Should voters be required to show ID?

[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."

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.

My hypothetical was to answer the question of, "How would this ever be caught" and the answer is, among other ways, like this. But how many reports like this do you hear about? ZERO.

Your hypothetical didnt really answer the question.You still havent explained how they get caught.

 

[The Commish]

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.

Fair enough....can you explain why frequency matters to you? Why isn't it good enough that the potential exists?

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

Fair enough....can you explain why frequency matters to you? Why isn't it good enough that the potential exists?

Because he is a democrat.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

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.

Fair enough....can you explain why frequency matters to you? Why isn't it good enough that the potential exists?

Because I think that the benefits of the law need to be weighed against the cost. If only a handful of people ever do this, I don't think it makes sense to impose burdens on thousands of other people who don't have IDs.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

 

[The Commish]

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.

Fair enough....can you explain why frequency matters to you? Why isn't it good enough that the potential exists?

Because I think that the benefits of the law need to be weighed against the cost. If only a handful of people ever do this, I don't think it makes sense to impose burdens on thousands of other people who don't have IDs.

What about if we use the finger prints at the polling site? No burden there right?ETA: I'll be the first to admit, I don't think there is any cost you could put on our election process that I would say "that's too expensive to do". I hold the process in pretty high regard. Perhaps I'm not like most. I don't know.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So for everyone concerned about security, we should prohibit absentee voting, right?

I think people who want to cast an absentee ballot should have to show an ID when they fill out a request for one.

 

[RCon]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

 

[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.

Politifact analyzed the claim of some guy I haven't the slightest clue on that indicated there were 50 convictions in Texas. It indicated that there is a number of convictions higher than 5 that occurred in that state. And numerous others that were classified as "Deferred adjudication" which means the following according to the link:

In deferred adjudication, Kepple said, the defendant pleads guilty, and then "the court defers any finding of guilt and places you on probation or community supervision." If the terms are met, the case is dismissed -- but it remains on the defendant’s record, he said.

Another notable quote:

We also asked how many election fraud cases had been referred to the attorney general’s office since 2002. Abbott’s list shows 311 accusations of election fraud spanning 2002-12. The 57 investigations we’re checking represent only those cases that were both prosecuted and resolved.

Six of the prosecutions ended in dismissal or acquittal, Strickland told us by telephone, leaving 51 prosecutions that resulted in convictions.

By our analysis, three-quarters of the cases involved election code violations classified as "illegal voting" -- which includes acts such as voting more than once, impersonating a voter or voting despite ineligibility -- and "method of returning marked ballot," often meaning the defendant was accused of having someone else’s ballot.

Now in defense of your point we have the following quote:

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list. Whether voter impersonation is a standing problem has been a hot button in the state’s legislative debates over proposed voter ID laws in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011; Austin American-Statesman news stories say legislators mostly split along party lines, with Democrats claiming impersonation is rare and Republicans claiming the problem is significant. Abbott drew criticism in 2006 for creating a special unit to target voter fraud that by mid-2008 had yielded, according to a May 19, 2008, Associated Press news story, only 26 prosecutions.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/17/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-claims-50-election-fraud-convictions-2/

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

Wait, so telling a bunch of other people the plan is a good way not to get caught doing something illegal? Gotta write that down in my handbook for when I turn to a life of crime.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Politifact analyzed the claim of some guy I haven't the slighted clue on that indicated there were 50 convictions in Texas. It indicated that there is a number of convictions higher than 5 that occurred in that state. And numerous others that were classified as "Deferred adjudication" which means the following according to the link:

In deferred adjudication, Kepple said, the defendant pleads guilty, and then "the court defers any finding of guilt and places you on probation or community supervision." If the terms are met, the case is dismissed -- but it remains on the defendant’s record, he said.

Another notable quote:

By our analysis, three-quarters of the cases involved election code violations classified as "illegal voting" -- which includes acts such as voting more than once, impersonating a voter or voting despite ineligibility -- and "method of returning marked ballot," often meaning the defendant was accused of having someone else’s ballot.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/17/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-claims-50-election-fraud-convictions-2/

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list.

 

[The Commish]

So for everyone concerned about security, we should prohibit absentee voting, right?

I think people who want to cast an absentee ballot should have to show an ID when they fill out a request for one.

This is another situation where finger prints would be a perfect fit. It's official....screw voter ID cards....it should be finger prints.

 

[DrJ]

Politifact analyzed the claim of some guy I haven't the slighted clue on that indicated there were 50 convictions in Texas. It indicated that there is a number of convictions higher than 5 that occurred in that state. And numerous others that were classified as "Deferred adjudication" which means the following according to the link:

In deferred adjudication, Kepple said, the defendant pleads guilty, and then "the court defers any finding of guilt and places you on probation or community supervision." If the terms are met, the case is dismissed -- but it remains on the defendant’s record, he said.

Another notable quote:

By our analysis, three-quarters of the cases involved election code violations classified as "illegal voting" -- which includes acts such as voting more than once, impersonating a voter or voting despite ineligibility -- and "method of returning marked ballot," often meaning the defendant was accused of having someone else’s ballot.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/17/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-claims-50-election-fraud-convictions-2/

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list.

Yeah, I edited it and added that point. Unlike some of the partisan hacks around here (you), I'm not going to ignore such evidence.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

So you're suggesting a voter fraud conspiracy ... in which nobody gets caught and nobody decides this plot is wrong and blows the whistle. And in which no participant has any idea if the organized fraud they're participating in will change the result of the election. And I assume these people are all normally law-abiding citizens who decide to become criminals to cast an extra vote. Sounds like a great plan.Paranoid vote fraud conspiracists live in the kind of world where nonsense like this seems like a foolproof idea.

 

[DrJ]

Politifact analyzed the claim of some guy I haven't the slighted clue on that indicated there were 50 convictions in Texas. It indicated that there is a number of convictions higher than 5 that occurred in that state. And numerous others that were classified as "Deferred adjudication" which means the following according to the link:

In deferred adjudication, Kepple said, the defendant pleads guilty, and then "the court defers any finding of guilt and places you on probation or community supervision." If the terms are met, the case is dismissed -- but it remains on the defendant’s record, he said.

Another notable quote:

By our analysis, three-quarters of the cases involved election code violations classified as "illegal voting" -- which includes acts such as voting more than once, impersonating a voter or voting despite ineligibility -- and "method of returning marked ballot," often meaning the defendant was accused of having someone else’s ballot.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/17/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-claims-50-election-fraud-convictions-2/

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list.

Still, we have 311 overall claims and 51 convictions. That sure seems greater than the "5 complaints" your article is referencing.It's also notable that the government sucks at doing this, as the earlier report on Minnesota's voting that was done by a non profit alluded to.

 

[DrJ]

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.

Since you're incapable....

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.

Small sample size. First black president nominee. Does not analyze the Republican/Democratic voters by race.

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.

Same problems as above. Also does not look at demographic changes in the state by race. What ratio of eligible and registered voters did the black population comprise now versus 2004? Why use 2004 as a baseline?

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.

Similar? How similar? What were the previous levels? 35% to 37.25? 50% to 50.25?

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.

Again, small sample size. And what does he think he is proving looking at 2008 voter turnout numbers for laws which were tied up in the courts through 2010?!?!

Lastly, linear cherry-picked comparisons, "X% for this state versus Y% for this state" is pretty much the most BS way you can do any sort of analysis. Linear regressions looking at large data samples and all states, controlling for different other extrinsic variables, is how to do it.

Bump for BaristaJ

Your arguments suck. Next.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list.

Still, we have 311 overall claims and 51 convictions. That sure seems greater than the "5 complaints" your article is referencing.

This is why Matthias gets so frustrated. We're just discussing whether voters should show ID at the voting booth. The only type of fraud relevant to that question is the type that might be prevented by an ID requirement -- namely, "voter impersonation." If Joe Schmo isn't supposed to vote, but he shows up at the polls anyway and votes under his own name, that doesn't help shed light on the question we're asking.

 

[RCon]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

Wait, so telling a bunch of other people the plan is a good way not to get caught doing something illegal? Gotta write that down in my handbook for when I turn to a life of crime.

Are you suggesting that crimes are always committed by single individuals, and never by groups of people?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

Wait, so telling a bunch of other people the plan is a good way not to get caught doing something illegal? Gotta write that down in my handbook for when I turn to a life of crime.

Are you suggesting that crimes are always committed by single individuals, and never by groups of people?

No I am not. But as a general rule, the more people in a conspiracy, the greater likelihood that it gets uncovered.

 

[RCon]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

So you're suggesting a voter fraud conspiracy ... in which nobody gets caught and nobody decides this plot is wrong and blows the whistle. And in which no participant has any idea if the organized fraud they're participating in will change the result of the election. And I assume these people are all normally law-abiding citizens who decide to become criminals to cast an extra vote. Sounds like a great plan.Paranoid vote fraud conspiracists live in the kind of world where nonsense like this seems like a foolproof idea.

What I'm suggesting is that it would be easy to eliminate the possibility of the real Joe Blow coming along to vote after you had fraudulently voted in Joe Blow's name, if you knew that Joe Blow never shows up to vote. For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

Don't you and your neighbors all vote at the same place? You're gonna show up there five times in a day and give different names?

 

[RCon]

For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

Don't you and your neighbors all vote at the same place? You're gonna show up there five times in a day and give different names?

Doubt anyone would detect it, no. The pollsters aren't exactly high-paid detectives.But if it makes you happy, I know which of the guys in my bowling league generally bother to vote. They live farther away from me and vote at different locations.

 

[DrJ]

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list.

Still, we have 311 overall claims and 51 convictions. That sure seems greater than the "5 complaints" your article is referencing.

This is why Matthias gets so frustrated. We're just discussing whether voters should show ID at the voting booth. The only type of fraud relevant to that question is the type that might be prevented by an ID requirement -- namely, "voter impersonation." If Joe Schmo isn't supposed to vote, but he shows up at the polls anyway and votes under his own name, that doesn't help shed light on the question we're asking.

Matthias gets frustrated because he's a dolt. I'll definitely agree on the point that there's few recorded instances of that type of fraud occurring. But there are some, and the main point of the SCOTUS and even the bipartisan commission on this is that it's very possible for it to occur. From that commission's report:

Addressing the second concern, the Commission recommendation is for states to adopt safeguards that guarantee all Americans equal opportunity to obtain an ID required for voting. The safeguards include initiatives to locate those voters without IDs and to provide them one without cost. Under the recommendation, eligible voters can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if they present their photo ID within 48 hours. Far from discriminatory, a mandatory voter ID provides means by which more Americans may obtain the identification already required for daily functions -- such as cashing a check, entering a federal building, or boarding an airplane.

There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election.19 The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.

Second, to make sure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the "REAL ID card" or an equivalent for people without a drivers license. To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever. States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. In addition, we suggest procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. We also propose that voters who do not have a photo ID during a transitional period receive a provisional ballot that would be counted if their signature is verified.

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/report.html

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

So you're suggesting a voter fraud conspiracy ... in which nobody gets caught and nobody decides this plot is wrong and blows the whistle. And in which no participant has any idea if the organized fraud they're participating in will change the result of the election. And I assume these people are all normally law-abiding citizens who decide to become criminals to cast an extra vote. Sounds like a great plan.Paranoid vote fraud conspiracists live in the kind of world where nonsense like this seems like a foolproof idea.

What I'm suggesting is that it would be easy to eliminate the possibility of the real Joe Blow coming along to vote after you had fraudulently voted in Joe Blow's name, if you knew that Joe Blow never shows up to vote. For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

So how does this work? You call up your associate who votes at another polling place and give him the scoop. Tell him he can vote in your neighbor's name. And then when he stops laughing, what happens?

 

[DrJ]

Matthias gets frustrated because he's a dolt.

Good luck with that one.

Thanks.

 

[RCon]

For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

Don't you and your neighbors all vote at the same place? You're gonna show up there five times in a day and give different names?

Doubt anyone would detect it, no. The pollsters aren't exactly high-paid detectives.But if it makes you happy, I know which of the guys in my bowling league generally bother to vote. They live farther away from me and vote at different locations.

Also, you do realize how far out on the tinfoilhat branch you are at this point, right? You should do a quick reality check of your situation.

It's far out on a tinfoilhat to suggest that it would be a monumentally simple task to vote as another person without getting caught?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I don't have time to read the Jimmy Carter/James Baker thing right now but I'll try when I get a chance. Looks like ID requirements were one of 87 different proposals. How are we doing on the other ones?

 

[pantagrapher]

I do kind of wish we lived in a world where criminally minded people spent their time hatching plots to vote an extra time instead of committing actual, lucrative felonies.

 

[RCon]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

So you're suggesting a voter fraud conspiracy ... in which nobody gets caught and nobody decides this plot is wrong and blows the whistle. And in which no participant has any idea if the organized fraud they're participating in will change the result of the election. And I assume these people are all normally law-abiding citizens who decide to become criminals to cast an extra vote. Sounds like a great plan.Paranoid vote fraud conspiracists live in the kind of world where nonsense like this seems like a foolproof idea.

What I'm suggesting is that it would be easy to eliminate the possibility of the real Joe Blow coming along to vote after you had fraudulently voted in Joe Blow's name, if you knew that Joe Blow never shows up to vote. For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

So how does this work? You call up your associate who votes at another polling place and give him the scoop. Tell him he can vote in your neighbor's name. And then when he stops laughing, what happens?

I was thinking that I drive to eight different locations (all within a 30 minute drive) and vote as each. Or, in a midtown Manhattan location, I could just walk in the same location 15 times in a row. No one would notice.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm going to pretend to be Joe Blow so I can attempt to cast one extra vote. Felony, schmelony!

If one were so inclined to do this, it wouldn't be that difficult to organize a significant number of extra votes without being caught. All one would need is for the local registrar (or anyone else with access to lists of who had/hadn't voted in previous elections) to be in on and/or organizing the fraud. In many locations, the registrar position isn't exactly difficult to get. Then simply analyze last year's election, find a few dozen registered voters that didn't vote (and preferably, go back a few elections), and pass those names out to co-conspirators.

So you're suggesting a voter fraud conspiracy ... in which nobody gets caught and nobody decides this plot is wrong and blows the whistle. And in which no participant has any idea if the organized fraud they're participating in will change the result of the election. And I assume these people are all normally law-abiding citizens who decide to become criminals to cast an extra vote. Sounds like a great plan.Paranoid vote fraud conspiracists live in the kind of world where nonsense like this seems like a foolproof idea.

What I'm suggesting is that it would be easy to eliminate the possibility of the real Joe Blow coming along to vote after you had fraudulently voted in Joe Blow's name, if you knew that Joe Blow never shows up to vote. For a simpler example, how about this: I know which of my neighbors usually bother voting.

So how does this work? You call up your associate who votes at another polling place and give him the scoop. Tell him he can vote in your neighbor's name. And then when he stops laughing, what happens?

I was thinking that I drive to eight different locations (all within a 30 minute drive) and vote as each. Or, in a midtown Manhattan location, I could just walk in the same location 15 times in a row. No one would notice.

Yet you don't do this. Why not?

 

[RCon]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

 

[pantagrapher]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

It's possible for me to steal a car without detection. Yet I don't do it.

 

[RCon]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

It's possible for me to steal a car without detection. Yet I don't do it.

Well there you have it. We should get rid of car keys, door locks, and car alarms, and just put an on/off button in every car. No one will steal them when we leave them in the parking lot.ETA: And don't forget "The Club". They hardly sell any of those devices.

 

[DrJ]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

It's possible for me to steal a car without detection. Yet I don't do it.

We take reasonable steps to stop you from doing so - like installing door locks.

 

[RCon]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

It's possible to commit tax fraud (or aggressively shade the numbers). Virtually everyone I know who owns their business do so. That doesn't make it ideal or even reasonable to audit every single return. And unlike you and voting impersonation, I actually know people who do it. And I bet so do you.

In an attempt to get me to be inconsistent in my thinking, you seem to be attributing to me the idea that we shouldn't audit far more tax returns, if not all, than we actually do. I think we should audit nearly all tax returns, and I think the return on investment would probably pay for itself.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

It's possible for me to steal a car without detection. Yet I don't do it.

Good example. Most of us would never dream of stealing a car. Yet we still think it's prudent for car-makers to install door locks and key-based ignition systems.Edit: Damn. Everybody jumped all over that one.

 

[DrJ]

The point is pretty simple here. It is currently possible to vote as another person without detection. Anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally oblivious. With such simple methods available to plug this potential hole (and I already agreed to a different, compromise method upthread), I just can't fathom why anyone would argue against it.

It's possible to commit tax fraud (or aggressively shade the numbers). Virtually everyone I know who owns their business do so. That doesn't make it ideal or even reasonable to audit every single return. And unlike you and voting impersonation, I actually know people who do it. And I bet so do you.

Alright - we'll make the audits against people voting random. Every XXX person has to jump through hoops to provide complete records of who they are. With modifiers based on the person, like if you're a likely Democrat voter based on demographics we audit you more frequently.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Cars are worth a lot of money. That's why people steal them. I don't install a security system to protect the houseplants on my stoop.*

*I don't actually have any plants, but if I did I would just leave them outside.

 

[DrJ]

Cars are worth a lot of money. That's why people steal them. I don't install a security system to protect the houseplants on my stoop.**I don't actually have any plants, but if I did I would just leave them outside.

Winning elections is worth a lot of money.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Cars are worth a lot of money. That's why people steal them. I don't install a security system to protect the houseplants on my stoop.**I don't actually have any plants, but if I did I would just leave them outside.

Winning elections is worth a lot of money.

The likelihood that a single vote or even a few votes will swing an election is very very small.

 

[DrJ]

Cars are worth a lot of money. That's why people steal them. I don't install a security system to protect the houseplants on my stoop.**I don't actually have any plants, but if I did I would just leave them outside.

Winning elections is worth a lot of money.

The likelihood that a single vote or even a few votes will swing an election is very very small.

Depending on the election. Many local and state elections come down to very few votes.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The likelihood that a single vote or even a few votes will swing an election is very very small.

Depending on the election. Many local elections come down to very few votes.

What percentage of elections are decided by fewer than, say, ten votes?

 

[RCon]

Cars are worth a lot of money. That's why people steal them. I don't install a security system to protect the houseplants on my stoop.**I don't actually have any plants, but if I did I would just leave them outside.

Oh come on, even you have to admit, it was a poor example for him to choose in support of the "we don't need voter ID" side.

 

[DrJ]

The likelihood that a single vote or even a few votes will swing an election is very very small.

Depending on the election. Many local elections come down to very few votes.

What percentage of elections are decided by fewer than, say, ten votes?

That's a ridiculous number to attach to it as we're unable to establish the frequency of voting fraud.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The likelihood that a single vote or even a few votes will swing an election is very very small.

Depending on the election. Many local elections come down to very few votes.

What percentage of elections are decided by fewer than, say, ten votes?

That's a ridiculous number to attach to it as we're unable to establish the frequency of voting fraud.

I tried to be generous. Seems pretty unlikely that Rich Conway has more than 10 guys on his bowling team.

 

[RCon]

Couldn't we say that about cars too? Even if we didn't install door locks, alarms, etc., the likelihood that any particular car would be stolen would still be relatively small because most people are generally honest.

 

[DrJ]

The likelihood that a single vote or even a few votes will swing an election is very very small.

Depending on the election. Many local elections come down to very few votes.

What percentage of elections are decided by fewer than, say, ten votes?

That's a ridiculous number to attach to it as we're unable to establish the frequency of voting fraud.

I tried to be generous. Seems pretty unlikely that Rich Conway has more than 10 guys on his bowling team.

I don't think anyone's come up with an analysis, but it doesn't appear all that uncommon for even elections on governors to come down to very few votes. This 1974 article suggests that 5 were decided by less than 5000 votes. One was less than 100, another less than 300, and another less than 600. It's not difficult to imagine those being won by questionable votes.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19741108&id=nkg0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=7mYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7220,3315336One election is too many if it can be reasonably prevented.

 

[DrJ]

This one doesn't extrapolate much on the number decided by 10 or less, but claims that 1 in 15,000 state elections are decided by a single vote. That number grows the smaller the election is, and is 1/1500 for elections of 5,000 or less.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/MulliganPivotalVote.pdf

One of every 100,000 votes cast in U.S.

elections, and one of every 15,000 votes cast in state elections, “mattered” in the sense that they

were cast for a candidate that officially tied or won by one vote.

Roughly one of every 30,000 elections with 100,000 votes are

decided by one vote. For elections with 5,000 or 20,000 votes, the frequencies are 1/1500 or 1/6000,

respectively

Obviously if we extrapolate that out to 10 votes, or 100 votes, the numbers will rise some.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I don't think anyone's come up with an analysis, but it doesn't appear all that uncommon for even elections on governors to come down to very few votes. This 1974 article suggests that 5 were decided by less than 5000 votes. One was less than 100, another less than 300, and another less than 600. It's not difficult to imagine those being won by questionable votes.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19741108&id=nkg0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=7mYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7220,3315336One election is too many if it can be reasonably prevented.

Are we back to the conspiracy thing or now one guy is going around casting 500 votes in a day at different polling places?

 

[RCon]

Personally, I find the conspiracy idea more compelling. I don't think it would take too many people to amount to a significant number of votes. But that's never been the point. The point is that one fraudulent vote is too many.