Elections can absolutely be won by just a handful of votes
View: https://bsky.app/profile/votehub.com/post/3mgxuzpgo732t
2026 Election Watch. Races, Tomfoolery, And Other Things
- Thread starter LTParis
- Start date
View: https://bsky.app/profile/votehub.com/post/3mgxuzpgo732t
That there are people who really want to put their thumbs on the scale and silence the progressives in the Democrat party.
Cool. Any evidence that any close races have been thrown by voter fraud, or is this the usual fearmongering about a nonexistent problem?
To flip that election, you're still looking at having to organize dozens, if not hundreds, of fraudulent votes and keeping that a secret. Assuming that every election can be flipped by a single fraudulent vote is just dumb. Yes, we do see these, but they're the outlier, not the norm.
Any close race is going to have its ballots scrutinized anyway. Many jurisdictions even have automatic recounts for tight elections.
poochyena, this is the Soap Box. If you want to make assertions you need to start backing them up with evidence that holds water.
poochyena, this is the Soap Box. If you want to make assertions you need to start backing them up with evidence that holds water.
Thats the problem, it would be impossible to prove if done well.
You are quoting a post that shows a single vote flipping an election
I already explained how it works. Buy voter data to see who does and doesn't regularly votes, use the person's name of someone who rarely to never votes, and its impossible to prove that you voted on someone else's behalf.
And it's already been explained to you how it's not a realistic method of meaningful voter fraud. Therefore: not an actual real-life problem.
You've mentioned this possibility a few times, but I wasn't aware this was a thing. Can you expand on how one goes about doing this, and what information would be included?
I did my own quick research and landed here:
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists
and a quick skimming of the per-state rules seems to indicate that only 13/50 US states would include voting history with this info.
That almost seems more like a state by state problem to solve...
That site seems like a fairly poor resource. I was just spot checking, but every instance where what it lists as in the file doesn't include vote history, when I click through to the state website vote history is in fact available.
That said, the scheme does seem pretty far fetched. Some elections are very close and one or two extra votes could make the difference, but the vast majority are not that close. If a person did this every single election cycle in the hopes of eventually tipping a very close election, their odds of getting caught would not be trivial.
Kris Kobach the AG for Kansas has been banging the drum for voter fraud for a long time. Over a decade ago, KS passed the SAFE act, a law which requires proof of citizenship like the SAVE Act. No accident, Kobach has been urging and egging Trump on since his first administration.
People may not remember but Trump alleged voter fraud in the 2016 elections, claiming that he'd have won the popular vote otherwise, rather than lose the PV by over 3 million votes. He set up a commission to investigate and disbanded the commission before it was about to report findings that there was no evidence of massive voter fraud.
So KS passed the SAFE act and it went into effect at the start of 2013. It wan't long before people complained of being disenfranchised. At the time, only KS and AZ had citizenship requirement but later that year, the SCOTUS ruled that AZ could not require proof of citizenship for people who used a mail-in registration form provided under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.
ACLU and the KS League of Women Voters sued the state of KS on behalf of individual citizens who couldn't vote. Kobach himself defended the case in court, not very well.
Read in USA TODAY: https://apple.news/AIIeocr17S_-XZKzmNgg8-g
Of course we have a different SCOTUS than n 2020, as well as a different federal judiciary.
Trump administration is attacking the 14th amendment in other fronts such as Birthright Citizenship.
People may not remember but Trump alleged voter fraud in the 2016 elections, claiming that he'd have won the popular vote otherwise, rather than lose the PV by over 3 million votes. He set up a commission to investigate and disbanded the commission before it was about to report findings that there was no evidence of massive voter fraud.
So KS passed the SAFE act and it went into effect at the start of 2013. It wan't long before people complained of being disenfranchised. At the time, only KS and AZ had citizenship requirement but later that year, the SCOTUS ruled that AZ could not require proof of citizenship for people who used a mail-in registration form provided under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.
ACLU and the KS League of Women Voters sued the state of KS on behalf of individual citizens who couldn't vote. Kobach himself defended the case in court, not very well.
Read in USA TODAY: https://apple.news/AIIeocr17S_-XZKzmNgg8-g
Of course we have a different SCOTUS than n 2020, as well as a different federal judiciary.
Trump administration is attacking the 14th amendment in other fronts such as Birthright Citizenship.
I used to work for a company that bought and used voter data, and our voter profile database did have information on how often a particular person voted. It is possible to build highly accurate voter profiles just from publicly available data.
However, it is not easy and your voter profiles are more valuable to fundraisers, canvassers, consultants, and the like. You would never be able to build that data without people noticing, in particular the existing companies that deal in voter information would absolutely take interest in a potential new competitor. And again, using that data for fraud is so much less economical than selling it above board.
Note that more people voted in Kansas in 2016, when the law was in effect, than in 2012, when it was not. That's not to say the law was a good idea, but some of the fears about disenfranchisement may have been a bit excessive.
Then why do you advocate for a solution which prevents tens of thousands of them in a biased way based on demographics?
It is a single vote in hindsight. Nobody is committing in person voting fraud after the polls have closed, so unless you have a magic crystal ball that will accurately tell you exactly which races will be decided by a single vote in advance, you have to commit a whole lot more fraud to make sure you get the result you want.
And you've demonstrated bupkis. Yes, you put forth a theory of how it could work, but, to date, there is no evidence that anyone, anywhere has actually managed to do it. When you have that evidence, maybe your theory will be taken seriously.
Show us the evidence. In person voter fraud is nonexistent.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/e...nce-of-voter-fraud-but-2020s-big-lie-lives-on
We have literally caught single individuals doing this and we are good at it.
Your solution however literally cheats elections bar none full stop don't pass go and absolutely do not collect your 200 fucking devalued dollars and it will turn our elections to shit hallelujah!
Where's the Tylenol?
I'm in Pennsylvania and various groups mail me a record of my voting history before each election as an inducement to vote. I would assume that happens in other states, so the risk of people noticing that they voted in an election they did not would be another hurdle as well.
That was brought up in the case. But it was immaterial because the individual plaintiffs couldn't vote when they wanted to.
Judge said thousands of people were disenfranchised, whether or not they tried to vote.
You absolutely can buy a database of voter data from vendors who specialize in this and use it for whatever purpose. I did it when I worked on a committee supporting a local referendum. We used the data to identify voters likely to support the referendum and made sure to get in contact with them to encourage/remind them to vote. The referendum passed.
So, I think what poochyena is suggesting is:
As DarthSlack pointed out, very few races are decided by a handful of votes, and as I pointed out, any race decided by that few votes is going to be heavily scrutinized anyway, probably leading to this tactic being unsuccessful.
But plenty of races are somewhat close. Let's use the recent IL-9 House primary as an example. The winner beat second place by ~4,000 votes.
IL allows early voting up to a month and a half (ish) before elections, but in practice, most early voting places don't really open up until the two weeks before the election, and really only have full hours on the weekday.
So let's assume we're using a 10-working-day window of early voting to accomplish this.
Let's assume a person could visit 10 early voting locations on a day (aggressive, but possible). Each person could then cast 100 votes over the early voting period. Assuming everything goes well (they remember the address of the non-voter, the election judge checking them in doesn't get suspicious, they don't get stuck in traffic, the non-voter doesn't show up to vote, etc...).
You'd need 40 people. And in this scenario that would yield a very close win, which would probably be scrutinized. So you'd probably need 50-80 people to a) avoid the possibility of scrutiny and b) deal with attrition from the 100 votes/person (see the above reasons).
4-7 dozen people would be involved in this conspiracy. The most successful conspiracy in history is generally considered the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Though a number of people were involved in various elements, the co-conspirators who knew everything likely numbered less than 10.
So, incredibly difficult, even in a reasonably optimal scenario (above).
Far easier, and more effective, one suspects would be things like raiding election offices, controlling voting machines, controlling voting machines (again), and of course good old voter intimidation, voter suppression, and aggressively purging voter registrations.
So, I think what poochyena is suggesting is:
- Buy voter database
- Use it to identify people who rarely vote (the db we used allowed us to query any household and find out in what elections they had voted in the past)
- Show up to their polling place, say you're them (with their address) and vote.
- Repeat until sufficient number of votes
As DarthSlack pointed out, very few races are decided by a handful of votes, and as I pointed out, any race decided by that few votes is going to be heavily scrutinized anyway, probably leading to this tactic being unsuccessful.
But plenty of races are somewhat close. Let's use the recent IL-9 House primary as an example. The winner beat second place by ~4,000 votes.
IL allows early voting up to a month and a half (ish) before elections, but in practice, most early voting places don't really open up until the two weeks before the election, and really only have full hours on the weekday.
So let's assume we're using a 10-working-day window of early voting to accomplish this.
Let's assume a person could visit 10 early voting locations on a day (aggressive, but possible). Each person could then cast 100 votes over the early voting period. Assuming everything goes well (they remember the address of the non-voter, the election judge checking them in doesn't get suspicious, they don't get stuck in traffic, the non-voter doesn't show up to vote, etc...).
You'd need 40 people. And in this scenario that would yield a very close win, which would probably be scrutinized. So you'd probably need 50-80 people to a) avoid the possibility of scrutiny and b) deal with attrition from the 100 votes/person (see the above reasons).
4-7 dozen people would be involved in this conspiracy. The most successful conspiracy in history is generally considered the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Though a number of people were involved in various elements, the co-conspirators who knew everything likely numbered less than 10.
So, incredibly difficult, even in a reasonably optimal scenario (above).
Far easier, and more effective, one suspects would be things like raiding election offices, controlling voting machines, controlling voting machines (again), and of course good old voter intimidation, voter suppression, and aggressively purging voter registrations.
How it works in Maryland: When a voter checks in at a polling place, they have to state their name, address, and month & day (not year) of birth to the check-in worker. The check-in worker has a tablet loaded with the voter rolls, and looks up the voter based on the information given. If the voter is out-of-precinct, the worker can direct them to their home polling place. Alternatively, the voter can cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if they don't also vote a standard ballot at their home precinct.
If someone walked into a polling place, was not on the rolls, and had no ID papers / cards on their person, (the most extreme case) they could register there, but would have to cast a provisional ballot. Then they would have to go to the county Board of Elections within some short time (I think 10 days??) and provide the documentation to show that they exist, are a citizen, and live where they say they live. If they don't do that, the provisional ballot isn't counted. So "no ID at the polls" doesn't translate into "any random person can walk in and vote (and have it counted)".
Motor / Voter makes Same-Day Registration (SDR) look trivial in the best case, because the voter has already documented themselves to the Motor Vehicle Admin, and possibly are known to the SSA (Social Security Admin.). So it's not necessary for the voter to re-supply documentation. The check-in worker scans the bar-code on the voter's driver's license, and if everything checks out, they can vote a standard ballot.
There are literally multiple pages of in-between scenarios, depending on what documentation the potential voter has, whether they've moved, etc. The check-in workers are trained on this and have reference materials with them to help them get it right.
(Ninja'd in general, but I thought an example of the nitty-gritty details might be interesting.)
Maybe it's a swing state thing? This has never happened to me.
I was thinking along much more banal lines. The average precinct is only about 2,700 people. There's a non-trivial chance one of the volunteers running the precinct will happen to know the person you're trying to impersonate. And if you try to run this scheme year after year, you only need to be unlucky on this front once.
Each name can only be used once.
If you want to avoid being caught you best not repeat at the same precinct.
Here it is typical for pairs of precincts to share locations (see above and now you should not repeat visit a polling place).
In small precincts everyone knows everyone, so you stand to be caught.
One must imagine the Holy Grail of those supporting a need for stringent identification protocols is examples of people showing up to vote and finding they've already been noted for doing so. Yet those are notably absent. But they persist in pursuit of disenfranchisement to magnitudes of order greater than could reasonably be expected to occur by in person fraud.
Thanks for posting this. One of the major contributors to people believing the propaganda around in-person fraud is that there's not much understanding of how much security is already there and how well it actually works. Current processes plus paper ballots is pretty secure already.
You can access your own voting history online for some states (all states?). It does not tell anyone who you voted for. However, it tells you that you had voted and what is your party registration.
Yes, the voter db I used had whether they voted in specific elections and to which party (or not) they were registered, as well as a bunch of publicly available information (gender, age, etc...).
In our case, for instance, one of the groups we wanted to target as amenable to our cause were women 25-45, registered Democratic, especially those with kids (it was a school-related funding referendum).
Really drove home (to me) that the most effective way to win elections is to ensure people who are already inclined to vote for you (or your cause) get out and cast that vote. Generally. There are outlier cases, of course.
In our case, for instance, one of the groups we wanted to target as amenable to our cause were women 25-45, registered Democratic, especially those with kids (it was a school-related funding referendum).
Really drove home (to me) that the most effective way to win elections is to ensure people who are already inclined to vote for you (or your cause) get out and cast that vote. Generally. There are outlier cases, of course.
Though, if you do, do also be prepared to so spend some time in jail.
If it were as easy to cheat as Republicans claim, they'd be doing it.
Tina Peters—who's been covered here on Ars, could consult on the ins-and-outs of the practice.
With an electorate as divided as this, the way to win elections is to turn out the base, not appeal to mythical "independent" voters.
I'm learning a lot about it recently. Here is one random example
https://www.l2-data.com/datamapping/
Note that it includes Voting Frequency
https://www.l2-data.com/datamapping/voter-data-dictionary/
Political campaigns have a LOT of data they use.
I don't.
They would just simply vote multiple times without hindsight and hope its enough to put the candidate over the edge since it sometimes is enough.
I just explained it multiple times now. You say you are a different voter and you vote. As long as that voter doesn't come in to vote or you are recognized by the poll worker, then there is no way to be caught.
If a signature is required to vote, then thats a decent way to help prevent fraud, but signatures would have to be matched before a vote is cast since its if not, then its pointless. We have anonymous voting, so once a vote is cast, we don't know who that person voted for.
What happens when a voter checks in at a polling place, they state a name, address, and month & day (not year) of birth to the check-in worker, but that information isn't theirs, but someone's identity they are stealing?
At certain point, you have to have some trust in the system. @poochyena . One can also argue that it is easy for the vote counters/collectors to switch out the vote as well as just change the number.
I do not have problem with nation ID, because I believe nation ID can have other usage as well. However, there are no significant amount of voter fraud based on all the current studies. USA does have significant data on voter intimidation, suppression, gerrymandering, etc., but USA have "chosen" to not do anything about it. If someone want to roll out a real secure the vote plan (resource, law to protect voters, etc.), I would be all ears.
I do not have problem with nation ID, because I believe nation ID can have other usage as well. However, there are no significant amount of voter fraud based on all the current studies. USA does have significant data on voter intimidation, suppression, gerrymandering, etc., but USA have "chosen" to not do anything about it. If someone want to roll out a real secure the vote plan (resource, law to protect voters, etc.), I would be all ears.
Last edited:
1. Everyone has anonymous voting.
2. Signatures are verified here. Prior to the picture ID requirement, they compared to the signature on your voting card.
Republicans ARE doing it. That's why they're so certain dems are doing it. (every accusation is a confession)
Do you really believe that people are going around fraudulently voting on the off chance that they might affect the outcome? And that nobody has noticed them doing this?
And as a result of this fiction, we need to go out and actually disenfranchise voters?
That's what you would have us believe?
When the actual person shows up to vote the problem will be noticed and there will be an investigation. And if you think hundreds or thousands of people can do this in a single election and not get noticed, you've got a very deluded view of how elections work. How many times do you think someone could pull this off before they screw up and get caught?
Last edited:
Monkeys could theoretically fly out of my butt and bite people, so we should probably tape up my butt.
But will those monkeys vote Democrat or Republican? That’s the real concern.
Well does flying out of flere's butt constitute a birth, thereby conferring on them US citizenship?
Again, here's how it works in Maryland:
If the actual voter has already voted (by mail-in, in early voting, or at the polling place on Election Day), that fact will be in the check-in tablet's database and the imposter will have to cast a provisional ballot. That provisional ballot will almost certainly not be counted. Also, casting a provisional ballot is a good deal more time-consuming than casting a standard ballot, so the Evil Plan of doing this 10 times on Election Day will experience some friction.
If the actual voter comes to vote after the imposter, then the situation is reversed and the actual voter would have to vote provisionally. In this case, Yes, the vote could actually be stolen. But the actual voter would be aware of this, and could bring it to the attention of the Board of Elections. (There's also a particular "Reason Code" on the provisional ballot application for this situation.) It's unlikely that the provisional ballot would be counted though, in part because there's no way to identify and invalidate the standard ballot cast by the impersonator. But if a pattern of this kind showed up, it would be noticed.
The system is not impenetrable, but it would be hard to exploit at scale.