[djaque]

I don't think any scheme that requires people to be willing to commit felony fraud en masse is very likely. They would need to open other people's mail, forge their signature (on my ballot it clearly states that you will go to jail for this) and send it back in. They would need to risk all of that for one extra vote since they are only accidentally receiving an extra ballot.

We also don't need to sit around speculating about this because the data we have on voter fraud already tells us that it's incredibly rare.

What we should focus on is the 1 in 10 voters here who had a ballot rejected for primarily UX reasons that could be fixed. That's a problem which is supported by facts and could be fixed. Instead the current administration is gutting the USPS and making voting even more difficult in the middle of a pandemic. My ballot application is already taking twice as long to get in as it did last year. How is that OK?

[yostrovs]

You don't know how common voter fraud is. When it's easy to do and you can't be caught, as in other people's ballots coming to your mailbox, many will do it. They do it. I know someone who voted on behalf of another in California because ID is not necessary. There must be many more others doing the same.

[javagram]

If that happened regularly and widely it would be quite obvious because 40-50% of eligible voters vote. So there could be as much as a 40% chance that the person whose ballot you forged also tried to vote and is either turned away or submits a provisional ballot or complaint.

This would create a record that could then be used to examine the signature on the ballot and charge the person with voter fraud.

Note: not many states have changed their laws on vote by mail this year, so theoretical VBM fraud could have been done by submitting fraudulent ballot applications in most past elections too. The main difference this year is more voters are expected to use the no-excuse absentee ballot that was already available to them in other years.

[yostrovs]

This being a hacker forum, would such security measures as you believe in and propose be acceptable in any computing application? In finance? Medicine? Anything really?

[javagram]

This is how the system has worked, oftentimes for decades past.

No, they would not be considered acceptable in a computing application. But in computing, it’s considered acceptable to discriminate against users for the sake of security.

I’m unaware of any major democracy that uses computerized voting with a username, password, and 2FA to replace the traditional ballot box, for obvious UX reasons. (Never mind that computerized results might actually be easier to forge than paper ballots).

Regardless of what is “acceptable” it is a fact that widespread voter fraud using the mechanisms proposed would be detectable.

[yostrovs]

That's what the ID cards are used for, and have been for decades... Including for voting all over the world.

[javagram]

That’s never how voting has worked in the USA though. The entire idea of even having an ID card is relatively modern.

We’ve had voting for centuries, and done it without ID requirements.

Not sure how ID requirements would work in the several states that have done all-mail-in ballots for decades successfully.

[treeman79]

Fraction of an percentage is all that is needed much of the time.

A few hindered ballots from a [left/right] leaning district going missing can be enough.

Don’t even need to have individual fraud, just some stats on how likely one area is to vote then “wrong” way.

Hell nursing homes or others could easily swing lots of votes by a single staff.

I’ve dealt with plenty of high officials that have negative documents go missing. It’s just routine for many.