[greedo]

Most studies of voter fraud have shown it's negligible. Compared to the disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor caused by requiring voter ID, I'll take that risk.

This is the same argument being wielded against Vote by Mail. Yet fraud in VBM is rare as well, and VBM works extremely well for servicemembers deployed overseas. And Trump even votes by mail...

The GOP just knows that if more people vote, the GOP candidates will do worse.

[kaffeemitsahne]

>Most studies of voter fraud have shown it's negligible.

Source? If I were going to commit fraud I sure as hell wouldn't do it while taking part in a study. Curious how that is dealt with.

Of course I know about the related talking points of the other side, I just think it's curious that people regard "double spending" votes so casually.

[Frondo]

I regard it casually because it's statistically negligible. I usually post this link in threads about vote-by-mail where people bring up fraud, but it applies here too:

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2017/09...

The (elected, republican) secretary of state audited the 2016 election and found 54 cases -- out of 2+ million votes cast -- of what's generally called "voter fraud," most of which were people voting in Oregon and in another state.

Oregon is entirely vote-by-mail, so there's no way to show an ID.

Remember, how you voted is anonymous, but who voted is known to the government agencies. They can and do analyze that. Voter fraud is not a meaningful problem.

[greedo]

http://voterfraudfacts.com/ has a pretty extensive list of sources and explanations.

[9HZZRfNlpR]

Not even an American but this number is convicted people for voter fraud. It's not even a study or some intelligence agency estimate, so you're dishonest here.

[greedo]

Did you mean to reply to a different post? The link I included has reports from the Department of Justice, as well as by numerous independent sources.

[pathseeker]

You're talking past the point. How exactly do these "studies" determine it's negligible when it's undetectable without IDs?

[greedo]

It's not undetectable. There are many ways to determine if a vote is fraudulent. In person voter fraud (the only type that would be prevented by Voter ID) is the most difficult, and unlikely fraud to pull off. It doesn't scale well, is easily detected due to signature cross-checking, and according to the Dept of Justice, only 13 cases occurred between 2000 and 2010. In that time period, there were over 649M votes cast in the US.

[pathseeker]

Again, you're talking past the point.

Signature cross-checking just checks the signature with the voter registration. It doesn't tell you if the registration is fraudulent. Don't you recall the articles about thousands of people being allowed to register in California that shouldn't have?

>and according to the Dept of Justice, only 13 cases occurred between 2000 and 2010

Again, how would they know? You appear to think voter fraud is only a mismatch signature on the ballot and signature in voter registration.

[greedo]

No, I don't recall the articles you mention. Do you have any links?

You're asking me (and the authorities for that matter) to prove a negative.

Can you show me any evidence that supports your fears of voter fraud in the US? Other than a few rare cases, I haven't seen any evidence.

The reason I believe the system is working fine without Voter ID is that voter fraud just doesn't scale, either with manual paper ballots cast in person, or via absentee ballots and VBM. It's just too much work, too high a chance of being caught for the reward.

Now what does worry me in regards to vote integrity is electronic voting systems. I will never trust those.