made them free to voters in the states that require them. The prosecutors couldn't find a single witness to say they couldn't get an ID in front of the Supreme Court. And the court itself ruled that there was substantial state interest in protecting the election against fraud, despite there being basically no evidence that fraud had occured. All the exact opposite of what those against this are suggesting.

With respect to the statistical analysis, here's a full page on the Brennan Center website of links to studies on this issue. I haven't read them, maybe some support your position. I'll try to look at some when I get the chance.As for the "no witnesses" thing, the district court findings in the Wisconsin case have been linked here a bunch of times, where there were like 40 affidavits from voters that had challenges obtaining IDs. I don't remember the procedural posture of the Indiana case that went to the Supreme Court -- was the law already in effect at the time or was the lawsuit filed prior to the law be applied?

It was an attempt to overturn the law already in place. Law was in place in 2005, SCOTUS case was in 2008. Here's a Wiki link on it. It was a 6-3 ruling in the SCOTUS.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

I'll take a look at those Brennan links. But first I'll have to make sure that I agree with their political affiliation (like you're suggesting on the hard numbers provided in the WSJ article).

 

[The Commish]

Good Luck DrJ. That's about all I can say. Ray's good people. You're wasting your time with Matthias. Go long enough and he'll put you on ignore, so you can watch from afar

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'll take a look at those Brennan links. But first I'll have to make sure that I agree with their political affiliation (like you're suggesting on the hard numbers provided in the WSJ article).

The Brennan Center has a clear opinion on this issue. I clicked on a few of the links and those seemed to be more academic.I'm not dismissing the numbers from the WSJ. I'm just not sure how much they prove.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Good Luck DrJ. That's about all I can say. Ray's good people. You're wasting your time with Matthias. Go long enough and he'll put you on ignore, so you can watch from afar

Matthias and I are pretty much in lockstep on this issue so I'm not sure where this comes from. But thanks I guess.

 

[parasaurolophus]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

Oh thats right, I went before work. Then what?

 

[DrJ]

I'll take a look at those Brennan links. But first I'll have to make sure that I agree with their political affiliation (like you're suggesting on the hard numbers provided in the WSJ article).

The Brennan Center has a clear opinion on this issue. I clicked on a few of the links and those seemed to be more academic.I'm not dismissing the numbers from the WSJ. I'm just not sure how much they prove.

I agree, it's definitely inconclusive. We simply don't have enough data to draw any conclusions on at this point - but what little data we do have does seem to disagree with the idea that there will be a strong correlation between voter turnout and these ID laws.On your side of the argument, I admit that most surveys seem to indicate that Democrat voters are more likely to be "impacted" by this. I saw one that referenced Indiana specifically that shows that the poor, blacks, elderly etc are slightly more likely to not have these forms of ID. I didn't link it, I was trying to see if any on your side would actually go through the effort to do so rather than be silly about the numbers I provided. The outcome has been a little funny to me. But the end result just doesn't seem to bear out that they are actually impacted - more theoretically. It's also worth noting that the Indiana law even includes a provision that you can sign an affidavit saying you can't get an ID in lieu of actually providing an ID. Between that and providing them for free, I don't really see what the big problem is with this unless you're really not interested in election integrity and voter confidence.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

Oh thats right, I went before work. Then what?

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place. You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

 

[DrJ]

Good Luck DrJ. That's about all I can say. Ray's good people. You're wasting your time with Matthias. Go long enough and he'll put you on ignore, so you can watch from afar

Matthias and I are pretty much in lockstep on this issue so I'm not sure where this comes from. But thanks I guess.

You seem to be willing to discuss the issue reasonably here. He's a complete partisan hack.

 

[DrJ]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

Oh thats right, I went before work. Then what?

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place. You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows everyone, it's going to be virtually impossible for them to determine a crime is actually taking place IMO. My experience voting in these last primaries is that I could have said I was whoever I felt like. They didn't have me sign anything - they just asked my name and address. If you live in a big city and people don't know who you are, it's going to be a pretty simple process and nearly impossible to bust you on.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I agree, it's definitely inconclusive. We simply don't have enough data to draw any conclusions on at this point - but what little data we do have does seem to disagree with the idea that there will be a strong correlation between voter turnout and these ID laws.On your side of the argument, I admit that most surveys seem to indicate that Democrat voters are more likely to be "impacted" by this. I saw one that referenced Indiana specifically that shows that the poor, blacks, elderly etc are slightly more likely to not have these forms of ID. I didn't link it, I was trying to see if any on your side would actually go through the effort to do so rather than be silly about the numbers I provided. The outcome has been a little funny to me. But the end result just doesn't seem to bear out that they are actually impacted - more theoretically. It's also worth noting that the Indiana law even includes a provision that you can sign an affidavit saying you can't get an ID in lieu of actually providing an ID. Between that and providing them for free, I don't really see what the big problem is with this unless you're really not interested in election integrity and voter confidence.

Well, we're on page 19 of this thread, and there were other threads before this one. Plenty of stuff has been linked previously. I don't think folks are being too lazy to provide them, it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. And I think that the conventional wisdom is strengthened by the fact that Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly against these laws and Republican politicians overwhelmingly favor them. I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

 

[Christo]

Why do people think "valid" methods of authentication include a Costco card or "my word"?

We accept that under the penalty of perjury in legal matters all the time. You think sneaking in 1 extra vote to tip the scales is that much more consequential?

Has nothing to do with degree to me. I don't care if it's 1 or 100 votes. It's the concept I find dumb especially given all the shenanigans in our political system.

The "concept" is what we currently use in trials, affidavits, filing your taxes, and any number of other things. We believe that perjury and attestation mean something. Committing voter fraud isn't particularly different because committing fraud in general isn't particularly different. What prevents people from doing it is that it carries a fairly serious legal liability.

There's a second level of trustworthiness in court. An officer of the court is vouching for the truthfulness of the identity as well.

 

[The Commish]

Good Luck DrJ. That's about all I can say. Ray's good people. You're wasting your time with Matthias. Go long enough and he'll put you on ignore, so you can watch from afar

Matthias and I are pretty much in lockstep on this issue so I'm not sure where this comes from. But thanks I guess.

Your views may be the same, but your approaches and attitudes aren't. He doesn't care what's put in front of him. It's not an issue to him, period. You at least look at the things that others post and take them for what they are. There's a difference.

 

[DrJ]

I agree, it's definitely inconclusive. We simply don't have enough data to draw any conclusions on at this point - but what little data we do have does seem to disagree with the idea that there will be a strong correlation between voter turnout and these ID laws.On your side of the argument, I admit that most surveys seem to indicate that Democrat voters are more likely to be "impacted" by this. I saw one that referenced Indiana specifically that shows that the poor, blacks, elderly etc are slightly more likely to not have these forms of ID. I didn't link it, I was trying to see if any on your side would actually go through the effort to do so rather than be silly about the numbers I provided. The outcome has been a little funny to me. But the end result just doesn't seem to bear out that they are actually impacted - more theoretically. It's also worth noting that the Indiana law even includes a provision that you can sign an affidavit saying you can't get an ID in lieu of actually providing an ID. Between that and providing them for free, I don't really see what the big problem is with this unless you're really not interested in election integrity and voter confidence.

Well, we're on page 19 of this thread, and there were other threads before this one. Plenty of stuff has been linked previously. I don't think folks are being too lazy to provide them, it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. And I think that the conventional wisdom is strengthened by the fact that Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly against these laws and Republican politicians overwhelmingly favor them. I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Voter confidence is a term that the supreme court explicitly used in their ruling - and ties into verifiable election integrity.One could also use that same conventional wisdom to suggest Democrats favor voter fraud while Republicans don't.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place. You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows everyone, it's going to be virtually impossible for them to determine a crime is actually taking place IMO. My experience voting in these last primaries is that I could have said I was whoever I felt like. They didn't have me sign anything - they just asked my name and address. If you live in a big city and people don't know who you are, it's going to be a pretty simple process and nearly impossible to bust you on.

Right, the chances of catching any particular individual doing this one time are probably low. But if lots of people were doing it repeatedly, it seems likely we would see some arrests. And even if we didn't catch the specific guy doing it, it seems like there would be a lot more stories of "some guy impersonated me at the polls" or "some guy impersonated my dead husband at the polls."

 

[The Commish]

I agree, it's definitely inconclusive. We simply don't have enough data to draw any conclusions on at this point - but what little data we do have does seem to disagree with the idea that there will be a strong correlation between voter turnout and these ID laws.

On your side of the argument, I admit that most surveys seem to indicate that Democrat voters are more likely to be "impacted" by this. I saw one that referenced Indiana specifically that shows that the poor, blacks, elderly etc are slightly more likely to not have these forms of ID. I didn't link it, I was trying to see if any on your side would actually go through the effort to do so rather than be silly about the numbers I provided. The outcome has been a little funny to me. But the end result just doesn't seem to bear out that they are actually impacted - more theoretically.

It's also worth noting that the Indiana law even includes a provision that you can sign an affidavit saying you can't get an ID in lieu of actually providing an ID. Between that and providing them for free, I don't really see what the big problem is with this unless you're really not interested in election integrity and voter confidence.

Well, we're on page 19 of this thread, and there were other threads before this one. Plenty of stuff has been linked previously. I don't think folks are being too lazy to provide them, it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. And I think that the conventional wisdom is strengthened by the fact that Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly against these laws and Republican politicians overwhelmingly favor them. I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Would your attitude change when a major problem arose?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Voter confidence is a term that the supreme court explicitly used in their ruling - and ties into verifiable election integrity.One could also use that same conventional wisdom to suggest Democrats favor voter fraud while Republicans don't.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much stock to put in the "voter confidence" interest. It seems pretty wishy-washy.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Would your attitude change when a major problem arose?

I guess it depends on the nature of the problem, but sure, if I were ever to actually believe that lots of people were going to the polls and voting under fake names, I would be more concerned about it. I would still try to find a solution that seemed less likely to depress legal voter turnout, such as the digital photos or fingerprints that were discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[DrJ]

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place.

You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows everyone, it's going to be virtually impossible for them to determine a crime is actually taking place IMO. My experience voting in these last primaries is that I could have said I was whoever I felt like. They didn't have me sign anything - they just asked my name and address. If you live in a big city and people don't know who you are, it's going to be a pretty simple process and nearly impossible to bust you on.

Right, the chances of catching any particular individual doing this one time are probably low. But if lots of people were doing it repeatedly, it seems likely we would see some arrests. And even if we didn't catch the specific guy doing it, it seems like there would be a lot more stories of "some guy impersonated me at the polls" or "some guy impersonated my dead husband at the polls."

It does appear that there are numerous convictions that do happen. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html

Minnesota Majority today released a report on voter fraud convictions to date stemming from Minnesota's 2008 general election. The report finds that 113 individuals who voted illegally in the 2008 election have been convicted of the crime, "ineligible voter knowingly votes" under Minnesota Statute 201.014.

"As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years," said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, "Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions."

The highest number of convictions ever recorded in the United States came from the 1936 Jackson County, Missouri elections in which 259 individuals were convicted of voter fraud. A more recent five-year probe by the United States Department of Justice identified just 53 convictions for voter fraud nationwide.

"It's mind-boggling to me that as a tiny non-profit corporation, we netted more than double the number of convictions in one year than the US Department of Justice was able to find in five," said Davis.

Minnesota's recent charges and convictions stem from research initiated by Minnesota Majority. The research identified upwards of 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota's 2008 general election.

"These convictions are just the tip of the iceberg," said Davis. "The actual number of illegal votes cast was in the thousands. Most unlawful voters were never charged with a crime because they simply pled ignorance. We have evidence of these people casting illegal ballots, but in Minnesota, ignorance of election law is considered to be an acceptable defense."

At the time of this report, nearly 200 additional cases are still pending trial. But time is running out for any additional cases to be prosecuted. The statute of limitations on election crimes is three years, and will expire for the 2008 election this November. Anyone who county attorneys have not charged by then will go free.

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses."

Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.

"This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable," said Davis. "You shouldn't be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens."

Investigations of voter fraud are also now underway from Minnesota's 2010 election.

Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bGCZ)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1From that link:

"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls.

Given how difficult it probably is to prove some instances, there is likely more that happens than this. And all we need to cut down on or eliminate this are some simple measures recommended by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform.

 

[DrJ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Would your attitude change when a major problem arose?

I guess it depends on the nature of the problem, but sure, if I were ever to actually believe that lots of people were going to the polls and voting under fake names, I would be more concerned about it. I would still try to find a solution that seemed less likely to depress legal voter turnout, such as the digital photos or fingerprints that were discussed earlier in the thread.

What's the difference between digital photos and a photo ID? Someone still has to take the steps to get their fingerprint or photo taken.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Would your attitude change when a major problem arose?

I guess it depends on the nature of the problem, but sure, if I were ever to actually believe that lots of people were going to the polls and voting under fake names, I would be more concerned about it. I would still try to find a solution that seemed less likely to depress legal voter turnout, such as the digital photos or fingerprints that were discussed earlier in the thread.

So really, the only difference between you and I on this is that I want to fix it before something happens. And the more I read about this and where technology's going, I'd be 100% fine with fingerprints. Bio metrics are more secure than anything. If we are honest with ourselves there is more security around a person renting a piece of equipment at Home Depot or trying to get into Disney World than there is around our election process. I have a problem with that.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Would your attitude change when a major problem arose?

I guess it depends on the nature of the problem, but sure, if I were ever to actually believe that lots of people were going to the polls and voting under fake names, I would be more concerned about it. I would still try to find a solution that seemed less likely to depress legal voter turnout, such as the digital photos or fingerprints that were discussed earlier in the thread.

What's the difference between digital photos and a photo ID? Someone still has to take the steps to get their fingerprint or photo taken.

The photo or fingerprint would be taken when you showed up to vote. You wouldn't have to do anything in advance.

 

[RCon]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

"Hi, I'm Joe Blow.""Cool, I'm a volunteer that only knows about 12 people in the whole town, and fewer than 10% of the voters actually vote in non-POTUS elections, so can't see any reason why you aren't Joe Blow."

 

[DrJ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "voter confidence." I am interested in election integrity but I don't think these laws do much to help that. I'm also interested in making it easy for people to legally vote and these laws work against that interest.

Would your attitude change when a major problem arose?

I guess it depends on the nature of the problem, but sure, if I were ever to actually believe that lots of people were going to the polls and voting under fake names, I would be more concerned about it. I would still try to find a solution that seemed less likely to depress legal voter turnout, such as the digital photos or fingerprints that were discussed earlier in the thread.

What's the difference between digital photos and a photo ID? Someone still has to take the steps to get their fingerprint or photo taken.

The photo or fingerprint would be taken when you showed up to vote. You wouldn't have to do anything in advance.

A system of making it a bit easier to find fraudulant votes after the fact seems clearly inferior to one that identifies them before they are cast if you're actually looking to prevent fraud. Especially if "ignorance of the law" is a viable defense in some places.

 

[DrJ]

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place.

You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows everyone, it's going to be virtually impossible for them to determine a crime is actually taking place IMO. My experience voting in these last primaries is that I could have said I was whoever I felt like. They didn't have me sign anything - they just asked my name and address. If you live in a big city and people don't know who you are, it's going to be a pretty simple process and nearly impossible to bust you on.

Right, the chances of catching any particular individual doing this one time are probably low. But if lots of people were doing it repeatedly, it seems likely we would see some arrests. And even if we didn't catch the specific guy doing it, it seems like there would be a lot more stories of "some guy impersonated me at the polls" or "some guy impersonated my dead husband at the polls."

It does appear that there are numerous convictions that do happen. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html

Minnesota Majority today released a report on voter fraud convictions to date stemming from Minnesota's 2008 general election. The report finds that 113 individuals who voted illegally in the 2008 election have been convicted of the crime, "ineligible voter knowingly votes" under Minnesota Statute 201.014.

"As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years," said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, "Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions."

The highest number of convictions ever recorded in the United States came from the 1936 Jackson County, Missouri elections in which 259 individuals were convicted of voter fraud. A more recent five-year probe by the United States Department of Justice identified just 53 convictions for voter fraud nationwide.

"It's mind-boggling to me that as a tiny non-profit corporation, we netted more than double the number of convictions in one year than the US Department of Justice was able to find in five," said Davis.

Minnesota's recent charges and convictions stem from research initiated by Minnesota Majority. The research identified upwards of 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota's 2008 general election.

"These convictions are just the tip of the iceberg," said Davis. "The actual number of illegal votes cast was in the thousands. Most unlawful voters were never charged with a crime because they simply pled ignorance. We have evidence of these people casting illegal ballots, but in Minnesota, ignorance of election law is considered to be an acceptable defense."

At the time of this report, nearly 200 additional cases are still pending trial. But time is running out for any additional cases to be prosecuted. The statute of limitations on election crimes is three years, and will expire for the 2008 election this November. Anyone who county attorneys have not charged by then will go free.

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses."

Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.

"This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable," said Davis. "You shouldn't be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens."

Investigations of voter fraud are also now underway from Minnesota's 2010 election.

Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bGCZ)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1From that link:

"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls.

Given how difficult it probably is to prove some instances, there is likely more that happens than this. And all we need to cut down on or eliminate this are some simple measures recommended by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform.

Here's the problem.People on the ID side of the issue always go to dig up instances of voter fraud to point and say, "See!!$@! It happens!!!" and then just blithely ignore the fact that the voter fraud that they "found" would not have been prevented by the IDs which they're lobbying for at all.

Illegal votes cast by felons are weak sauce, btw. The rules governing when they lose the vote, when they regain it, and whether they're even aware if they're restricted from voting are fairly complex and uncertain.

Why would we not want to prevent or reduce crimes we are aware are being commited?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place.

You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows everyone, it's going to be virtually impossible for them to determine a crime is actually taking place IMO. My experience voting in these last primaries is that I could have said I was whoever I felt like. They didn't have me sign anything - they just asked my name and address. If you live in a big city and people don't know who you are, it's going to be a pretty simple process and nearly impossible to bust you on.

Right, the chances of catching any particular individual doing this one time are probably low. But if lots of people were doing it repeatedly, it seems likely we would see some arrests. And even if we didn't catch the specific guy doing it, it seems like there would be a lot more stories of "some guy impersonated me at the polls" or "some guy impersonated my dead husband at the polls."

It does appear that there are numerous convictions that do happen. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html

Minnesota Majority today released a report on voter fraud convictions to date stemming from Minnesota's 2008 general election. The report finds that 113 individuals who voted illegally in the 2008 election have been convicted of the crime, "ineligible voter knowingly votes" under Minnesota Statute 201.014.

"As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years," said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, "Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions."

The highest number of convictions ever recorded in the United States came from the 1936 Jackson County, Missouri elections in which 259 individuals were convicted of voter fraud. A more recent five-year probe by the United States Department of Justice identified just 53 convictions for voter fraud nationwide.

"It's mind-boggling to me that as a tiny non-profit corporation, we netted more than double the number of convictions in one year than the US Department of Justice was able to find in five," said Davis.

Minnesota's recent charges and convictions stem from research initiated by Minnesota Majority. The research identified upwards of 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota's 2008 general election.

"These convictions are just the tip of the iceberg," said Davis. "The actual number of illegal votes cast was in the thousands. Most unlawful voters were never charged with a crime because they simply pled ignorance. We have evidence of these people casting illegal ballots, but in Minnesota, ignorance of election law is considered to be an acceptable defense."

At the time of this report, nearly 200 additional cases are still pending trial. But time is running out for any additional cases to be prosecuted. The statute of limitations on election crimes is three years, and will expire for the 2008 election this November. Anyone who county attorneys have not charged by then will go free.

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses."

Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.

"This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable," said Davis. "You shouldn't be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens."

Investigations of voter fraud are also now underway from Minnesota's 2010 election.

Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bGCZ)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1From that link:

"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls.

Given how difficult it probably is to prove some instances, there is likely more that happens than this. And all we need to cut down on or eliminate this are some simple measures recommended by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform.

The first link doesn't say how many, if any, of the people arrested said they were somebody else. An ID requirement doesn't prevent an ineligible voter from voting if his name is on the list.The second link from the Texas Attorney General does refer to convictions for "a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, [and] a political operative who cast ballots for two people." But it doesn't say whether these votes were at the polls or absentee. If they were absentee votes, then an ID requirement would not have helped here.

According to other sources on the internet, there were fewer than 5 complaints in Texas over the past three years, and there's no record of anybody getting convicted. Hasen blog.

 

[DrJ]

Here's the problem.People on the ID side of the issue always go to dig up instances of voter fraud to point and say, "See!!$@! It happens!!!" and then just blithely ignore the fact that the voter fraud that they "found" would not have been prevented by the IDs which they're lobbying for at all.Illegal votes cast by felons are weak sauce, btw. The rules governing when they lose the vote, when they regain it, and whether they're even aware if they're restricted from voting are fairly complex and uncertain.

Why would we not want to prevent or reduce crimes we are aware are being commited?

When you see a building on fire, do you say, "We need to buy more F-14s" or do you consider ways in which you address the thing that is actually going wrong.

That's about the most ridiculous analogy possible. Explain its relevance.

 

[DrJ]

If somebody working at the polls thought a crime was taking place, he could notify authorities. Often there are cops already at the polling place.

You asked for a way that someone might get caught impersonating a voter. We gave you two. We're not saying that every person that tries this would get caught. Just like every person that robs a bank doesn't get caught.

Unless you live in a small town where everyone knows everyone, it's going to be virtually impossible for them to determine a crime is actually taking place IMO. My experience voting in these last primaries is that I could have said I was whoever I felt like. They didn't have me sign anything - they just asked my name and address. If you live in a big city and people don't know who you are, it's going to be a pretty simple process and nearly impossible to bust you on.

Right, the chances of catching any particular individual doing this one time are probably low. But if lots of people were doing it repeatedly, it seems likely we would see some arrests. And even if we didn't catch the specific guy doing it, it seems like there would be a lot more stories of "some guy impersonated me at the polls" or "some guy impersonated my dead husband at the polls."

It does appear that there are numerous convictions that do happen. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html

Minnesota Majority today released a report on voter fraud convictions to date stemming from Minnesota's 2008 general election. The report finds that 113 individuals who voted illegally in the 2008 election have been convicted of the crime, "ineligible voter knowingly votes" under Minnesota Statute 201.014.

"As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years," said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, "Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions."

The highest number of convictions ever recorded in the United States came from the 1936 Jackson County, Missouri elections in which 259 individuals were convicted of voter fraud. A more recent five-year probe by the United States Department of Justice identified just 53 convictions for voter fraud nationwide.

"It's mind-boggling to me that as a tiny non-profit corporation, we netted more than double the number of convictions in one year than the US Department of Justice was able to find in five," said Davis.

Minnesota's recent charges and convictions stem from research initiated by Minnesota Majority. The research identified upwards of 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota's 2008 general election.

"These convictions are just the tip of the iceberg," said Davis. "The actual number of illegal votes cast was in the thousands. Most unlawful voters were never charged with a crime because they simply pled ignorance. We have evidence of these people casting illegal ballots, but in Minnesota, ignorance of election law is considered to be an acceptable defense."

At the time of this report, nearly 200 additional cases are still pending trial. But time is running out for any additional cases to be prosecuted. The statute of limitations on election crimes is three years, and will expire for the 2008 election this November. Anyone who county attorneys have not charged by then will go free.

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses."

Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.

"This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable," said Davis. "You shouldn't be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens."

Investigations of voter fraud are also now underway from Minnesota's 2010 election.

Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bGCZ)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1From that link:

"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls.

Given how difficult it probably is to prove some instances, there is likely more that happens than this. And all we need to cut down on or eliminate this are some simple measures recommended by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform.

The first link doesn't say how many, if any, of the people arrested said they were somebody else. An ID requirement doesn't prevent an ineligible voter from voting if his name is on the list.The second link from the Texas Attorney General does refer to convictions for "a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, [and] a political operative who cast ballots for two people." But it doesn't say whether these votes were at the polls or absentee. If they were absentee votes, then an ID requirement would not have helped here.

According to other sources on the internet, there were fewer than 5 complaints in Texas over the past three years, and there's no record of anybody getting convicted. Hasen blog.

It does seem like the vast majority of them were created by them attempting to make it "easier to vote" and letting people register to vote that same day. I'd say that fact kind of illustrates some of the issues with the "making it easier for everyone to vote" tact. I guess the question is where is the line.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What's the difference between digital photos and a photo ID? Someone still has to take the steps to get their fingerprint or photo taken.

The photo or fingerprint would be taken when you showed up to vote. You wouldn't have to do anything in advance.

A system of making it a bit easier to find fraudulant votes after the fact seems clearly inferior to one that identifies them before they are cast if you're actually looking to prevent fraud. Especially if "ignorance of the law" is a viable defense in some places.

Well, as a bunch of us have argued in this thread, we're skeptical that many people do this because of the risk/reward involved. If you make the risk even greater by making it easy to find fraudulent votes after the fact, even fewer people would try it.In taking into account whether one solution is "inferior" to another, I think you need to look at all the relevant factors. I'm not sure that a law that forces thousands of people to be inconvenienced is superior, especially if its benefits are very small.

 

[DrJ]

Here's the problem.People on the ID side of the issue always go to dig up instances of voter fraud to point and say, "See!!$@! It happens!!!" and then just blithely ignore the fact that the voter fraud that they "found" would not have been prevented by the IDs which they're lobbying for at all.Illegal votes cast by felons are weak sauce, btw. The rules governing when they lose the vote, when they regain it, and whether they're even aware if they're restricted from voting are fairly complex and uncertain.

Why would we not want to prevent or reduce crimes we are aware are being commited?

When you see a building on fire, do you say, "We need to buy more F-14s" or do you consider ways in which you address the thing that is actually going wrong.

That's about the most ridiculous analogy possible. Explain its relevance.

The most ridiculous thing possible is perfectly apt for describing people using cases of voter confusion/fraud that would never be prevented and have nothing to do with voter identification at the polls as a rationale to justify requiring them.

So you aren't going for credible. All good, just checking.

 

[DrJ]

What's the difference between digital photos and a photo ID? Someone still has to take the steps to get their fingerprint or photo taken.

The photo or fingerprint would be taken when you showed up to vote. You wouldn't have to do anything in advance.

A system of making it a bit easier to find fraudulant votes after the fact seems clearly inferior to one that identifies them before they are cast if you're actually looking to prevent fraud. Especially if "ignorance of the law" is a viable defense in some places.

Well, as a bunch of us have argued in this thread, we're skeptical that many people do this because of the risk/reward involved. If you make the risk even greater by making it easy to find fraudulent votes after the fact, even fewer people would try it.In taking into account whether one solution is "inferior" to another, I think you need to look at all the relevant factors. I'm not sure that a law that forces thousands of people to be inconvenienced is superior, especially if its benefits are very small.

Given how hard it is to find and convict on these cases, it's reasonable to assume we're only getting a small fraction of them. It's difficult for either side to establish how rampant this is or isn't. But we do know it is occuring, and is preventable in most instances.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

If only there was some way to ascertain which guy was really Joe Blow instead of going by the first-come-first-served method.

 

[The Commish]

I warned you DrJ You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Well, as a bunch of us have argued in this thread, we're skeptical that many people do this because of the risk/reward involved. If you make the risk even greater by making it easy to find fraudulent votes after the fact, even fewer people would try it.In taking into account whether one solution is "inferior" to another, I think you need to look at all the relevant factors. I'm not sure that a law that forces thousands of people to be inconvenienced is superior, especially if its benefits are very small.

Given how hard it is to find and convict on these cases, it's reasonable to assume we're only getting a small fraction of them. It's difficult for either side to establish how rampant this is or isn't. But we do know it is occuring, and is preventable in most instances.

I don't think it would be THAT hard to find and convict in these cases. People actually go out and vote in public, with other people around. It seems like this sort of crime would be easier to catch than a lot of other crimes. It isn't exactly a sophisticated scheme.And I guess I'd quibble with your assertion that "we do know it is occuring." It doesn't seem like we're finding anybody doing this. You guys keep putting up links about people voting illegally because they're felons, or registering illegally, etc. I'm not sure if we've seen any good evidence yet of somebody going to the polls and voting under a fake name.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, Joe Blow already voted."

If only there was some way to ascertain which guy was really Joe Blow instead of going by the first-come-first-served method...

... that didn't radically do more damage than the problem which is being presented? I agree.

You're the one who came up with the hypothetical. The exact situation that you've imagined is solved in 10 seconds with an ID but is a mess to handle otherwise. In other words, your hypo argues in favor of voter IDs, not against them.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You're the one who came up with the hypothetical. The exact situation that you've imagined is solved in 10 seconds with an ID but is a mess to handle otherwise. In other words, your hypo argues in favor of voter IDs, not against them.

That's not really what happened if you read through the whole nested quote. Parasaurolophus asked how it might happen that we would ever find out about this sort of fraud in the absence of an ID requirement. Matthias gave one example.

 

[RCon]

Everywhere I've ever voted, they register that I've passed through and match my signature against what I submit when I register. But I was ignoring the signature part; the people at the precinct would know that me or someone claiming to me has already passed through.

I've voted in a lot of locations. Only one ever required a signature, and at that one, the signature to which mine would be matched was displayed on the page while I signed.But anyway, if we're talking about non-POTUS elections, and the would-be-fraudster votes early in the day, the chances of the actual voter having already voted are extremely small. The chances of the pollster knowing the person are obviously dependent on the location and makeup of the town. I've never known any of the pollsters.

 

[The Commish]

You're the one who came up with the hypothetical. The exact situation that you've imagined is solved in 10 seconds with an ID but is a mess to handle otherwise. In other words, your hypo argues in favor of voter IDs, not against them.

That's not really what happened if you read through the whole nested quote. Parasaurolophus asked how it might happen that we would ever find out about this sort of fraud in the absence of an ID requirement. Matthias gave one example.

His example gives us how we could find out that fraud actually happened. Not how one would get caught necessarily. If someone comes in and votes as me and I have the very conversation with the dude at the voting booth, all that's established is the fact that my name was used by someone other than me. That person wasn't caught. They're long gone by the time I get there.

 

[DrJ]

I warned you DrJ You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You're the one who came up with the hypothetical. The exact situation that you've imagined is solved in 10 seconds with an ID but is a mess to handle otherwise. In other words, your hypo argues in favor of voter IDs, not against them.

That's not really what happened if you read through the whole nested quote. Parasaurolophus asked how it might happen that we would ever find out about this sort of fraud in the absence of an ID requirement. Matthias gave one example.

His example gives us how we could find out that fraud actually happened. Not how one would get caught necessarily. If someone comes in and votes as me and I have the very conversation with the dude at the voting booth, all that's established is the fact that my name was used by someone other than me. That person wasn't caught. They're long gone by the time I get there.

We would still know about the fraud, we just wouldn't know who the perpetrator was. We don't seem to have any evidence of this type either.

 

[The Commish]

You're the one who came up with the hypothetical. The exact situation that you've imagined is solved in 10 seconds with an ID but is a mess to handle otherwise. In other words, your hypo argues in favor of voter IDs, not against them.

That's not really what happened if you read through the whole nested quote. Parasaurolophus asked how it might happen that we would ever find out about this sort of fraud in the absence of an ID requirement. Matthias gave one example.

His example gives us how we could find out that fraud actually happened. Not how one would get caught necessarily. If someone comes in and votes as me and I have the very conversation with the dude at the voting booth, all that's established is the fact that my name was used by someone other than me. That person wasn't caught. They're long gone by the time I get there.

We would still know about the fraud, we just wouldn't know who the perpetrator was. We don't seem to have any evidence of this type either.

Agreed....just wanted to make sure the assertions were kept straight. I know I'm on his ignore, but what he presented is not necessarily a way to "catch" anyone, so DrJ's question lives on. If we don't have measures in place to track this type of fraud how do we know this isn't happening? How would it get caught other than dumb luck?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

We would still know about the fraud, we just wouldn't know who the perpetrator was. We don't seem to have any evidence of this type either.

Agreed....just wanted to make sure the assertions were kept straight. I know I'm on his ignore, but what he presented is not necessarily a way to "catch" anyone, so DrJ's question lives on. If we don't have measures in place to track this type of fraud how do we know this isn't happening? How would it get caught other than dumb luck?

Well, I think the debate we're having right now is about how often this actually happens. For purposes of that debate, information about people showing up and being told they've already voted would be good evidence that this is taking place. For the purpose of figuring out how much this happens, it doesn't matter if we actually catch the bad guy or not. There's no real luck involved with that -- if two different people show up and try to vote using the same name, we will know that this is happening.Yes, actually catching someone doing this in the absence of an ID requirement would probably require some sort of luck. But that's true of virtually every crime. Sometimes people get away with breaking the law.

 

[RCon]

Everywhere I've ever voted, they register that I've passed through and match my signature against what I submit when I register. But I was ignoring the signature part; the people at the precinct would know that me or someone claiming to me has already passed through.

I've voted in a lot of locations. Only one ever required a signature, and at that one, the signature to which mine would be matched was displayed on the page while I signed.But anyway, if we're talking about non-POTUS elections, and the would-be-fraudster votes early in the day, the chances of the actual voter having already voted are extremely small. The chances of the pollster knowing the person are obviously dependent on the location and makeup of the town. I've never known any of the pollsters.

The question was how would we ever know if someone was doing this. And the answer is voting locations do keep track of who passes through. If someone passes through before you or after you and uses your name, they'll know about it. Given the hyper-sensitivity to this issue the past couple of election cycles, I'm sure WE would then hear about it.We don't.

You're right, there are two different things here. Whether we're trying to identify that a crime has occurred or whether we're trying to catch someone who commits a crime. I thought we were trying to catch the perpetrator.In just trying to know that a crime has occurred, it's still fairly unlikely in most non-POTUS elections. For instance, referendums or town budget elections in my location typically have 5-10% turnout.