Reply to He fought in WWII. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in VA.

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "He fought in WWII. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in VA."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Fraud at the polls happens. The greatest concern should be around mail in ballots. That is by far the easiest way for voter fraud to occur.[/quote]

To fraudulently get a mail-in ballot vote in DC, someone would need to know my DC driver's license number or Social Security number, and also would need my birthdate.  That person would also need to register to vote in my name and have a mail-in ballot sent to a different address.  If I tried to register to vote myself, that would uncover the plot pretty quickly.  It also seems easy to spot red flags if dozens of mail-in ballots are being sent to the same home address or PO box.  Plus, I'll pretty sure the Republican and Democratic teams already do reviews of the voter registries in presidential elections, looking for fraud like that to disqualify voters in their opponent's location.

All-in-all, that seems like a ton of work - and a high risk of getting caught - for a very small number of votes.  I guess it might make sense for a dirty candidate to try something in a small local election with only a few thousand voters.  But given that a state like Virginia has well over 4 million votes in a typical presidential election, I don't see how there's much risk of voter registration fraud tipping the election.[/quote]

The numbers, or small amount of numbers, doesn't matter. It's beside the point. Fraud is possible, it happens. And it could be do preventable.

My vote counts as 1. It's so small. But I'm glad I have it.

Fraud votes count also, and it's wrong to let it continue. [/quote]

The problem with a blanket "it's wrong to let it continue" is that we will never have a perfect system where everyone who is eligible to vote is able to and no fraudulent voting occurs. If we crack down too hard on potential fraudulent voting, it will come at the expense of eligible voters being blocked from exercising their voting rights. If we go too far in taking down boundaries to voting (e.g., no verification or residency requirements at all, everyone just show up and cast a ballot wherever you want), it risks making fraud too easy so that it does become worth the effort. If we have a system where 19 fraudulent votes are cast but preventing those 19 votes would cost 1,000 people their right to vote, I'm not going to advocate for preventing those 19 votes. If we found ourselves in a situation where 1,000 fraudulent votes were cast and preventing it only would have cost 19 people their right to vote, then we should be having a conversation about that.[/quote]

Let's just say the numbers are even then. 500 fraud voters don't get a fraud vote, at the expense of 500 who didn't apply correctly/forgot their license/don't have a license(or original birth certificate), etc etc. I don't think it's negligible for the fraud and then drastic for those who would be left out. THAT WOULD illustrate your point, but how do you count nationwide.

So, let's call it even.....at LEAST a change would set it up better for the future:

In the future you'll have fewer 100 year old ladies born without a certificate, who can't get official government ID (and in fact a commonsense provision now is that a county can accommodate a quota of written requests for such cases. say 20/county)[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics