# Can voter ID laws increase the chance of a fraudulent outcome? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2014, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273 "2014-09-12T10:19:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/21 "2014-09-12T15:06:30Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The paper outlines ways in which it can solve the problem, and ways in which it would make the problem worse. It comes down to how the change affects both lawful and fraudulent votes. > > However, the counter argument is that the lawful votes affected are those who are marginally interested in voting to begin with, those who can’t be bothered to get an ID. If a particular candidate’s supporters are unenthusiastic about voting, perhaps their loss does not reflect an inappropriate change to the outcome. Level of individual enthusiasm is a lousy way to determine the outcome of elections. You end up with the extremes having more of a say. Also, different people face different hurtles in getting the required documentation. Unenthusiastic people who have a driver’s license and live near the polling place will be more likely to vote than more enthusiastic people who have difficulty getting the required documents. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/22 "2014-09-12T15:13:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This study seems kind of goofy. Yes, these conditions are possible. They hardly appear _likely_, though. Certainly not enough so as to make this a plausible reason to oppose voter ID legislation when there are much better ones already. > > Nobody has been looking at that idea. People have been looking at the idea of depressing minority and low-income turnout, and couching it as a means of reducing voter fraud. > > The majority of voter fraud occurs in the absentee balloting process, but nobody is demanding absentee ballot reform. I wonder why. Correct. You’re making my point for me. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/23 "2014-09-12T15:13:23Z")
So, the claim is that voter fraud is “exceedingly rare” but common enough to throw an election? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/24 "2014-09-12T15:14:30Z")
It seems to be that it’s rare but will be common enough to throw an election if there is less of it. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/25 "2014-09-12T15:19:42Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, what we do know is that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. In-person voter fraud, the only type that Voter ID will actually stop, is extremely time-consuming, involves multiple felonies, is fairly easy to check if suspected, and even in the most extreme conspiracy could hardly account for more than a few hundred votes (and that’s a scenario that’s completely unrealistic). With any crime, the number of actual instances will surpass the number of proven instances. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/26 "2014-09-12T15:24:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It seems to be that it’s rare but will be common enough to throw an election if there is less of it. That’s a complete misrepresentation of the study. The point of the study is that if you suppress the method of voting that is least amenable to fraud (in person voting), then the method that is more amenable to fraud (absentee ballots) will have a proportionately greater affect on the outcome. Voter ID laws reduce the number of otherwise eligible in person voters while having no effect on absentee voters. If someone is _truly_ concerned about fraud then they should be going after absentee balloting. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/27 "2014-09-12T15:27:49Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > With any crime, the number of actual instances will surpass the number of proven instances. So what? [This](http://www.salon.com/2014/09/12/its_disgusting_and_its_still_about_race_southern_republicans_simply_dont_want_minorities_to_vote/) is what it’s all about and you know it. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/28 "2014-09-12T15:34:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I win the bet I just made with myself, the terms of which were: someone would completely ignore the key point I made. > > That point being: the threat of prosecution is generally regarded as a deterrent. So why do you ignore the threat of prosecution for voting when you’re not a citizen, and say: > > I grant you they would not be caught at the polls. But since they would have to present ID, even if it’s the same ID used to register, they can be more reliably prosecuted after voting. The problem that now exists is we cannot prosecute them reliably; they can simply claim some other person voted using their name. > > Why did you ignore my comment about prosecution? Is your “key point” simply that “prosecution would be facilitated” [my paraphrase]? If so, then yes, you’re correct, it could be. But if your real point is “the threat of prosecution is generally regarded as a deterrent” then I disagree that you may conclude such here. First, restrict this to the subset of people taking deliberate actions, not to those who by misunderstanding or through clerical error became registered voters. People who misunderstand their eligibility (e.g., thought a green card conferred voting privilege, or made them a temporary citizen, or whatnot), or who were approved in error by registration officials, would have no reason to be deterred, since they would not think their voting was an illegal act. They’re on the voter roll, why would they shrink from exercising their (apparent) right to vote? So we must remove from consideration some unknown number from the 13 cited. Similarly, even those who knew in advance that their registration was not allowed, and who took active steps to become registered fraudulently, could be expected to take some comfort in that very process. They knew they had committed a fraud by registering, but they _had already gotten away with it_. What makes you think they would be deterred in exercising the granted privilege of voting, given their knowledge that their identification had been sufficient for the registrar? I’m just not buying that these couple/three hardened warriors in the campaign to bring a cornucopia of free stuff via Democratic largess through fraudulent votes comprising 0.0001% of the votes cast are going to be _deterred_ at the fleeting possibility of having the incredibly bad luck to be discovered and targeted for prosecution someday later. If you want to extend this into _meta_ territory (“Well, once there are some prosecutions, then the next set of prospective careless or fraudulent registrants might think twice about it, especially if it happened in their jurisdiction, maybe not so much if it happened someplace else, but surely once we get some additional convictions the point will be taken and then – _ta da!_ — DETERRENCE!) I’m just gonna call shenanigans on the whole idea. The numbers are tiny, and the deterrence is a hollow fantasy. Possible? Yes. Significant? Not so much. A distraction from the real intent and effect of “Voter ID”? Seems to be. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/29 "2014-09-12T15:35:30Z")
I was under the impression the thesis was that voter fraud is indeed rare, but while efforts to suppress it might reduce it by some amount, that amount will be tiny (because the problem overall is tiny to begin with) while simultaneously affecting and hampering a much larger number of legitimate voters who get caught as false positives. I suppose it comes down to personal philosophy: we want to punish and prevent crime even at the risk of prosecuting innocents by mistake, but what level of false prosecution is sufficient to make one accept that the law isn’t worthwhile? If one believes that criminals must be chased _no matter what_, then I figure you’ve willfully abandoned reason. Unfortunately, the abandonment of reason is not a losing campaign strategy, though it certainly should be. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/30 "2014-09-12T16:12:16Z")
If a sports team protested loudly and vigorously for years against anti-doping tests - well, I’d be suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/31 "2014-09-12T16:31:45Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If a sports team protested loudly and vigorously for years against anti-doping tests - well, I’d be suspicious. What if that team pointed out that due to environmental factors its players received false positives at a much greater rate than other teams’ players? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/32 "2014-09-12T16:37:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What if that team pointed out that **due to environmental factors** its players received false positives at a much greater rate than other teams’ players? Such as what? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/33 "2014-09-12T16:41:01Z")
In the analogy, whatever you like. In the actual topic, things like Florida’s voter purges or the well-documented phenomenon that minorities and low income citizens are far less likely to possess ID. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/34 "2014-09-12T16:54:33Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > If you want to extend this into _meta_ territory (“Well, once there are some prosecutions, then the next set of prospective careless or fraudulent registrants might think twice about it, especially if it happened in their jurisdiction, maybe not so much if it happened someplace else, but surely once we get some additional convictions the point will be taken and then – _ta da!_ — DETERRENCE!) I’m just gonna call shenanigans on the whole idea. The numbers are tiny, and the deterrence is a hollow fantasy. Possible? Yes. Significant? Not so much. A distraction from the real intent and effect of “Voter ID”? Seems to be. I did not realize it was possible to defeat an argument by “calling shenanigans.” But thank you for the introduction to this valuable tool. In a move that may not come as much surprise to you, I now intend to call shenanigans on each and every objection to Voter ID laws. It may come as equally unsurprising that I don’t agree that deterrence is a hollow fantasy, or that there is a “ta da” associated with the analytical process. In fact, it’s a completely straightforward and (in other contexts) unremarkable assertion: by providing a way to catch and convict lawbreakers, some people who previously risked breaking that law will forbear doing so. You’re correct, of course, that this effect is minimal for people who genuinely believe they are eligible to vote – but even then, it’s not zero, because the knowledge that people go to jail over this kind of stuff will prompt a more careful examination of one’s ex-felon or non-citizen status. Finally, you seem to believe that the crime happens only during the registration, and once that crime is completed, the malefactor may rest easy. But a crime happens BOTH with registration and with each vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/35 "2014-09-12T16:55:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In the analogy, whatever you like. In the actual topic, things like Florida’s voter purges or the well-documented phenomenon that minorities and low income citizens are far less likely to possess ID. What does Florida’s voter purge have to do with requiring ID? Also: shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/36 "2014-09-12T16:56:37Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If a sports team protested loudly and vigorously for years against anti-doping tests - well, I’d be suspicious. Is someone against testing? I’ve never heard of anyone being against testing in person voter fraud. I would welcome testing, if only to prove how hilariously miniscule the issue is. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/37 "2014-09-12T16:59:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What does Florida’s voter purge have to do with requiring ID? > > Also: shenanigans. In Florida, the voter purges and (now adopted) voter ID legislation are intimately tied. Rick Scott called them the two prongs of the state’s election security campaign or something along those lines. Now you get [pistol whipped](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFZG8KQJni8)! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/38 "2014-09-12T17:12:36Z")
Plus doping is known to be widespread and there is strong incentive for it (indeed a view that it is necessary to stay competitive). Vote fraud… not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/39 "2014-09-12T17:32:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In Florida, the voter purges and (now adopted) voter ID legislation are intimately tied. Rick Scott called them the two prongs of the state’s election security campaign or something along those lines. OK, I guess Rick Scott can defend the purge, then. I have no comment on the purge. I support the Voter ID laws. I don’t agree that any “intimate tie” exists to the extent that it means the two measures must be somehow non-severable. Extra shenanigans! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/40 "2014-09-12T18:05:39Z")
Heck, treat it like the current “ISIS or STFU” in the Pit. If you want tighter laws on voter ID, agree to pay for the means to get said ID into the hands of voters at no cost to them or, y’know… STFU. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273.md?page=3)