[estearum]

> Did not you notice that this person has not been charged with voting with other people ballots (even though she was able and most likely did that) and only with paying to register? Such a charge would be very hard to stick.

Huh? There is literally no evidence or even allegation of that. The person was paid to collect petition signatures, so she fraudulently obtained petition signatures. Which obviously are way less closely tracked than actual votes.

> So what? If it was illegal to register multiple voters at the same address then it could have been detected at the registration time.

Well it's not illegal to register multiple voters at the same address, obviously. It's illegal to vote under someone else's name. A bunch of votes coming in from a single residence would be flagged. Should voter registrations from a single address get flagged? Sure! And they probably do! But as you say, that's not a crime. Voting fraudulently is, which is not even alleged here.

[pandaman]

Not sure what you are doing now. You asked for a scheme, you got it and now are appearing to be saying that such a scheme would not work because people would get busted even though you admit yourself there would not be any evidence.

[estearum]

Here was my request:

> Can you describe the specific chain of events required to create a fraudulent vote that is "impossible" to detect?

You literally just described a scheme that is possible to detect in any meaningful amount. 10, 100, or 1000 ballots coming from a single address is, obviously, trivially detectable.

[pandaman]

I see. It's possible to detect the scheme per se even though the detection would not lead to charges (ballots from the people registered at the same address are completely legal) and thus would not be conducted. The point your correspondent has initially made: it's impossible to detect illegal voting in such a scheme.

[estearum]

What...?

Virtually every type of fraud is first detected by detection of a nominally legal but abnormal behavior, then it's investigated to figure out whether fraud actually occurred. That would – obviously – be exactly how any voter fraud detection scheme works, but I guess you're saying that because the initially detected abnormality is not itself illegal, it wouldn't be investigated?

This is like saying "it's not illegal for all the numbers on your tax return to end in $xxxx.00 and $xxxx.50, so therefore tax fraud is undetectable by means of analyzing numerical patterns."

[pandaman]

Now you are just saying "illegal voting can be detected in this scheme even though I don't know how". Very smart!

[estearum]

You seem very confused.

Here's how it's detected: "There are 1000 ballots from this one address that has never had more than 3 ballots sent from it. We should look it up in our GIS and tax records and see how many people reside there. We should also make sure that the affiliated registrations are fully documented as having individual residencies there from e.g. their drivers licenses or utility bills at time of registration."

Sorry but you are naive beyond words if you think voting systems don't flag even a dozen ballots sent to a single residential address, or you don't think there's any investigative capability to look further into flagged cases.

Which do you believe? There are only three options:

1. You believe that 1000 ballots sent to a single address will not be flagged

2. You believe that it would be flagged but not investigated

3. You believe it would be flagged and investigated, but not actually result in any prosecutable offense

[JumpCrisscross]

> even though the detection would not lead to charges

Didn't you cite a charging document upthread?

[pandaman]

Yes I did, did you read what I cited upthread?