I stipulate that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem. But that doesn't change the principle. If you are going to assert a legal right, I believe there should be a means of determining whether you are entitled to that right. This is why I am so conflicted about the issue. I'm too anal retentive for the honor system.
The problem with figures like this is that they use a very specific definition of voter fraud. There are a large amount of forms of voter fraud, including ballot tampering, electronic ballot tampering, voter intimidation, voters being misled, and deliberate "miscountings". Even fake persons voting or voting in multiple elections, such as illegal immigrants voting, who should not be allowed to vote at all yet do in the hundreds of thousands. It may not be fraud per say, that is stealing someone else's identity, but since in many cases identities aren't even checked, just anyone could walk in there and vote without being checked to see if it's the same person. Or even a registered voter at all. Or to see if they have already voted.
How many double counts, triple counts and the like have occurred? There are places with over 3,000% votes in some areas. 110% and the like. They may not count as voter fraud in some people's mind, but nonetheless it's the same type of manipulation that leads to corrupt entities getting power. The single greatest threat to our democracy is someone manipulating the very foundation of the voting system. "The government by the people, for the people, and for the people" turns in to "And the government for the people who voted 16 times in the last election". When micky-mouse and spiderman are voting 10's of thousands of times in an election, you know something is off.
They barely even check and compare the voters to see if they are real people.
Now, the difference may only be 1-4%. But consider that virtually all major presidential elections have been won by that much, With Obama winning by 4%, and George Bush by less than 1%. Consider that the electoral college is far more easily manipulated, and if states like say, Texas, went a few percents the other way, that's 30 some odd votes for a candidate, or California 50 etc. Which means their ability to win dozens of members in the electoral college is predicated on just a few small percents. It's enough to throw an entire election.
Now while I believe most presidents likely would have become president one way or another, even George Bush, some candidates such as JFK might have won the election with various methods of fraud. I like JFK, but the fact of the matter is if the people's voice is being robbed, it doesn't matter who you vote for, and that just makes it a dictatorship by the choice of a small oligarchy who knows how to throw off elections. Places like detroit who are billions of dollars in debt but are getting corrupt person after another easily could have their votes manipulated. In some cases more than 100% of people voted, and it's extremely unlikely that 100% of people would have voted at all. Even more than 70%. So, at local levels corruption is far more profound. The truth is the problem is far more nuanced than people like to admit. While many elections might not have been determined, many more in the future could be, even if it's just local cities or precincts. Minority votes are the most easily washed out, and they're the groups that need their voice heard the loudest. Thus voter fraud stands to hurt them the most.
Edited by Manoka, 24 March 2016 - 01:33 PM.
