# Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971 "2012-05-24T17:25:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**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:** [May 29, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/161 "2012-05-29T00:53:56Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Except it has been done. How many times would you like me to point out the problematic ballots from the Sanchez Dornan race? Over 600 votes by non-citizens discovered after the fact - not quite enough to tip the scale - but the race was a close one. A further review by INS found another questionable 4,700 ballots - but at that point the House dropped it. > > So there HAS been a problem with people voting who do not have the right. It might have even swayed an election. And you’re claiming that 600 non-citizens actually showed up at the polls and voted? **elucidator** has already pointed out the logistical difficulties of this. This NY Times article from shortly after that election says that the problems were with absentee ballots. > **[After Days of Counting, Dornan Race Is Too Close to Call (Published 1996)](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/14/us/after-days-of-counting-dornan-race-is-too-close-to-call.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)** > > California Congressional race between Republican incumbent Repr Robert K Dornan and Democratic challenger Loretta Sanchez remains too close to call after drawn-out, eight-day ballot count, which gives Sanchez slim 46,697 to 45,932-vote lead; photos... Would the new voter ID laws have prevented that? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/162 "2012-05-29T01:21:34Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > And you’re claiming that 600 non-citizens actually showed up at the polls and voted? **elucidator** has already pointed out the logistical difficulties of this. > > This NY Times article from shortly after that election says that the problems were with absentee ballots. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/14/us/after-days-of-counting-dornan-race-is-too-close-to-call.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/14/us/after-days-of-counting-dornan-race-is-too-close-to-call.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) > > Would the new voter ID laws have prevented that? Requiring proof of citizenship at registration could at least knock one portion of problems at polls, be it absentee or in-person voting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/163 "2012-05-29T01:32:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It doesn’t happen for one reason, in two words: im possible. Can’t be done. > > Set a modest goal, say, a thousand bogus votes in a precinct of a hundred thousand. Tell me how. > > Do you recruit one thousand dedicated fanatics to the Dark Side? Darth Voters? Then your conspiracy has a thousand weaknesses, right off the bat. Loose lips, and all that. And even then, you have to create a thousand sets of whatever flimsy documentation is needed. A thousand utility bills? Forged convincingly? Or maybe a thousand actual bills of people you know exist, but are certain aren’t going to vote? How? > > OK, maybe a hundred voting ten times each. Solves some problems! Except the logistics. You still got the document problem, and in addition, you have to set an impossible schedule. Most polling places are open about twelve hours, give or take. So now you provide the documentation, advise each co-conspirator of their ten fakes, and get them to the first polling place on their list. Bright and early! Because they are going to have to register to vote, wait to vote, vote, get the hell out and off to the next one in…what? An hour? Hour and a half? Better have the car warmed up and waiting to zip them off to… > > Its ridiculous, D-Day was less a logistical problem than this. The reason you are not detecting any such thing is the same reason you don’t detect unicorn stampedes. > > This is not news to you, **Bricker** , we’ve discussed this before. If you have a plausible scheme for doing even this modest effort, tell us. You might want to consider giving up on law and taking a position with SPECTRE. Always looking for a few bad men. Stripping away the fluff, I sense that your response is: because it would require a massive conspiracy, it can’t be done – or, if done, would be exposed in short order. Before I answer that, I want o know if I sussed out what you were saying. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/164 "2012-05-29T02:49:51Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You miss the obvious point: Even detractors know that there is a number above zero of disenfranchised voters. There is no way to quantify this “voter confidence” thing and the one study that even approached the subject said it was a non-factor. I never said it was zero, but there is a difference between claiming something is non-negative and making a tacit assumption that it is a huge number. Let me put it this way. Do Democrats get more votes through illegal aliens claiming they are citizens and voting than they lose to disenfranchisement through Voter ID? Please offer statistics whether you answer yes or no. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/165 "2012-05-29T05:32:59Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Sigh. That should read "That’s \*\*no_t_ \*\*how we do things is this country. A righteous rant ruined by a typo that reverses the meaning. ☹ Maybe a mod can correct it. Not? That doesn’t fix your sentence. it wasn’t better with “now” though, either. You had gone on to say, “Individual rights are paramount,” but either you do NOT understand how “we” do things in this country, or “this country” means some other than the U.S.A., but I can’t think of one that espouses what you said. Now, granted, “we” might just mean you and some group of legal sophomores…I dunno, but it’s not ME, and it’s not how our government works, and certainly isn’t “we” if “we” involves the Supreme Court. I’m not saying we don’t take individual rights seriously. We do. Sometimes in the name of refusal to set a precedent for violation of rights , we even set murderers free. You know it. But "this country"does **NOT** place individual rights as paramount. Compelling government interests are paramount. I’m not kidding, I know you don’t believe me, but it’s a fact. Accept it. Here’s how it REALLY works: Wiser people than me have figured out that it is impossible to uphold all rights all of the time all at the same time. My right to swing my arm ends at the fear of your nose. Really, I’m not making this up. It has been observed before that ALL laws in some manner, some more so than others, create inequalities between various groups of citizens. There is nothing for it; it simply can’t be helped. Therefore, we must accept that we cannot always point to a right and claim (of course from your point of view) that some great evil is being done because you can read your right in the Constitution and it doesn’t seem to you that it is being honored. No, “we” do not consider a fundamental right to be the only part of the equation. Now, I’m not really gonna get into MY RIGHT to a legitimately comprised, constitutional government. But you see, if an interest of the government’s can be said to be compelling, [and I believe the objective of fair and honest elections is exceedingly compelling (in light of other interests that have been found compelling)] then it is actually ok, believe it or not, to deny even a fundamental right. No, I’m not making this up, really. You see, in equal protection analysis, “we” (meaning those of us who accept the Law and the fact of it’s existence and the principles of our governance– **Bricker** explained this) under what we call strict scrutiny, that is, the highest standard of upholding rights under equal protection, we look to see if there is a compelling interest; and then, if we find that there is, we next ask if the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Then we ask ourselves if there is a less restrictive means available; (yeah, I know, that’s like asking if the law is narrowly tailored again, but I guess that’s important enough to do twice from another angle maybe) if we can approve the law ona ll three considerations, then “we” do not concern ourselves with a violation of fundamental rights. To be honest, I don’t quite like it, but argue as I might, I cannot overcome the proposition that all laws are going to treat someone unequally from another in some way; some group is not going to like it and feel violated. I wish we could devise a system that didn’t do this, but, unfortunately, we haven’t been able to come up with a better theory. Until you can explain how I can swing my arm past the fear of your nose without, well, making you feel assaulted, I’m listening up for a way that all rights can be upheld simultaneously in all situations without limitation. Until then you need to accept that “we” in “this country” find the balance of competing rights to be paramount. Now THAT was a righteous “rant.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/166 "2012-05-29T06:20:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I never said it was zero, but there is a difference between claiming something is non-negative and making a tacit assumption that it is a huge number. It’s a number above zero. That’s all I am concerned with. And it’s more than you can say about Voter Confidence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/167 "2012-05-29T06:21:53Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > This NY Times article from shortly after that election says that the problems were with absentee ballots. > > Would the new voter ID laws have prevented that? No. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/168 "2012-05-29T06:48:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stripping away the fluff, I sense that your response is: because it would require a massive conspiracy, it can’t be done – or, if done, would be exposed in short order. > > Before I answer that, I want o know if I sussed out what you were saying. Oh, come now, its nothing complicated. Nor was it complicated the half dozen times or more I’ve laid out the same facts for you. A “massive” conspiracy, is that where you planted the Acme Spring Activated Gotchaya Trap? Well, not necessarily “massive”, I suppose. You could probably pull it off to the tune of fifteen or twenty bogus voters, if you were reasonably well organized. To what end, why put yourself at risk of a federal rap for chickenfeed? Anything bigger than that, and the risks go exponential, the more people who know, the more the risk that somebody’s daughter is going to put it on Facebook. I know maybe three, four people I trust enough for a plot like this, I sure as fuck don’t know a hundred. Do you? And, of course, the more bogus votes you aim for, the more the logistical nightmare increases. Exponentially. Ever see _Fantasia_, where Mickey is the Sorcerers Apprentice? Like that. But why are you trying to manipulate me like that? Just lay it on us, you don’t need a drum roll, whip it out. I mean, you never had it before, but now you do, OK, let 'er buck! Astonish me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/169 "2012-05-29T07:05:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The one study did not, as I explained above, ask any question that would test the hypothesis I proposed. You keep denigrating that paper. I appreciate that you did because there’s a lot more evidence I wasn’t aware of. Maybe you weren’t either? Check out the Columbia Public Law Research Paper from 2008 “[Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1099056).” This specifically addresses this issue and concludes: > [@](#): > > Because actual evidence of voter impersonation fraud is rare and difficult to come by if fraud is successful, reliance on public opinion as to the prevalence of fraud threatens to allow courts to evade the difficult task of balancing the actual constitutional risks involved. In this Essay we employ a unique survey to evaluate the causes and effects of public opinion regarding vote fraud. We find that perceptions of fraud have no relationship to an individual’s likelihood of turning out to vote. We also find that voters who were subject to stricter identification requirements believe fraud is just as widespread as do voters subject to less restrictive identification requirements. Election Law Blogger [Rick Hasen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L._Hasen), writes > [@](#): > > The[released chapter](http://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Fraud-Squad-Understanding-ebook/dp/B00795X5XI/ref=zg_bs_157417011_9) of my [forthcoming book](http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031) discusses the best academic studies available on voter i.d… I focus on the actual empirical work on voter id, including important work by Pitts, Erikson and Minnite, and Ansolabehere and Persily. > > The truth? > > [Virtually no evidence](http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32188) that voter i.d. laws prevent the kind of fraud (in person, impersonation voter fraud) which is a serious threat in American elections. > > **No evidence of a link between voter i.d. laws and voter confidence.** > > The chapter explains these points in detail. I have yet to see good empirical evidence refuting either of these two points. (Emphasis mine.) Also, the MIT Political Science Department Research Paper “[Partisanship and Voter Confidence, 2000–2010](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035513)” looks specifically at partisanship as the main variable in voter confidence. It does find that to be the case, but relevant to our discussion, it concludes: > [@](#): > > although we do not want to claim that voter confidence can be completely explained by party, the fact that there is a substantial and robust partisan component to confidence should give reformers and others who judge the efficacy of reform some pause, if “boosting confidence” is the goal of election reform. Is there any evidence that Voter Confidence is impacted by Voter ID? Or is the best you can do is to tear down the evidence that does exist suggesting the opposite as not robust enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/170 "2012-05-29T07:29:18Z")
I cited the same study as before in my post above. My bad. Posting at 3AM is not wise… Fortunately there are two other cites, one of which references that study but also other studies. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/171 "2012-05-29T12:55:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, come now, its nothing complicated. Nor was it complicated the half dozen times or more I’ve laid out the same facts for you. A “massive” conspiracy, is that where you planted the Acme Spring Activated Gotchaya Trap? > > Well, not necessarily “massive”, I suppose. You could probably pull it off to the tune of fifteen or twenty bogus voters, if you were reasonably well organized. To what end, why put yourself at risk of a federal rap for chickenfeed? Anything bigger than that, and the risks go exponential, the more people who know, the more the risk that somebody’s daughter is going to put it on Facebook. > > I know maybe three, four people I trust enough for a plot like this, I sure as fuck don’t know a hundred. Do you? > > And, of course, the more bogus votes you aim for, the more the logistical nightmare increases. Exponentially. Ever see _Fantasia_, where Mickey is the Sorcerers Apprentice? Like that. > > But why are you trying to manipulate me like that? Just lay it on us, you don’t need a drum roll, whip it out. I mean, you never had it before, but now you do, OK, let 'er buck! Astonish me. Please indulge me first. In simple, clear, declarative words, with no rhetorical flushes: we know it hasn’t happened because it would be ineffective using only a small number of people, and the more people that were used, the more likely it would be discovered based on the number of conspirators. Please endorse that sentence, or modify it to that it expresses your actual belief. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/172 "2012-05-29T13:02:56Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You keep denigrating that paper. I appreciate that you did because there’s a lot more evidence I wasn’t aware of. Maybe you weren’t either? OK, did you see what I did with elucidator? In an effort to make sure I understood his argument, I restated it in clear and unambiguous terms, and I offered that result to him to either endorse or correct as necessary. The fact that you offered up those studies suggests that perhaps you’re not entirely clear on my argument. So why don’t you do the same thing I did? Restate my argument in your words. What am I saying? Also, I still don’t see where you unambiguously acknowledged that your claim about the laws passed by Rhode Island having some fundamental difference from the laws passed by Indiana was untrue. So, again: do you now admit that your claim about the laws passed by Rhode Island having some fundamental difference from the laws passed by Indiana was untrue? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/173 "2012-05-29T13:21:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, come now, its nothing complicated. Nor was it complicated the half dozen times or more I’ve laid out the same facts for you. A “massive” conspiracy, is that where you planted the Acme Spring Activated Gotchaya Trap? > > Well, not necessarily “massive”, I suppose. You could probably pull it off to the tune of fifteen or twenty bogus voters, if you were reasonably well organized. To what end, why put yourself at risk of a federal rap for chickenfeed? Anything bigger than that, and the risks go exponential, the more people who know, the more the risk that somebody’s daughter is going to put it on Facebook. > > I know maybe three, four people I trust enough for a plot like this, I sure as fuck don’t know a hundred. Do you? > > And, of course, the more bogus votes you aim for, the more the logistical nightmare increases. Exponentially. Ever see _Fantasia_, where Mickey is the Sorcerers Apprentice? Like that. > > But why are you trying to manipulate me like that? Just lay it on us, you don’t need a drum roll, whip it out. I mean, you never had it before, but now you do, OK, let 'er buck! Astonish me. You still haven’t explained why it has to be the general public committing voter fraud and not a poll worker voting over and over again, or a poll worker maybe calling ten friends to each vote over and over. In such a case needing any documentation at all is not required. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/174 "2012-05-29T15:02:46Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I’d like to see what your reasoning is that the only source of voter fraud can be the general public. Suppose I’m a poll worker, I have the access to the information of who’s voted and who hasn’t; and the guy I want to win is losing by a couple hundred votes. > > maybe I call a few friends and we all vote a few times in the last few minutes, maybe I can vote a bunch of times… I’m a volunteer poll worker in Michigan, I can explain exactly why this is impossible. 1. It is true that I have access to a list of who’s voted and who hasn’t. In my precinct ONLY. The precinct I’m usually assigned to has around 1200 registered voters; there are 14 other precincts in our township of around 30,000 people. We have no access to lists of who has voted in the other precincts. They are isolated, by design. 2. We do NOT have access to the breakdown of who’s winning or losing. Not a single vote is counted before the close of the polls. We have no way of knowing if any candidate is “losing by a couple hundred votes.” Even if we somehow had access to votes and knew how the vote was going in our own precinct, we have no access to any of the other 14 precincts. By design. 3. Planning ahead with a bunch of “friends” in reserve means that they must be registered to vote. If they’re that concerned about the results of the election **they should be voting anyway**. And once you’ve voted in your registered precinct, you don’t get another ballot; we’ve checked you off, and it is a _felony offense_ to knowingly give you another ballot. If you’re not registered in a given precinct, the best we can do for you is give you a provisional ballot that _will not be counted_ if you can’t come to the clerk’s office later with proof of ID and registration. And if you’re trying to vote more than once with fake IDs of actual voters in different precincts, good luck proving to the person behind the desk that you’re several different people. What, are they going to come in several times wearing wigs and funny noses? 4. I am working. I cannot take time and call up a couple hundred friends to come in and vote without being noticed by the 3-5 other poll workers. And the state policy of assigning a mix of Republicans and Democrats to each precinct to reduce the likelihood of collusion of the entire group is again, by design. 5. I am working. Voting in the precinct requires the physical act of putting a piece of paper in the ballot machine. I cannot get up and fill out a few dozen applications to vote and a few dozen ballots and put them in the machine without any of my co-workers noticing. I keep track of the voter registration list. The person handing out applications to vote, the person keeping track of ballots, and the person minding the ballot machine would all notice. 6. The township sends out a couple of roving workers to do a circuit of all the precincts a few times a day, to check voter tallies. They personally look at the machine count, they don’t just take our word for it. We know what times are the busiest and can usually gauge by lunchtime approximately how many voters we’ll have by the end of the day. The only information we might get about the election would be exit polls (which, remember, are just percentages, not counts within the hypothetical few hundred votes) while on dinner break, and IF I managed to get my co-workers to work with me to forge applications to vote and fill out ballots and stuff the box with a few hundred extra fake voters, there would be serious questions from the clerk’s office about the sudden overwhelming rush at the end of the day. Remember, there’s only around 1200 voters in my precinct. A few hundred votes would be a MASSIVE swing in turnout percentage. Hell, a few DOZEN could raise questions. If 14 precincts had a 20-24% turnout, and one had a 30% turnout, that’s significant. And that’s only about 70 fake voters. Enough to swing an election? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/175 "2012-05-29T15:23:44Z")
How about this one, **Jenaroph** : Several thousand illegal aliens register to vote, and then vote. Please share the reasons this scheme would be impossible or detected. ---
**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:** [May 29, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/176 "2012-05-29T15:49:36Z")
It wouldn’t be impossible, but I think it’s pretty unlikely. Illegals want to stay under the radar. They want to deal with the government as little as possible. They’re risking deportation, or worse, for little or no personal gain. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/177 "2012-05-29T16:04:51Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > It wouldn’t be impossible, but I think it’s pretty unlikely. > > Illegals want to stay under the radar. They want to deal with the government as little as possible. They’re risking deportation, or worse, for little or no personal gain. You say that, but thousands of illegals openly carry signs and protest in favor of things like the DREAM Act. And if they can have a chance to elect politicians that favor things like the DREAM Act, that’s a great personal gain. In my view, the risk of casting a vote as an illegal alien is indeed small, partly because there’s no way to prove that you did it. Prosecuting a case would be difficult. But if voter ID is required, prosecuting the same case would be much easier, because the government has a much stronger case, since you needed to actually show your ID to vote, making a strong record that you did it. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/178 "2012-05-29T16:27:55Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > I’m a volunteer poll worker in Michigan, I can explain exactly why this is impossible. Oh, really? Let’s see just how “im possible” this is. I suspect you mean “im possible **IF** ” everything works as designed. But we’re talking about people purposely circumventing the design. > [@Jenaroph](#): > > 1. It is true that I have access to a list of who’s voted and who hasn’t. In my precinct ONLY. The precinct I’m usually assigned to has around 1200 registered voters; there are 14 other precincts in our township of around 30,000 people. We have no access to lists of who has voted in the other precincts. They are isolated, by design. And it’s been shown that only a few hundred votes can make the difference. > [@Jenaroph](#): > > 1. We do NOT have access to the breakdown of who’s winning or losing. Not a single vote is counted before the close of the polls. We have no way of knowing if any candidate is “losing by a couple hundred votes.” Even if we somehow had access to votes and knew how the vote was going in our own precinct, we have no access to any of the other 14 precincts. By design. While on your bathroom break, you have a look at exit polls on your smartphone. You mean you have no OFFICIAL way of knowing, don’t you? Besides, you could also do it “just to make sure.” > [@Jenaroph](#): > > 1. Planning ahead with a bunch of “friends” in reserve means that they must be registered to vote. If they’re that concerned about the results of the election **they should be voting anyway**. And once you’ve voted in your registered precinct, you don’t get another ballot; we’ve checked you off, and it is a _felony offense_ to knowingly give you another ballot. If you’re not registered in a given precinct, the best we can do for you is give you a provisional ballot that _will not be counted_ if you can’t come to the clerk’s office later with proof of ID and registration. And if you’re trying to vote more than once with fake IDs of actual voters in different precincts, good luck proving to the person behind the desk that you’re several different people. What, are they going to come in several times wearing wigs and funny noses? You’re quite missing my point. You, as the corrupt poll worker, (I do not mean this literally, I mean not to impugn your personal integrity) call your friends while in the bathroom and ask them to IMPERSONATE other registered voters who did not show up. The point is, the poll worker is in on it and looks the other way concerning who this person actually is. > [@Jenaroph](#): > > 1. I am working. I cannot take time and call up a couple hundred friends to come in and vote without being noticed by the 3-5 other poll workers. And the state policy of assigning a mix of Republicans and Democrats to each precinct to reduce the likelihood of collusion of the entire group is again, by design. maybe you just call 2 or 3 in the bathroom who then call ten each, who also call ten people. It doesn’t really matter how many get called because you are going to let them repeatedly vote, as the corrupt poll worker. And of course, no person has ever switched parties per their registration in order to skew an election. Last time I registered to vote, the election commisioner’s office did nothing to find out if I’m REALLY a libertarian, or just claiming to be in order to screw something else up, or have an opportunity that a real member of a party might have that is denied to someone of another party. So maybe you get lucky, and the two of the twenty democrats who falsely signed up republican and volunteered for poll duty are chosen leaving you with 3 democrats in reality, all guarding the henhouse. > [@Jenaroph](#): > > 1. I am working. Voting in the precinct requires the physical act of putting a piece of paper in the ballot machine. I cannot get up and fill out a few dozen applications to vote and a few dozen ballots and put them in the machine without any of my co-workers noticing. I keep track of the voter registration list. The person handing out applications to vote, the person keeping track of ballots, and the person minding the ballot machine would all notice. Having lived in a variety of different precincts, I can assure you they are not all just like yours. Really. I’m not making this up. Some have no-one waiting in line when I show up to vote and I’m done in three minutes. I agree that the busier a precinct polling place is, the less opportunity, but even if it’s busy, if the poll workers are in collusion, it could still be done. > [@Jenaroph](#): > > 1. The township sends out a couple of roving workers to do a circuit of all the precincts a few times a day, to check voter tallies. They personally look at the machine count, they don’t just take our word for it. We know what times are the busiest and can usually gauge by lunchtime approximately how many voters we’ll have by the end of the day. The only information we might get about the election would be exit polls (which, remember, are just percentages, not counts within the hypothetical few hundred votes) while on dinner break, and IF I managed to get my co-workers to work with me to forge applications to vote and fill out ballots and stuff the box with a few hundred extra fake voters, there would be serious questions from the clerk’s office about the sudden overwhelming rush at the end of the day. Remember, there’s only around 1200 voters in my precinct. A few hundred votes would be a MASSIVE swing in turnout percentage. Hell, a few DOZEN could raise questions. If 14 precincts had a 20-24% turnout, and one had a 30% turnout, that’s significant. And that’s only about 70 fake voters. Enough to swing an election? Who cares about “questions” even serious ones, when your system is designed to not provide proof of who voted? What are they gonna do, not count them as “suspicious?” Lawsuits filed? maybe. so what? You might still get away with it. I find your “im possible” to not even be im-plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/179 "2012-05-29T16:33:46Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Remember, there’s only around 1200 voters in my precinct. A few hundred votes would be a MASSIVE swing in turnout percentage. Hell, a few DOZEN could raise questions. If 14 precincts had a 20-24% turnout, and one had a 30% turnout, that’s significant. So – are you saying if I can look at a past election and find a precinct with such a variance, you’d accept that as evidence of voter fraud? ---
**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:** [May 29, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/180 "2012-05-29T16:47:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You say that, but thousands of illegals openly carry signs and protest in favor of things like the DREAM Act. And if they can have a chance to elect politicians that favor things like the DREAM Act, that’s a great personal gain. > > In my view, the risk of casting a vote as an illegal alien is indeed small, partly because there’s no way to prove that you did it. Prosecuting a case would be difficult. > > But if voter ID is required, prosecuting the same case would be much easier, because the government has a much stronger case, since you needed to actually show your ID to vote, making a strong record that you did it. You say that thousands of illegals carry signs in favor of the dream act. How do you know that they’re illegals? Even if they are, carrying a sign is quite different from registering to vote. Carrying a sign does not require filling out paperwork or visiting a government office. There’s little danger of confrontation by a government official. They may have something to gain as a whole by the election of a candidate that supports the DREAM Act but what is the payoff to a given individual? One vote? One Vote that is unlikely to make a difference but could lead to deportation or criminal charges? Getting arrested or deported will not help in gaining permanent residency for their children. I think it’s telling that the right always steers this conversation to talk about illegals. They have a long history of using people’s fear of “the other” to sway public opinion. This appears to be more of the same. Maybe that’s an unfair charge, but it follows the pattern. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=10)