interesting article on voter fraud...

gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,954
edited January 2012 in A Moving Train
this is what i have been trying to say all along...

The real reason no one impersonates dead voters: High risk, little benefit

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/real ... 06178.html

In an effort to demonstrate that the specter of voting fraud in America is real, the conservative agitator James O'Keefe and his group Project Veritas recently sent a handful of people into a voting center during the New Hampshire primary to obtain ballots on behalf of dead registered voters. (You may remember O'Keefe as the guy who dressed as a "pimp" in an undercover ACORN sting, or who made so much trouble for NPR.) Several were successful, as a selectively edited video from Project Veritas spoon-fed to the Daily Caller demonstrates.

The trend throughout the United States is to enact new laws that will make photo IDs a prerequisite for participating in the democratic process. Proponents of voter ID laws use voting in lieu of dead people as the main example of fraud, while opponents point out that there is no evidence of widespread fraud and significant evidence that such laws make it more difficult for students and those in lower-income brackets to vote. Lawmakers in South Carolina used the accusation that 957 dead people voted in the "recent elections" as proof of the need for voter ID laws—a claim the New York Times' Andrew Rosenthal points out is very poorly supported. (The Justice Department has blocked the measure in South Carolina, so voters on Saturday will not need a photo ID to vote.)

But surely by accident, O'Keefe has actually given use some extremely valuable data about the cost-benefit of trying to vote on behalf of a cadaver. Of the handful of people O'Keefe sent into voting centers to vote as dead people, at least one was recognized as being an imposter. It is unclear how much trouble he or the rest of Project Veritas will end up in since they did not actually cast the ballots they obtained; TPM reports that merely obtaining the ballots fraudulently could violate federal law as well, even if no voting took place. Project Veritas refused to tell me how many people participated in their stunt, but I can be extremely conservative and say that voting for a dead person carries at least a 1 in 100 risk of being recognized and possibly ending up in legal trouble.

Based on the most conservative estimates, then, we can estimate that voter ID laws could disenfranchise between 10,000-500,000 eligible voters for every 1-100 blocked fraudulent votes. Here's how I get there:
It may seem like a government-issued photo ID isn't so much to ask to cast a vote—after all, you need one to drive, get on a plane, or have a beer. The fact is that many eligible voters do not have the right documents under new or proposed laws. The right-wing Heritage Foundation trumpets a paper that claims that only 1.2% registered voters lack valid a photo ID. That may seem low, but nearly 130 million votes were cast in the 2008 presidential election, so that would translate into roughly 1,560,000 voters. The Heritage Foundation's estimate is the lowest I could find. In 2007, the Georgia Secretary of State estimated 198,000 registered voters there did not have government issued photo IDs and in South Carolina, 200,000 registered voters do not have a photo ID that would be valid for voting under the proposed law, according to the state election commission. That translates into roughly 4-5 percent of voters for Georgia and 8-10 percent of voters for South Carolina, based on 2008 registration and vote totals.

Those eligible citizens who do not have a photo ID tend towards the more disenfranchised citizens: 25% of African-Americans have no photo ID, 15% of people earning less than $35,000 have no photo ID, and 18% of the elderly have no photo ID. This represents millions of citizens in each category. Such laws also penalize college students since many of these laws require in-state photo IDs, which prevents college students from voting at their college if they attend from out-of-state.

Voter ID laws do not stop people who have fraudulently registered as themselves. The vast majority of these cases are people who believed themselves to be eligible, notably felons that do not know they are ineligible to vote in a given state. States that bar felons, such as Florida, have traditionally been so vigilant in blocking felons that thousands of eligible voters have been inadvertently purged from the voter rolls in the state's fixation to ensure that felons do not vote. Nor would these laws stop non-citizens from voting as themselves. (Even so, investigations have found voting by non-citizens to be extremely rare; a study of 370,000 votes cast in Milwaukee from 1992-2000 showed 4 votes by non-citizens.)

The main voter fraud that photo IDs would stop, then, is that of a person voting in lieu of another registered voter; this is likely someone who has died, as it is otherwise hard to estimate when a live registered voter will not be voting. Again, studies have shown very few votes by dead people in recent election cycles; this study by the FBI showed that all 89 dead voters in a Maryland election died after they voted. Many other presumed dead voters are caused by clerical errors on death certificates.

Second, the type of voter fraud that voter ID laws could stop is extremely costly to the criminal if he or she is caught, as Veratis' stunt helps us to compute, which is probably why it is so rare.

The cost of impersonating a dead eligible voter is the penalty times the likelihood of being caught plus the fear of being caught (for those who are risk averse). Thus, for a United States citizen or a legal immigrant the cost is, at minimum, 1/100 of up to 5 years in prison plus $10,000.

The benefit of impersonating a dead voter, meanwhile, is one more vote for your chosen candidate. Florida's 2000 Electoral College vote was an anomaly; the average Electoral College vote over the last 10 cycles, 510 elections, was 247,848 votes, with just Florida and New Mexico in 2000 under 1,500.

So here's the question: if the most conservative estimates are correct and 10,000 eligible voters are disenfranchised so that 100 non-eligible votes can be stopped, do you think that that is a fair deal for democracy? What if the more mainstream estimates are true and the number is closer to 100,000 eligible voters being disenfranchised so that 10 fraudulent votes can be stopped? Whichever figures you use, the math comes out squarely against these controversial measures.
"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

"i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

If you have never failed, you have never lived.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • How someone this day and age doesn't have a state issued picture ID is ridiculous..
    How do they
    Cash their paycheck or SS check
    Open a checking acct
    Pick up a prescription (narcotic)
    Get on a plane
    Rent an apt or buy a house
    Buy alcohol or cigarettes
    Get a loan
    Rent a car
    Get into a club
    Hotel room
    Write a check
    Purchase a fire arm
    Get a loan from a pawn shop
    Ect...ect..

    And I find it funny how people have no problem with illegals getting drivers license's but when states want people to show an ID to vote it's somehow racist.. And if you care about voters being disenfranchised look what's going on in Virginia's (R) primary.. People can't vote for their choice candidate.. With that being said I think there is a lot more fruad that's being reported..




  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 28,842
    dont you all have a govt body over there that deals with dead people. here we have the dept of brith deaths and marriages.. i think its self explanatory. so couldnt the voter registration people cross reference with the BD&M people and take dead people off the voter registration if theyre on the list? or is that all too big government for the american people?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Who PrincessWho Princess out here in the fieldsPosts: 7,023
    Using the names of deceased voters was a method of voter fraud sometimes used in the early and mid 20th century. It was mainly perpetrated by election officials on behalf of a candidate rather than individual voters.

    I live in Texas and last year the legislature passed a voter ID law. I'm not all wound up by the usual arguments against it (i.e., it mainly affects the disenfranchised, etc.) but I thought it was a pointless effort because it really hasn't been a problem in decades, at least when it comes to voting at the polls. Almost all voter fraud nowadays occurs with absentee ballots and even then doesn't happen very often.

    Another point in the Texas law that I find amusing is that people over 70 are exempted by their age from needing a photo ID to vote. And what is one of the accepted ways they prove their age? With a photo ID. :roll:
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • How someone this day and age doesn't have a state issued picture ID is ridiculous..
    How do they
    Cash their paycheck or SS check
    Open a checking acct
    Pick up a prescription (narcotic)
    Get on a plane
    Rent an apt or buy a house
    Buy alcohol or cigarettes
    Get a loan
    Rent a car
    Get into a club
    Hotel room
    Write a check
    Purchase a fire arm
    Get a loan from a pawn shop
    Ect...ect..

    My mother spent the last 10 years of her life dealing with a physical disability. After she let her driver's license expire because she could no longer drive, she was technically without a valid state-issued ID. Does that mean she shouldn't have been allowed to vote?
    Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
    Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
  • jethrojam420jethrojam420 Foxborough MAPosts: 1,073

    Another point in the Texas law that I find amusing is that people over 70 are exempted by their age from needing a photo ID to vote. And what is one of the accepted ways they prove their age? With a photo ID. :roll:
    8/29/00*5/2/03*7/2/03*7/3/03*7/11/03*9/28/04*5/24/06*6/28/08*5/15/10*5/17/10* 10/16/13*10/25/13* 4/28/16*4/28/16*8/5/16*8/7/16 EV 6/15/11 Brad 10/27/02
  • And I find it funny how people have no problem with illegals getting drivers license's but when states want people to show an ID to vote it's somehow racist.. And if you care about voters being disenfranchised look what's going on in Virginia's (R) primary.. People can't vote for their choice candidate.. With that being said I think there is a lot more fruad that's being reported..

    personally, I want illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses so that we may track them and ensure that they're paying insurance just like everyone else. Nothing worse than getting hit by an uninsured motorist.
    Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
    Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    arthurdent wrote:
    personally, I want illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses so that we may track them and ensure that they're paying insurance just like everyone else. Nothing worse than getting hit by an uninsured motorist.

    What if they don't drive?

    Does everyone in America have to own and drive a car?

    I don't drive, and a lot of my friends don't drive either. Why should this effect anyone's ability to vote?
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,712
    Byrnzie wrote:
    arthurdent wrote:
    personally, I want illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses so that we may track them and ensure that they're paying insurance just like everyone else. Nothing worse than getting hit by an uninsured motorist.

    What if they don't drive?

    Does everyone in America have to own and drive a car?

    I don't drive, and a lot of my friends don't drive either. Why should this effect anyone's ability to vote?
    Are you really against people having Ids to vote?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Are you really against people having Ids to vote?

    You've gotten by this long without photo I.D's, and there hasn't been any problem. So why are you desperate for everyone to have photo I.D's now?

    More to the point, what does any of this have to do with having a driving license? You make it sound like everyone should own and drive a car before they can have any rights. Why is that? Sounds to me like the U.S auto industry really has you by the balls - not to mention the reason why obesity is such a problem in the U.S. Whatever happened to choosing to walk, or ride a bicycle?

    In England everyone has something called a National Insurance Number. Everyone is issued with one at the age of 18. Would that not be good enough for an American citizen?
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,712
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Are you really against people having Ids to vote?

    You've gotten by this long without photo I.D's, and there hasn't been any problem. So why are you desperate for everyone to have photo I.D's now?

    More to the point, what does any of this have to do with having a driving license? You make it sound like everyone should own and drive a car before they can have any rights. Why is that? Sounds to me like the U.S auto industry really has you by the balls - not to mention the reason why obesity is such a problem in the U.S. Whatever happened to choosing to walk, or ride a bicycle?

    In England everyone has something called a National Insurance Number. Everyone is issued with one at the age of 18. Would that not be good enough for an American citizen?

    Huh? what are you ranting about?

    I'm for everyone having a photo id, for sure. Doesn't have to be a driver's license. Just seems like it's time to catch up with simple technology.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • At first, I thought I was going to read of some woman systematically voting in a fraudulent manner. To which, I was prepared to defend the decision- heavy handed as it seemed- in prefer to take steps to preserve the integrity of the process.

    I'm disappointed to read this is a case of a woman who has contributed to the country and voted in good conscience- albeit illegally (it is reasonable to assume she didn't know any better).
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,889
    edited February 11
    Post edited by unsung on
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 24,335

    At first, I thought I was going to read of some woman systematically voting in a fraudulent manner. To which, I was prepared to defend the decision- heavy handed as it seemed- in prefer to take steps to preserve the integrity of the process.

    I'm disappointed to read this is a case of a woman who has contributed to the country and voted in good conscience- albeit illegally (it is reasonable to assume she didn't know any better).
    That's what they are making it out to be. Given the taxes, military, and work comment, it would make some sense.

    I have a friend, well a brother of a good friend, who was just sentenced this past week to 9 years for importing Molly from China. It will not be his first time doing time. These two crimes are not equal.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,329
    A ridiculous waste of police and court time and taxpayer money, fully supported by the party of smaller government. 8 years in prison for an otherwise law abiding, working tax payer for the heinous crime of voting in the country she has been residing in since infancy.

    The only bright side is that's one fewer voter for Trump in the next election, but it's a pretty weak bright side.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,329
    I mean, is there a better argument to prove that she didn't know what was going on than the fact that, given her position, she still voted for Trump?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 4,033
    edited February 14
    Regarding what Stephen Miller said this past Sunday.....
    Rex Huppke Rex HuppkeContact Reporter

    President Donald Trump's senior policy adviser Stephen Miller lied.

    The ability to do so seems to be a prerequisite in the Trump administration.

    On Sunday, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' "This Week," Miller repeated the completely debunked claim that a "massive" number of people voted fraudulently in the 2016 election.

    He said: "George, it is a fact and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country, who are registered to vote. That is a scandal."

    There aren't, and it isn't.


    Miller also said that busing voters from neighboring states into New Hampshire to cast illegal votes is a "very real" and "very serious" problem. It's absolutely not.

    Tom Rath, a Republican and the former attorney general of New Hampshire, wrote on Twitter: "Let me as be unequivocal as possible — allegations of voter fraud in NH are baseless, without any merit — it's shameful to spread these fantasies."

    The fact-checking group PolitiFact gave Miller's claim a "Pants on Fire" rating, noting: "PolitiFact New Hampshire, in particular, talked to several state and local officials about whether anything fishy occurred Nov. 8. Nashua City Clerk Tricia Piecuch, who works in the state's second-largest city on the border with Massachusetts, said nothing out of the ordinary went down. Officials in the Secretary of State's office, Attorney General's office and U.S. Attorney's office all reported no complaints of voter fraud in the 2016 election."

    Miller and Trump and anyone else in the administration can say there was "massive voter fraud" in the election — the one that Trump won — all they want. There are still no facts and no complaints from state-level Republicans or Democrats to back up that claim.

    They are hammering away at a lie because they want to use it to justify unnecessarily strict voting laws across the country, laws that have been found, in repeated court rulings, to disenfranchise lower-income minority voters.
    Post edited by Bentleyspop on
Sign In or Register to comment.