[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.