Comment by yieldcrv
3 days ago
one party says its rampant and cant prove it, they think the other party relies on non-citizens voting
the other party says its not rampant per say and resists all capability to prove it, because they think the solutions to proving legal voter status would be difficult for their citizen voters to accomplish
amusingly, the limited audits done always find improper votes for the first party, although nothing rampant
ironically, Commonwealth and European countries all have the voter status proving requirement that the first party is asking for, despite this being seen as an extremist right wing idea to be distanced from
in the US, it is accurate that any voter registration tweak has been used to decline legal voters ability to vote so the left - despite being more congruent ideals with the rest of the developed world - does have unique considerations and skepticism
did I miss anything?
The Commonwealth and European countries make it easy to prove voting eligibility though. That's why it's not a crazy idea there. In the US every single time it's tried there end up being crazy manipulative requirements. E.g. gun permit (no photo) being a valid voter ID but student ID (with photo) not, because they want gun owners to vote more (as they vote republican) and students less (as they vote democrat), and of course there's no universal ID card like in European countries.
I think you’re discounting how much historical and cultural imperatives influence the electoral zeitgeist.
Like Germany being touchy tracking religious affiliations post WWII, post civil-war America is touchy about voter supression - im specifically referencing post civil war voter suppression conducted in what was then a Democrat stronghold in the American South.
Many argue that shame has never gone away and is still being conducted today through modern tactics.
Many would argue such a shame should never be dismissed at all.
I didn’t discount that at all
> it is accurate that any voter registration tweak has been used to decline legal voters ability to vote
Acknowledging voter suppression exists is an understated way to communicate the severity of cultural shock events that transform entire societies.
1 reply →
> and resists all capability to prove it
No, studies have been done, and routinely show that non-citizen voting in election accounts for a pittance of the vote (e.g., "A study of 2016 data by Brennan Center for Justice from 42 jurisdictions found an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast (or .0001% of votes)"); historical data of prosecution of non-citizen voters agrees with the studies, similarly showing it to be non-issue.
There is evidence, the "one party" routinely presents it. This isn't some "both sides" issue.
> the other party […thinks] the solutions to proving legal voter status would be difficult for their citizen voters to accomplish
Yes, because they would. The GOP's proposed "SAVE Act", which was pushed directly by Trump, for example, would have (effectively) required most citizens to present passports as proof of citizenship. (And further, to obtain a passport, since most Americans do not have one.) (Among other problems with the bill.)
(And just to note, since there is some non-US in the thread: you have to be a citizen to register to vote, and — though this is handled on a state by state basis, but I do not think any state deviates here — you must prove that already at registration. The ongoing debate above simply makes that harder to do.)
>No, studies have been done, and routinely show that non-citizen voting in election accounts for a pittance of the vote (e.g., "A study of 2016 data by Brennan Center for Justice from 42 jurisdictions found an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast (or .0001% of votes)"); historical data of prosecution of non-citizen voters agrees with the studies, similarly showing it to be non-issue.
Forget about the Brennan Center's single year audit. The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Database[0] goes back 40+ years to 1982.
In those 40+ years, they have documented less than 2,000 cases of voter fraud, with more than 1,500,000,000 votes being cast within that time frame.
That's a voter fraud rate of 0.0001333%. And even if we (without evidence), claim that the amount of fraud is 10x (0.001333%) or even 100x (0.01333%)higher and just not detected, despite the presence of observers from all involved parties at all the polls/counting stations in all of the 3500+ separate elections[1] that take place in the US yearly.
The rate of fraudulent votes isn't high enough to impact the outcome of elections, even if we say that there's 100x more voter fraud than the folks who scream voter fraud is everywhere!!! have detected.
It's a complete non-issue that's used by cynical folks to make it harder for their political opponents to vote. Which is disgusting, IMNSHO.
[0] https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search?case_type=All
[1] Elections are managed at the county level (of which there are 3500+ in the US), although processes and procedures are often dictated by state governments.
> resists all capability to prove it
No, they're satisfied with the existing proof. Which is pretty concrete.