What Americans lost when we abandoned the secret ballot(galioninquirer.com)
galioninquirer.com
What Americans lost when we abandoned the secret ballot
https://www.galioninquirer.com/opinion/72009/what-americans-lost-when-we-abandoned-the-secret-ballot
54 comments
IMO, right now we're in the worst of both worlds. The ballot is secret enough that fraud is possible, but non-secret enough that coercion is possible. If we don't want to restrict non-in-person voting back to how it was in 2016, then maybe we should make everyone's votes completely public. At least then, any fraud would be immediately and obviously apparent.
Or you know you could just ask people for their id like they ask people for the vaccination status in SF.
You have to have a id to drive a car. You have to have an id to buy alcohol. Is it such a crime to ask for id when you vote?
You have to have a id to drive a car. You have to have an id to buy alcohol. Is it such a crime to ask for id when you vote?
When I voted by mail in California, the government sent me updates when my ballot was received and counted. If somebody was going around stealing identities to vote fraudulently, wouldn’t they be running the risk that every person they voted for could discover that a vote was cast in their name, triggering an investigation?
Voter fraud is a serious crime, and unlike other similar crimes (like a fake credit application), the perpetrator doesn’t stand to make $$$$ for each act. They need to commit the crime at scale to change the result.
If this form of fraud were happening en masse, surely there’d be tons of evidence of it?
If campaign workers were going around trying to bribe people to vote, some of the people they are trying to bribe might unexpectedly be supporters of the other candidate, and would have a strong incentive to collect evidence of the bribery attempt and report it. It would make for some very interesting hidden camera videos and would be explosive news in the modern political environment.
Voter fraud is a serious crime, and unlike other similar crimes (like a fake credit application), the perpetrator doesn’t stand to make $$$$ for each act. They need to commit the crime at scale to change the result.
If this form of fraud were happening en masse, surely there’d be tons of evidence of it?
If campaign workers were going around trying to bribe people to vote, some of the people they are trying to bribe might unexpectedly be supporters of the other candidate, and would have a strong incentive to collect evidence of the bribery attempt and report it. It would make for some very interesting hidden camera videos and would be explosive news in the modern political environment.
They can use deceased people probably. I've heard of such cases in eastern europe for fraud.
There’s documentation when people die. Someone in could check and see that those people voted (in a somewhat automated way), then trigger an investigation where authorities look up what address were those ballots mailed to. Again, seems very risky (at least in the US where elections are litigated and governments are scrutinizing individual votes in close elections to find cases like this).
I’m not saying it never happens, but rather that it’s easy enough to discover that people who do it have a decent change of getting caught. That constraints how widespread the issue can be.
I’m not saying it never happens, but rather that it’s easy enough to discover that people who do it have a decent change of getting caught. That constraints how widespread the issue can be.
> There’s documentation when people die.
And political parties have access to records of who voted. If bunches of dead people were voting, someone would have both the information and the incentive to make hay about the readily available concrete proof, most notably, political parties pushing voter ID requirements. Since they aren't doing that, it's pretty clear that isn't happening.
And political parties have access to records of who voted. If bunches of dead people were voting, someone would have both the information and the incentive to make hay about the readily available concrete proof, most notably, political parties pushing voter ID requirements. Since they aren't doing that, it's pretty clear that isn't happening.
So assuming the scheme only works when everyone is in on it, would you be the one who reports it and gets punished and vilified? And who would you report it to? I'm not from thw US, and it brings a hopeful smile that conspiraces seem solvable over there.
It's a crime to vote in many countries without an id.
How is that relevant?
Is the argument that if country X does Y then Y isn't bad for the US?
Belgium requires people carry id with them all the time. Does that mean the US should be like Belgium and require everyone carry id?
Sweden requires either an id or someone with an id who can vouch for you, which is less strict than some of the US states.
Most of those countries have a national id system. Why wouldn't that be a prerequisite for the US?
Is the argument that if country X does Y then Y isn't bad for the US?
Belgium requires people carry id with them all the time. Does that mean the US should be like Belgium and require everyone carry id?
Sweden requires either an id or someone with an id who can vouch for you, which is less strict than some of the US states.
Most of those countries have a national id system. Why wouldn't that be a prerequisite for the US?
It's relevant because considering what other people/places consider normal allows you to recontextualize and examine the frame you are in. The idea that IDs should be required for voting is only a hyper-politicized issue focused on race in the US, and noticing that lets you break your thinking outside that frame to some extent.
Ultimately I am against anything requiring IDs, but so long as I need to show my ID and vaccine card to get seated at a restaurant in SF, it doesn't seem outlandish to me at all that elections should require IDs.
Regarding national IDs, I'm not sure what you think this would look like but frankly that is the whole point of the REAL ID initiative which began in the wake of the Patriot Act reauthorization in 2005. Perhaps you have objections in light of the changes brought on by the REAL ID Modernization Act wherein the SSN requirements were significantly defanged, but IMO the point still remains.
Ultimately I am against anything requiring IDs, but so long as I need to show my ID and vaccine card to get seated at a restaurant in SF, it doesn't seem outlandish to me at all that elections should require IDs.
Regarding national IDs, I'm not sure what you think this would look like but frankly that is the whole point of the REAL ID initiative which began in the wake of the Patriot Act reauthorization in 2005. Perhaps you have objections in light of the changes brought on by the REAL ID Modernization Act wherein the SSN requirements were significantly defanged, but IMO the point still remains.
The thing is, I'm aware about how voting is done outside of the US, at least to some extent.
That doesn't explain how readthenotes1's comment is relevant.
The amount of fraud in mail-in-voting is astoundingly low.
Mandatory voter id doesn't seem to provide any benefits except for calming an artificial fear that was hyped just to pass mandatory id laws.
I don't know why you say "focus on race" when the history shows that voter id requirements are there to elect Republicans, of which race is one correlated factor.
Why can a gun license be used as valid id, but a state college id cannot? College students tend to vote for Democrats. Gun owners tend to vote Republican.
Why do DMV offices (where you get ids) tend to close down in poor areas when there are cutbacks? Poor people tend to vote for Democrats.
Now, if we really do look to other countries, we can ask why the DMV is in charge of issuing id. In at least some of those other countries, it is the police which are in charge of ids.
So if we follow readthenotes1's suggestion see what other countries do, my point is that perhaps doing that correctly requires certain prerequisites that don't exist in the US.
> so long as I need to show my ID and vaccine card to get seated at a restaurant in SF
I didn't realize that getting seated at a restaurant was a constitutional right.
That doesn't explain how readthenotes1's comment is relevant.
The amount of fraud in mail-in-voting is astoundingly low.
Mandatory voter id doesn't seem to provide any benefits except for calming an artificial fear that was hyped just to pass mandatory id laws.
I don't know why you say "focus on race" when the history shows that voter id requirements are there to elect Republicans, of which race is one correlated factor.
Why can a gun license be used as valid id, but a state college id cannot? College students tend to vote for Democrats. Gun owners tend to vote Republican.
Why do DMV offices (where you get ids) tend to close down in poor areas when there are cutbacks? Poor people tend to vote for Democrats.
Now, if we really do look to other countries, we can ask why the DMV is in charge of issuing id. In at least some of those other countries, it is the police which are in charge of ids.
So if we follow readthenotes1's suggestion see what other countries do, my point is that perhaps doing that correctly requires certain prerequisites that don't exist in the US.
> so long as I need to show my ID and vaccine card to get seated at a restaurant in SF
I didn't realize that getting seated at a restaurant was a constitutional right.
> Why can a gun license be used as valid id, but a state college id cannot? College students tend to vote for Democrats. Gun owners tend to vote Republican.
That's quite the conspiracy theory. Here's a more reasonable explanation: the identity verification that you go through to get a college ID is way more lax than it is to get a gun license or basically any other government-issued ID.
That's quite the conspiracy theory. Here's a more reasonable explanation: the identity verification that you go through to get a college ID is way more lax than it is to get a gun license or basically any other government-issued ID.
> or basically any other government-issued ID.
Ahh, I see you've never had a transit id then. Here's the Transit Discount Photo ID Application for Roseville, CA - https://roseville.ca.us/government/departments/public_works/... . Only need a city utilities statement for that one.
That gotcha answer aside ... since the existing amount of in-person voting fraud is something like a few dozen cases per decade - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St... - what justifies the need for higher strictness than a college id? Or even a city transit id?
Or, you know, no id it all.
Ahh, I see you've never had a transit id then. Here's the Transit Discount Photo ID Application for Roseville, CA - https://roseville.ca.us/government/departments/public_works/... . Only need a city utilities statement for that one.
That gotcha answer aside ... since the existing amount of in-person voting fraud is something like a few dozen cases per decade - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St... - what justifies the need for higher strictness than a college id? Or even a city transit id?
Or, you know, no id it all.
> the existing amount of in-person voting fraud is something like a few dozen cases per decade
The number of cases we've caught might be low, but when your safeguards are so lax that it's easy to get away with fraud without a trace, that doesn't mean much.
The number of cases we've caught might be low, but when your safeguards are so lax that it's easy to get away with fraud without a trace, that doesn't mean much.
There is no evidence that the safeguards are lax. Despite a LOT of time, work, and money spent trying to demonstrate it over the last 10-20 years.
After the 2020 election people searched high and low to dreg up examples, finding only a paltry few.
If it's so lax, how would you go about doing it?
After the 2020 election people searched high and low to dreg up examples, finding only a paltry few.
If it's so lax, how would you go about doing it?
> Belgium requires people carry id with them all the time. Does that mean the US should be like Belgium and require everyone carry id?
There's places in the US where you need to bring an ID and your vaccine card everywhere. If we're not willing to require ID to vote, then we should definitely ban that.
> Most of those countries have a national id system. Why wouldn't that be a prerequisite for the US?
Why aren't you counting any of passport books, passport cards, or REAL ID-compliant IDs (which are finally available nationwide) as national IDs?
There's places in the US where you need to bring an ID and your vaccine card everywhere. If we're not willing to require ID to vote, then we should definitely ban that.
> Most of those countries have a national id system. Why wouldn't that be a prerequisite for the US?
Why aren't you counting any of passport books, passport cards, or REAL ID-compliant IDs (which are finally available nationwide) as national IDs?
There's a few dozen cases of in-person impersonation voter fraud PER DECADE.
Showing id to vote therefore won't improve things in any meaningful way. While the negatives are easy -- what do you do if you lost your wallet the day before voting day and have no other accepted form of id?
If there are no benefits, why have it at all?
By comparison, from what I read, lots of people cheat the vaccine card system, so an id that helps verify that the vaccine card is indeed for the person presenting the card. The benefits are supposed to be the reduction of the infection rate, the ability to have an alternative to having business shut down either by order, or because of consumer reluctance.
Maybe you disagree with the conclusion of that cost-benefit analysis, but it's far more substantial than the benefits of having voter id.
> Why aren't you counting any of passport books, passport cards, or REAL ID-compliant IDs (which are finally available nationwide) as national IDs
Because it's a de facto, ad hoc, and incomplete system that isn't comparable to at least some of those countries.
In some of those countries which require voter id, you can get a valid id from your local police station, or from your bank, or the tax office. While the US ones seems to be centered around a much smaller number of DMV offices.
In Belgium, everyone is supposed to have an id. In the US, something like 9% of the population doesn't have an id which would be acceptable for voting. (Eg, don't drive because of age, illness, poverty, or live in a place with good mass transit.)
As a reminder, double voting (voting in more than one district) is also a form of voter fraud. Though, oddly, it isn't always illegal! - https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/double... . Even when illegal, it is NOT solved by presenting photo id. One solution that does solve it is to set up a nation-wide registry of where people live, with the legal requirement that if you move you inform the authorities. That's what some of these countries do, as part of their national ID system. This also updates your voting location.
And those are reasons why the US system isn't easily comparable to an actual national ID system, as well as helping highlight how the emphasis on in-person impersonation voter fraud over other forms of voter fraud is artificial.
(As a reminder, four people from The Villages, Sumpter Counter, FL have been arrested for suspicion of casting multiple ballots in the 2020 selection - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/resident-of-the-village... - so it's probably more common than in-person impersonation. ... but I'm having a tough time tracking down those numbers!)
In any case, these sorts of voter fraud are paltry compared to wholesale gerrymandering practices.
Showing id to vote therefore won't improve things in any meaningful way. While the negatives are easy -- what do you do if you lost your wallet the day before voting day and have no other accepted form of id?
If there are no benefits, why have it at all?
By comparison, from what I read, lots of people cheat the vaccine card system, so an id that helps verify that the vaccine card is indeed for the person presenting the card. The benefits are supposed to be the reduction of the infection rate, the ability to have an alternative to having business shut down either by order, or because of consumer reluctance.
Maybe you disagree with the conclusion of that cost-benefit analysis, but it's far more substantial than the benefits of having voter id.
> Why aren't you counting any of passport books, passport cards, or REAL ID-compliant IDs (which are finally available nationwide) as national IDs
Because it's a de facto, ad hoc, and incomplete system that isn't comparable to at least some of those countries.
In some of those countries which require voter id, you can get a valid id from your local police station, or from your bank, or the tax office. While the US ones seems to be centered around a much smaller number of DMV offices.
In Belgium, everyone is supposed to have an id. In the US, something like 9% of the population doesn't have an id which would be acceptable for voting. (Eg, don't drive because of age, illness, poverty, or live in a place with good mass transit.)
As a reminder, double voting (voting in more than one district) is also a form of voter fraud. Though, oddly, it isn't always illegal! - https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/double... . Even when illegal, it is NOT solved by presenting photo id. One solution that does solve it is to set up a nation-wide registry of where people live, with the legal requirement that if you move you inform the authorities. That's what some of these countries do, as part of their national ID system. This also updates your voting location.
And those are reasons why the US system isn't easily comparable to an actual national ID system, as well as helping highlight how the emphasis on in-person impersonation voter fraud over other forms of voter fraud is artificial.
(As a reminder, four people from The Villages, Sumpter Counter, FL have been arrested for suspicion of casting multiple ballots in the 2020 selection - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/resident-of-the-village... - so it's probably more common than in-person impersonation. ... but I'm having a tough time tracking down those numbers!)
In any case, these sorts of voter fraud are paltry compared to wholesale gerrymandering practices.
> what do you do if you lost your wallet the day before voting day and have no other accepted form of id?
What if your car broke down on the way to the polling place, and by the time you got alternate transportation they were closed? What if you send in your mail-in ballot but it gets lost in the mail? What if you suddenly end up hospitalized on voting day?
> from what I read, lots of people cheat the vaccine card system
Lots of people get caught cheating the vaccine card system. When you have stricter security measures, you catch more of the people who break the rules.
What if your car broke down on the way to the polling place, and by the time you got alternate transportation they were closed? What if you send in your mail-in ballot but it gets lost in the mail? What if you suddenly end up hospitalized on voting day?
> from what I read, lots of people cheat the vaccine card system
Lots of people get caught cheating the vaccine card system. When you have stricter security measures, you catch more of the people who break the rules.
> What if your car broke down on the way to the polling place, and by the time you got alternate transportation they were closed?
You do realize that's one of the reasons why the two major political parties set up call lines where you can get a ride to the polling station, right?
Because that scenario happens.
Doesn't happen to me - my polling station is within walking distance.
> Lots of people get caught
Where is the evidence that the existing non-state-issued-photo-id system is insufficiently strict?
How much stricter does the system need to be? Should we also check blood types? Should we also have genetic testing?
As I've pointed out, double voting appears more common than the types of fraud that can be detected with an id check.
Why aren't people pushing for a nation-wide registry of where each person lives, with a legal obligation to keep it up to date, would reduce more fraud?
That's what some other countries do.
You do realize that's one of the reasons why the two major political parties set up call lines where you can get a ride to the polling station, right?
Because that scenario happens.
Doesn't happen to me - my polling station is within walking distance.
> Lots of people get caught
Where is the evidence that the existing non-state-issued-photo-id system is insufficiently strict?
How much stricter does the system need to be? Should we also check blood types? Should we also have genetic testing?
As I've pointed out, double voting appears more common than the types of fraud that can be detected with an id check.
Why aren't people pushing for a nation-wide registry of where each person lives, with a legal obligation to keep it up to date, would reduce more fraud?
That's what some other countries do.
What stops inventing fake voters to register, if not ID?
1) Registering fake people doesn't affect the vote
Someone can be registered to vote in multiple precincts. This is pretty common, as when someone moves between two states and doesn't notify the old state that they are no longer a resident for voting purposes.
This is not illegal. While voting some place where you are not legally allowed to vote is illegal.
2) "ID" is broader than "state-issued photo id"
When I registered to vote, I had to present proof that I was a resident. There was a list of options, like showing utility bill, which sufficed.
It's a lot of work to set up a fake rental agreement, fake power bill, fake whatever, and show up in-person to register. How much more does a fake id cost?
Remember, the fake id can be reused. I could travel around to 50 precincts and register my pseudonym in each one.
3) The list of registered voters is public
This gives a way to check for false registrations. And people have done these checks, when investigating in-person impersonation voter fraud.
4) You know what is more effective at stopping this sort of fraud? A nation-wide registry of where people live, with the legal obligation to update it when you move.
This seems far more effective at reducing fraud than showing id. With additional benefits, like only needing to update your address once, for all government services.
Yet people focus on requiring people to show id, with its minuscule benefits and clear negatives.
Why is that?
Someone can be registered to vote in multiple precincts. This is pretty common, as when someone moves between two states and doesn't notify the old state that they are no longer a resident for voting purposes.
This is not illegal. While voting some place where you are not legally allowed to vote is illegal.
2) "ID" is broader than "state-issued photo id"
When I registered to vote, I had to present proof that I was a resident. There was a list of options, like showing utility bill, which sufficed.
It's a lot of work to set up a fake rental agreement, fake power bill, fake whatever, and show up in-person to register. How much more does a fake id cost?
Remember, the fake id can be reused. I could travel around to 50 precincts and register my pseudonym in each one.
3) The list of registered voters is public
This gives a way to check for false registrations. And people have done these checks, when investigating in-person impersonation voter fraud.
4) You know what is more effective at stopping this sort of fraud? A nation-wide registry of where people live, with the legal obligation to update it when you move.
This seems far more effective at reducing fraud than showing id. With additional benefits, like only needing to update your address once, for all government services.
Yet people focus on requiring people to show id, with its minuscule benefits and clear negatives.
Why is that?
If you require ID to vote then you have a situation where the GOP has an incentive to make it more expensive and more hassle to get ID. Fuck that.
Hmm, a GOP conspiracy to make the DMV work poorly...
The GOP was opposed to the motor voter law in the 90s because they didn’t want to have to nerf the DMVs?
I 100% agree we should ask for ID at polling places. But does that really do any good if everyone's allowed to vote by mail for no reason?
ID is ok as long as it's stupid easy to obtain if you don't have what is the default national id drivers license. The faction that tries to suppress voting want voter ID so they can then restrict what ID is needed to get government issued ID without holding a drivers license. Voter ID isn't the issue, how to get the ID is. There is a solution though. Issue a national health card at birth with a requirement to have it reissued with a picture after age 18. So Medicare for all solves two issues. Health care and voter ID.
Here is a site that I think was meant to show how bad it is, but could be condensed down if they wanted to actually help people.
https://www.vote.org/voter-id-laws/
The info here seems to contradicts your statements, so if you don’t agree, don’t yell at me, talk to the site.
https://www.vote.org/voter-id-laws/
The info here seems to contradicts your statements, so if you don’t agree, don’t yell at me, talk to the site.
Requiring a copy of photo ID to be mailed is a joke. The entire point of photo ID is that you're supposed to make sure the picture on the ID matches the person who handed it to you.
I still get a gear ground when I remember what little information it takes to request a ballot and how much information was leaked in Equifax.
>Is it such a crime to ask for id when you vote?
It's not a crime, but the US government has proven that it can't be trusted not to be virulently racist when the opportunity to disenfranchise minority voters presents itself, particularly at the state level. ID requirements for voting are the equivalent of tempting a drunk with a shot of whiskey.
It's not a crime, but the US government has proven that it can't be trusted not to be virulently racist when the opportunity to disenfranchise minority voters presents itself, particularly at the state level. ID requirements for voting are the equivalent of tempting a drunk with a shot of whiskey.
There shouldn’t be a state controlled process between the population and voting
In the true sense that the people are the state, a democracy would hold that the people can push through changes to the system that might not be in the interest of those who currently hold power under the very system the people are trying to change.
And yet... how does a population convince itself that elections are conducted fairly?
Any change proposed in good faith is distorted by anyone who needs things to stay the way they are. Fear, uncertainty, doubt.
And yet... how does a population convince itself that elections are conducted fairly?
Any change proposed in good faith is distorted by anyone who needs things to stay the way they are. Fear, uncertainty, doubt.
No age limits, anyone (including non-citizens) can vote, and there's no registration system?
And people can vote as many times as they want, in as many districts as the like?
All of these are current state controlled processes which restrict the population from voting.
And people can vote as many times as they want, in as many districts as the like?
All of these are current state controlled processes which restrict the population from voting.
> If we don't want to restrict non-in-person voting back to how it was in 2016
In 2016, several states, including the largest, had either universal mail-in-voting or on-demand permanent-without-special-excuse absentee status, and that number had gone up for 2020 even before the response to COVID prompted some temporary and other permanent changes.
So, what exactly do you mean by “restrict non-in-person voting back to how it was in 2016”?
In 2016, several states, including the largest, had either universal mail-in-voting or on-demand permanent-without-special-excuse absentee status, and that number had gone up for 2020 even before the response to COVID prompted some temporary and other permanent changes.
So, what exactly do you mean by “restrict non-in-person voting back to how it was in 2016”?
> fraud is possible
The phrase "is possible" is so wishy-washy. It allows all sorts of movie plot scenarios which might have only 1-in-a-trillon odds.
We've long experience with vote-by-mail. Including 20+ years of all-postal voting in Oregon.
It's clear there is a very low incidence of fraud. We know this because there's a handful of cases where, say, one spouse filled out the ballot for a dead spouse. These can be detected by, for example, checking signatures.
There is also a very low incident of fraud in in-person voting, as when someone own two homes and votes in two districts. So it's not like in-person-only voting is free of fraud.
In neither case is the fraud significant - far less than Bush's FL lead of 537 votes over Gore in the 2000 election.
Can we make up examples of how fraud might occur? Yes! The sergeant of overseas-deployed National Guard troops may require the soldiers to vote a certain way, and be able to verify the ballots before mailing them in.
Now that you know fraud is possible that way, do you want to prevent overseas soldiers from voting?
> any fraud would be immediately and obviously apparent.
Open voting leads to a different type of fraud. "I don't rent to people who voted for X". "Anyone who doesn't vote for Y is fired."
Just look at the history of the open ballot in American history to see how easy it is to corrupt. From A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Australian_B...
] The failure of the law to secure secrecy opened the door to bribery, intimidation, and corruption.
] Money, or “soap,” as it was called, with increasing frequency was used to carry elections after the Civil War.
] It was charged that the bribery of voters in Indiana in 1880 and 1888 was sufficient to determine the result of the election.
] Intimidation was just as rife as bribery
] According to a report of a committee of the Forty-sixth Congress,[94] men were frequently marched or carried to the polls in their employers’ carriages. They were then supplied with ballots, and frequently compelled to hold their hands up with their ballots in them so they could easily be watched until the ballots were dropped into the box. Many labor men were afraid to vote and remained away from the polls. Others who voted against their employers’ wishes frequently lost their jobs. If the employee lived in a factory town, he probably lived in a tenement owned by the company, and possibly his wife and children worked in the mill. If he voted against the wishes of the mill-owners, he and his family were thrown out of the mill, out of the tenement, and out of the means of earning a livelihood
The fraud was indeed so 'obviously apparent' that it "fill[ed] thoughtful citizens with disgust and anxiety. Many electors, aware that the corrupt element was large enough to be able to turn the election, held aloof altogether."
Surely that's far worse than even nation-wide all-postal voting.
The phrase "is possible" is so wishy-washy. It allows all sorts of movie plot scenarios which might have only 1-in-a-trillon odds.
We've long experience with vote-by-mail. Including 20+ years of all-postal voting in Oregon.
It's clear there is a very low incidence of fraud. We know this because there's a handful of cases where, say, one spouse filled out the ballot for a dead spouse. These can be detected by, for example, checking signatures.
There is also a very low incident of fraud in in-person voting, as when someone own two homes and votes in two districts. So it's not like in-person-only voting is free of fraud.
In neither case is the fraud significant - far less than Bush's FL lead of 537 votes over Gore in the 2000 election.
Can we make up examples of how fraud might occur? Yes! The sergeant of overseas-deployed National Guard troops may require the soldiers to vote a certain way, and be able to verify the ballots before mailing them in.
Now that you know fraud is possible that way, do you want to prevent overseas soldiers from voting?
> any fraud would be immediately and obviously apparent.
Open voting leads to a different type of fraud. "I don't rent to people who voted for X". "Anyone who doesn't vote for Y is fired."
Just look at the history of the open ballot in American history to see how easy it is to corrupt. From A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Australian_B...
] The failure of the law to secure secrecy opened the door to bribery, intimidation, and corruption.
] Money, or “soap,” as it was called, with increasing frequency was used to carry elections after the Civil War.
] It was charged that the bribery of voters in Indiana in 1880 and 1888 was sufficient to determine the result of the election.
] Intimidation was just as rife as bribery
] According to a report of a committee of the Forty-sixth Congress,[94] men were frequently marched or carried to the polls in their employers’ carriages. They were then supplied with ballots, and frequently compelled to hold their hands up with their ballots in them so they could easily be watched until the ballots were dropped into the box. Many labor men were afraid to vote and remained away from the polls. Others who voted against their employers’ wishes frequently lost their jobs. If the employee lived in a factory town, he probably lived in a tenement owned by the company, and possibly his wife and children worked in the mill. If he voted against the wishes of the mill-owners, he and his family were thrown out of the mill, out of the tenement, and out of the means of earning a livelihood
The fraud was indeed so 'obviously apparent' that it "fill[ed] thoughtful citizens with disgust and anxiety. Many electors, aware that the corrupt element was large enough to be able to turn the election, held aloof altogether."
Surely that's far worse than even nation-wide all-postal voting.
> It's clear there is a very low incidence of fraud.
No, because we don't know how much fraud people got away with.
No, because we don't know how much fraud people got away with.
We know that people put a fuckton of effort into finding it, and came up empty-handed.
So either everybody is really, really good at fraud, or the numbers are really, really tiny.
So either everybody is really, really good at fraud, or the numbers are really, really tiny.
> So either everybody is really, really good at fraud, or the numbers are really, really tiny.
False dichotomy. The system is set up such that it's comically easy to commit fraud and incredibly difficult to detect it. Imagine a take-home multiple choice math test that says no calculators are allowed. Would you believe that almost nobody used a calculator on it just because almost nobody got caught doing so? Of course not, because you don't have to be really, really good at cheating to get away with it on a test set up like that.
False dichotomy. The system is set up such that it's comically easy to commit fraud and incredibly difficult to detect it. Imagine a take-home multiple choice math test that says no calculators are allowed. Would you believe that almost nobody used a calculator on it just because almost nobody got caught doing so? Of course not, because you don't have to be really, really good at cheating to get away with it on a test set up like that.
I really hate arguments by analogy. Either the analogy is perfect, in which case the answer is no more visible than it was in the first place, or we're now arguing about the difference between the analogy and the original question.
So I'm not going to get sucked into it. If you have a point to make, make it on the original question, not on one you've tuned to give you the answer that you want.
So I'm not going to get sucked into it. If you have a point to make, make it on the original question, not on one you've tuned to give you the answer that you want.
If it's so comically easy, how would you carry it out?
How would showing id fix the problem?
How would showing id fix the problem?
The proof that there are ninjas under your bed is that you can't see them. Only ninjas are that good.
How is this fraud supposed to occur?
Is the ballot to citizen A intercepted, filled-in, signed with a reasonable facsimile of A's signature, and returned?
Without A asking noticing the ballot never came, so asking for a second ballot? Do you think receiving multiple ballots purporting to be from A would go unnoticed by the elections office?
And the list of who voted is in the public record, so if A didn't vote, and finds that there was a vote in A's name in the last election - or if someone contacts A to double-checks if A actually did vote - then that will stand out too.
Must have been ninjas. Only ninjas are that good.
How is this fraud supposed to occur?
Is the ballot to citizen A intercepted, filled-in, signed with a reasonable facsimile of A's signature, and returned?
Without A asking noticing the ballot never came, so asking for a second ballot? Do you think receiving multiple ballots purporting to be from A would go unnoticed by the elections office?
And the list of who voted is in the public record, so if A didn't vote, and finds that there was a vote in A's name in the last election - or if someone contacts A to double-checks if A actually did vote - then that will stand out too.
Must have been ninjas. Only ninjas are that good.
Obvious place is to replace it after the A has returned it. Very cheap, very easy, extremely capable MitM attack.
I see no reason why country with long tradition in subverting democracy around the planet wouldn't engage with this type of activity locally. After all it is clear that they have no respect for democracy elsewhere so why at home where profits are even greater.
I see no reason why country with long tradition in subverting democracy around the planet wouldn't engage with this type of activity locally. After all it is clear that they have no respect for democracy elsewhere so why at home where profits are even greater.
That sort of fraud isn't fixable by photo id.
That sort of fraud isn't unique to mail-in voting.
That sort of fraud isn't unique to mail-in voting.
> And the list of who voted is in the public record
This is news to me, and I'm having a hard time searching for information about it. Can you link me to where this record is?
> so if A didn't vote, and finds that there was a vote in A's name in the last election - or if someone contacts A to double-checks if A actually did vote - then that will stand out too.
Has there ever been an election at any level that you didn't vote in despite being eligible to? Did you check this public record to make sure nobody voted as you? Has anyone ever contacted you to ask if you actually voted in an election that you did vote in? These things are all possible, sure, but they're rare enough in practice that there's plenty of gaps for fraud to slip through.
This is news to me, and I'm having a hard time searching for information about it. Can you link me to where this record is?
> so if A didn't vote, and finds that there was a vote in A's name in the last election - or if someone contacts A to double-checks if A actually did vote - then that will stand out too.
Has there ever been an election at any level that you didn't vote in despite being eligible to? Did you check this public record to make sure nobody voted as you? Has anyone ever contacted you to ask if you actually voted in an election that you did vote in? These things are all possible, sure, but they're rare enough in practice that there's plenty of gaps for fraud to slip through.
> This is news to me, and I'm having a hard time searching for information about it. Can you link me to where this record is?
It's public record, but it's usually available on request with agreements as to legitimate use. The exact contents differ by state, and the application may be through the state or county election office. There is a rough summary here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/access... but it's not entirely accurate (e.g., it doesn’t indicate vote history—whether, not how, a voter voted in particular past elections—is available in CA, but it definitely is. e.g., the Sacramento County request form has a box to check to include it https://elections.saccounty.net/Documents/Application%20to%2...
It's public record, but it's usually available on request with agreements as to legitimate use. The exact contents differ by state, and the application may be through the state or county election office. There is a rough summary here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/access... but it's not entirely accurate (e.g., it doesn’t indicate vote history—whether, not how, a voter voted in particular past elections—is available in CA, but it definitely is. e.g., the Sacramento County request form has a box to check to include it https://elections.saccounty.net/Documents/Application%20to%2...
> This is news to me
How can you be so sure that the current system is so insecure when you don't know how the current system works and what safeguards are in place?
https://www.votebrevard.gov/Statistics-and-Data/Request-Vote...
] Voter registration information is public record in Florida with a few exceptions. Information such as your social security number, driver’s license number, Florida ID number, signature, where a voter registered to vote, and where a voter updated a registration cannot be released or disclosed to the public. Other information such as your name, address, date of birth, party affiliation, and when you voted is public information.
"Looking Up Your Voting Record Is as Easy as Opening an App" - https://news.yahoo.com/want-look-voting-record-options-03222...
] If you're interested in looking up your voting record, there are a few ways of doing so online. Your voting record contains your voter registration information and voting history as maintained by your state, and is publicly available.
Download NC data from the state, at https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/voter-history-data
] Current Voter History Data / What’s included? Files contain a data entry for each election in which a voter participated in the past 10 years. Voter registration number, NCID, party affiliation, county, and precinct, as well as voting method (e.g., in-person on Election Day, absentee by mail) are included.
The details of what you can get, and how public things are, depends on where you are. What state do you live in?
> Did you check this public record to make sure nobody voted as you?
You know that's not the way statistics work, right?
It's not "I didn't vote and therefore X could impersonate me."
It's "X is going to impersonate me but doesn't know if I'm going to vote."
It takes only a few mistakes for X to be detected.
And it requires more than a few votes to change any but a few rare close elections.
> Has anyone ever contacted you to ask if you actually voted in an election that you did vote in?
Again, that's not the way statistics works.
I know people have contacted voters to verify they voted because I've read articles about people doing that.
If impersonation fraud is rampant and systemic then it can be identified by a small random sample. Which is unlikely to include any specific person.
If it is rare, then it's unlikely to affect any election. While still risking legal consequences if caught.
And indeed, it's rare, and people are indeed caught.
How can you be so sure that the current system is so insecure when you don't know how the current system works and what safeguards are in place?
https://www.votebrevard.gov/Statistics-and-Data/Request-Vote...
] Voter registration information is public record in Florida with a few exceptions. Information such as your social security number, driver’s license number, Florida ID number, signature, where a voter registered to vote, and where a voter updated a registration cannot be released or disclosed to the public. Other information such as your name, address, date of birth, party affiliation, and when you voted is public information.
"Looking Up Your Voting Record Is as Easy as Opening an App" - https://news.yahoo.com/want-look-voting-record-options-03222...
] If you're interested in looking up your voting record, there are a few ways of doing so online. Your voting record contains your voter registration information and voting history as maintained by your state, and is publicly available.
Download NC data from the state, at https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/voter-history-data
] Current Voter History Data / What’s included? Files contain a data entry for each election in which a voter participated in the past 10 years. Voter registration number, NCID, party affiliation, county, and precinct, as well as voting method (e.g., in-person on Election Day, absentee by mail) are included.
The details of what you can get, and how public things are, depends on where you are. What state do you live in?
> Did you check this public record to make sure nobody voted as you?
You know that's not the way statistics work, right?
It's not "I didn't vote and therefore X could impersonate me."
It's "X is going to impersonate me but doesn't know if I'm going to vote."
It takes only a few mistakes for X to be detected.
And it requires more than a few votes to change any but a few rare close elections.
> Has anyone ever contacted you to ask if you actually voted in an election that you did vote in?
Again, that's not the way statistics works.
I know people have contacted voters to verify they voted because I've read articles about people doing that.
If impersonation fraud is rampant and systemic then it can be identified by a small random sample. Which is unlikely to include any specific person.
If it is rare, then it's unlikely to affect any election. While still risking legal consequences if caught.
And indeed, it's rare, and people are indeed caught.
The counterargument that poll watchers themselves may be partisan seems vague. How does this not apply to anything? Maybe they manipulated the ballots, maybe they reported the wrong numbers etc..
There's always a bureaucratic apparatus involved in processing an election and mail voting doesn't strike me as particularly exceptional. Why does the author trust that the French civil service is non-partisan enough?
Here in Germany mail voting works exactly like described, outer ballot verifies identity, inner ballot contains the vote. There are always, I believe nine people required to be present when the envelops are separated to check on each other. To believe there is a systemic, effort across countless of voting regions with different demographics seems kind of conspiratorial.
There's always a bureaucratic apparatus involved in processing an election and mail voting doesn't strike me as particularly exceptional. Why does the author trust that the French civil service is non-partisan enough?
Here in Germany mail voting works exactly like described, outer ballot verifies identity, inner ballot contains the vote. There are always, I believe nine people required to be present when the envelops are separated to check on each other. To believe there is a systemic, effort across countless of voting regions with different demographics seems kind of conspiratorial.
Coercion is in principle a valid concern. So like, make sure the local board of elections has an office open in the days before the election where any voter can come in, present ID, have their mail-in ballot destroyed, and cast a new ballot.
Why was this flagged?
Possibly because the notion of America having "abandoned the secret ballot" is hyperbolic at best. Also looks like the article was originally published here: https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/14/what-americans-lost-when-...
> Also looks like the article was originally published here:
Actually there's editor's note in the end linking to the original RealClearPolitics article. Also the article I submitted says that it was first there, but less visibly and without link.
There seems to be no way to change the url in retrospect.
Actually there's editor's note in the end linking to the original RealClearPolitics article. Also the article I submitted says that it was first there, but less visibly and without link.
There seems to be no way to change the url in retrospect.
Submit it again.
The new submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30080819
It's not really hyperbolic at all. Secrecy is now only preserved if the people handling the votes choose to preserve it. That's a big deal. Even if today they choose to preserve your ballot's secrecy, there is nothing now stopping them from violating that (and the law) in the future. It's important to wonder too how people will react -- do people now act as though they have no secrecy in their ballot?
So, no, this should not have been flagged!
So, no, this should not have been flagged!