# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/41 "2014-09-12T18:09:56Z")
There’s two kinds of voting fraud. Letting a person vote who shouldn’t be able to vote is one type of fraud. Denying a person a person who should be allowed to vote is another type of fraud. Either type of fraud can lead to a fraudulent outcome. So you can have an election where every vote cast was legitimate but still have a fraudulent outcome because some eligible voters weren’t able to 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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/42 "2014-09-12T18:11:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. Every single state that has Voter ID laws already provides that such IDs are provided at no cost. ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/43 "2014-09-12T18:16:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Every single state that has Voter ID laws already provides that such IDs are provided at no cost. Free car fare to the nearest DMV (open on weekends, of course) included, then? So we won’t be hearing any anecdotes about people having to take a day off work to travel 100+ miles, then, hmmmm? Glad to hear 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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/44 "2014-09-12T18:39:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. **Bricker** , so glad I was able to give you a new tool to hand-wave away objections without actually deconstructing their arguments. Your use of _shenanigans_ will save your interlocutors some effort since you will now be waving the “My Assertion Is Empty of Content” flag proudly yourself. 😃 I understand that a crime is committed both with fraudulent registration and with any subsequent vote. It’s just that, in this case, it doesn’t make any difference. And it’s nice of you to admit that deterrence is minimal for people who genuinely believe they are eligible to vote _and who manage to get through the registration process without their belief being contradicted by the voting registrar_. I guess the difference between zero and minimal-but-\>-zero isn’t really worth pursuing, although my personal knowledge of other people being convicted for shop lifting doesn’t cause me much “careful examination” or introspection every time I wheel my cart out of the grocery store, so I’m still falling on the ‘zero’ side. As for the deliberate fraudulent registrants, you’ve done nothing to contradict my conclusion that “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 do admit that, just as you say “in other contexts”, conviction of lawbreakers can have a deterrent effect on those who might contemplate breaking the law. But in this particular context, given the unknown ratio of (a) genuine deliberately fraudulent in-person voters to (b) those acting on misunderstanding or via clerical error so not (or only minimally) amenable to deterrence or (c) cases where legitimate votes appear possibly fraudulent due to clerical errors and so not subject to deterrence at all, I remain unpersuaded that any actual deterrence will take place. ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/45 "2014-09-12T19:18:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Every single state that has Voter ID laws already provides that such IDs are provided at no cost. If a free ID requires (for instance) a birth certificate to obtain, and that birth certificate costs $20, would you still consider it “at no cost?” ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/46 "2014-09-12T19:42:10Z")
I assume if the actual text of the relevant law contains the phrase “at no cost”, well, then… reality must follow. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/47 "2014-09-12T19:46:28Z")
I didn’t intend for this to be a rehash of all the old arguments. We’ve done that already. I thought that it would be interesting to discuss this paper. Could this paper be used in legal arguments against voter ID laws? Assuming that it’s conclusions are correct, does it undermine the argument that such laws are desirable because they prevent fraudulent outcomes? ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/48 "2014-09-12T19:49:54Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > I do admit that, just as you say “in other contexts”, conviction of lawbreakers can have a deterrent effect on those who might contemplate breaking the law. But in this particular context, given the unknown ratio of (a) genuine deliberately fraudulent in-person voters to (b) those acting on misunderstanding or via clerical error so not (or only minimally) amenable to deterrence or (c) cases where legitimate votes appear possibly fraudulent due to clerical errors and so not subject to deterrence at all, I remain unpersuaded that any actual deterrence will take place. Yeah, I get that. But I’m unpersuaded that the ACA is a good idea, and yet it was enacted over my strenuous objections. So is there at least a chance that your persuasion threshhold is incorrectly calibrated? Because I am absolutely convinced that there are a (very few) people who vote illegally knowing, secure in the safety of an impotent prosecutor, but who won’t risk it when there’s a cognizable chance of jail. It seems beyond cavil that in a country approaching 400 million people, there’s not one or two such people. Right? So, shenanigans on you! ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/49 "2014-09-12T19:53:39Z")
I understand your annoyance, davidm, but the issue is moot to someone who cannot or will not recognize that a denied vote is as bad as a fraudulent vote. As long as supporters of the current crop of ID laws maintain that punishing criminals (even if largely imaginary) is more important than not disenfranchising citizens (assuming they even admit that disenfranchisement occurs), the paper you cite will mean nothing to them. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/50 "2014-09-12T19:55:09Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Could this paper be used in legal arguments against voter ID laws? Well, not really. Voting rights infringements receive rational basis review, for reasons which elude me (and other right thinking people) so it’s more or less impossible to challenge them by presenting evidence of ill effects. You essentially have to show that they _could not_ possibly do what the legislature intended, rather than that they often don’t. ---
**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, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/51 "2014-09-12T19:58:56Z")
Bingo. Bricker claims Ramon Cue proves the law is needed, any evidence that it is useless or harmful… irrelevant. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/52 "2014-09-12T20:01:37Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > If a free ID requires (for instance) a birth certificate to obtain, and that birth certificate costs $20, would you still consider it “at no cost?” > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I assume if the actual text of the relevant law contains the phrase “at no cost”, well, then… reality must follow. > . > . > . > Free car fare to the nearest DMV (open on weekends, of course) included, then? So we won’t be hearing any anecdotes about people having to take a day off work to travel 100+ miles, then, hmmmm? > > Glad to hear it. Wait. Voting is typically described as “free,” and no one objects. But voting requires potential time off work, transport to the polling station, and waiting – sometimes hours – in line. Yet that is never described as being anything other than free. Why are you entitled to disregard those ‘costs’ of voting but not the ones you don’t like? ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/53 "2014-09-12T20:04:38Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > If a free ID requires (for instance) a birth certificate to obtain, and that birth certificate costs $20, would you still consider it “at no cost?” Voting is inherently costly in and of itself. Should the government provide free car rides to save voters the gasoline costs of traveling to the polls? ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/54 "2014-09-12T20:07:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Free car fare to the nearest DMV (open on weekends, of course) included, then? So we won’t be hearing any anecdotes about people having to take a day off work to travel 100+ miles, then, hmmmm? > > Glad to hear it. What about people having to time off work to travel to the polls on Election Day, then, hmmmm? ID or no ID, they’d have to travel. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/55 "2014-09-12T20:08:03Z")
Next question: Does the lack of cars disenfranchise voters who need car rides to the polls? ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/56 "2014-09-12T20:12:06Z")
A large part of that dislike is that the laws are in response to an almost entirely nonexistent problem. By Bricker’s logic once something costs something, there’s no problem making it cost more. If anything, I’d suggest identifying venues where voting takes hours and allocate resources to improve efficiency. If that involves making mass transit free on election day… sure, I can see that, among other ideas, including changing Election Day into Election Weekend etc. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/57 "2014-09-12T20:37:16Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Voting is inherently costly in and of itself. > > Should the government provide free car rides to save voters the gasoline costs of traveling to the polls? Plus your body is burning calories during the car ride to the polls, during the act of voting, and the ride home. In order to be truly “free” the government should provide a meal for every voter along the way. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/58 "2014-09-12T20:44:21Z")
This digression is amusing and I admit wanting to indulge it, but to get back on point, would anyone who wants to see fraudulent votes prevented care to weigh in on the denied-vote concept, i.e. is a denied vote: 1. Not as bad as a fraudulent vote. 2. As bad as a fraudulent vote. 3. Worse than a fraudulent vote. 4. What are you talking about, Bryan, nobody is being denied a 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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/59 "2014-09-12T20:47:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > A large part of that dislike is that the laws are in response to an almost entirely nonexistent problem. By Bricker’s logic once something costs something, there’s no problem making it cost more. No. Bricker’s logic merely points out that we are comfortable, as a society, with two general statements. Direct costs (i.e., a poll tax, or a charge for a permissible ID) for voting are not permitted. But attenuated costs (birth certificate to validate one’s nationality or identity; standing in line; driving to a government facility) are not _per se_ forbidden. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/60 "2014-09-12T20:50:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > This digression is amusing and I admit wanting to indulge it, but to get back on point, would anyone who wants to see fraudulent votes prevented care to weigh in on the denied-vote concept, i.e. is a denied vote: > > 1. Not as bad as a fraudulent vote. > 2. As bad as a fraudulent vote. > 3. Worse than a fraudulent vote. > 4. What are you talking about, Bryan, nobody is being denied a vote. No one is being “denied” a vote. Everyone is being asked to show evidence of their identity before voting. Some people may decide not to go through the work of doing that. Just like some people may decide not to vote if there’s a snowstorm on Election Day. But we would not characterize those people as having been “denied” their vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273.md?page=4)