Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 154 posts

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#31

Post by munk-a »

Bud wrote: post #4

This is a crime. The power to unregister voters must be forcibly taken away from states; especially red states, since they are the only ones abusing this power. It should require federal action, instead.

This is an action which legitimately needs to be done. I think the larger issue we need to fix is the partisan entrenchment that lets people justify this being done to further their own agendas.

Using targeted disenfranchisement to further your own political goals is quite clearly illegal, we just need to start sending people to jail over it instead of excusing it because the ends justify the means.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#32

Post by danblick »

vkou wrote: post #20
danblick wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying, "prove it has happened" or "prove it is a risk"? I doubt it's happened yet, but I think the risk is getting worse every year (technology enables this, like when personal identifying information on large numbers of American voters leak from large companies...)

How exactly will you use this PII to perpetuate voter fraud? Show up at a polling station with fake ID or PII? Then at another polling station with another piece of fake ID or PII? What's your plan for voting staff checking the records, and finding out that 'you' already cast a ballot at that station? This kind of fraud is incredibly risky, and does not scale (And is trivial to combat). Election fraud by the process…

Let's take as a starting point this list of methods:

http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains...

(I realize that's from the Heritage Foundation - I'm not particularly conservative - it's just the first decent list I came across while Googling.)

Let's take these 3:

""" False registrations: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.

Duplicate voting: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.

Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for. """

Ok. Pretend I am a hostile nation-state. I can find a list of registered voters online (from some hack, because in 2020 PII is everywhere). I identify a number of key districts in the upcoming US election, and the names of some individuals living in those districts. I acquire some mail-in ballots, and cast votes using those names and details (say, SSNs). I'll just ignore whether or not the person has already voted. (To summarize: my hypothetical attack uses methods (2) Duplicate voting and (3) Fraudulent use of absentee ballots above, not actually method (1) False registrations.)

Is that so hard to imagine doing? I don't think so: particularly not for a nation state.

"Voter fraud" can be when a particular person votes twice in an election -- that's possible but not worth the risk for the individual. In this scenario there's not much real risk to whoever is carrying out the attack.

It doesn't even really matter if you get "caught" (detected). (Getting "caught" (punished) is hard to imagine.) The goal is just to undermine the election. To win, all you have to do is throw the result into doubt.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#33

Post by wang_li »

ch4s3 wrote: post #10
danblick wrote: post #9

In the US, there's a lot of concern about making it easy for voters to register and stay registered, because in the past officials used this to disenfranchise blacks in the south and minority groups. I think they are not paying enough attention to the risk of intentional voter fraud (by hostile outsiders) in the modern world. In the last election, Russian election manipulation became a big topic because they hacked e…

That's complete nonsense. The Supreme Court and several district courts have found states like North Carolina to be actively using purges and registration changes for the purpose of disenfranchising voters. Furthermore, if you want to protect the integrity of the vote, registration is the last logical place to start, as in person fraud is vanishingly rare. Only 2 people were charged with doing so in this past electio…

It doesn't get charged often because there are parties that fight tooth and nail to prevent the implementation of processes that would allow the detection of ineligible voters voting.

It is shown in every election cycle that there are cases of voters voting who should not be because of their citizenship or felon status or voting in multiple districts.

When you say that only 2 have been charged, why is that relevant? What number of people would be disenfranchised if the voting system required photo ID? And I mean people who literally cannot get a photo ID at all, not someone who has to pay $10 or who has to spend a few hours once every four to six years getting their ID renewed.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross »

s73ver_ wrote: post #24
Amezarak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all states require an ID to vote. Voter ID laws are a controversial measure. Generally, you register to vote. As long as you input plausible information and a real address you can receive mail at, you are likely to get on the rolls. Once you get on the rolls, you just show up at the polling station and tell them who you are (no ID required), they look for the name in the book, mark you as having voted, and you go…

And how are you going to do this on a large scale? Especially without being caught?

To expand on this point, large-scale voter fraud in the United States means having confederates at multiple polling locations in multiple, independently-administered precincts, each with their own processes, in multiple, independently-governed states, each with their own rules. Getting caught at any of those stages means the plan is a bust. Oh, and you can't re-use a single confederate more than a handful of times.

If you're going to conduct voter fraud, the count is your target. At that stage, IDs are irrelevant. (Even then, there are multiple precincts in multiple states with lots of random, independent volunteers and elected representatives puttering about.)

Being skeptical is fine. Using skepticism of a low-probability unsubstantiated claim (voter fraud) to detract from a proven problem (voter suppression) is at best irrational.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#35

Post by pjc50 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
Bud wrote: post #4

This is a crime. The power to unregister voters must be forcibly taken away from states; especially red states, since they are the only ones abusing this power. It should require federal action, instead.

> It should require federal action Shooting from the hip is a good way to trash a democracy. What you're proposing would allow a single, centralized actor to purge voters from the rolls. De-centralised systems will always have longer, more-idiotic tails. That's the tradeoff for their robust central tendencies.

Most countries have centralised voter registration. Often tied to ID and other registration systems.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Amezarak wrote: post #27
s73ver_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how are you going to do this on a large scale? Especially without being caught?

How would you detect this kind of fraud? Historically, whenever states go about trying to verify their voter registration databases, they end up wiping out swaths of real, actual voters for various reasons, which usually makes it a non-starter. I doubt it's very common in a fraud sense (though there are probably a lot of people who aren't supposed to be able to vote who end up voting), but either way, it's a difficul…

> How would you detect this kind of fraud?

Voter rolls are public. You can't see how someone voted, but you can see if they voted.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#37

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should require federal action Shooting from the hip is a good way to trash a democracy. What you're proposing would allow a single, centralized actor to purge voters from the rolls. De-centralised systems will always have longer, more-idiotic tails. That's the tradeoff for their robust central tendencies.

Most countries have centralised voter registration. Often tied to ID and other registration systems.

> Most countries have centralised voter registration

Most democracies haven't lasted more than a century. De-centralisation is an annoying but core feature of American democracy. It's wise to be conservative when discussing its dismissal, particularly in respect of something as fundamental as voting.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#38

Post by Amezarak »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
Amezarak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you detect this kind of fraud? Historically, whenever states go about trying to verify their voter registration databases, they end up wiping out swaths of real, actual voters for various reasons, which usually makes it a non-starter. I doubt it's very common in a fraud sense (though there are probably a lot of people who aren't supposed to be able to vote who end up voting), but either way, it's a difficul…

> How would you detect this kind of fraud? Voter rolls are public. You can't see how someone voted, but you can see if they voted.

Sure, but there's no reliable way to determine of someone is a real and qualified voter in the precinct they voted. That's the whole problem.

Nobody is engaged in a conspiracy to vote hundreds of times, but are a lot of people voting in various technically illegal ways? Sure.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#39

Post by brian-armstrong »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #26

Anyone with half a brain knows that these purges are designed to advantage a side not protect the system. I read an article the other day that stated that some America's voting system had essentially been compromised on many levels. It made me think about why so many of our polls have, in the last few years, been so off the mark. Now I'm beginning to think it's not because the polling models suddenly don't work. It i…

Yeah, I remember the outrage when the original Diebold hacking announcement was made in the Bush Jr era. The concerns in that were never addressed and doubtless things have simply since got worse.

If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election, they could bring some of their engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud.

Re: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate

#40

Post by s73ver_ »

Amezarak wrote: post #27
s73ver_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how are you going to do this on a large scale? Especially without being caught?

How would you detect this kind of fraud? Historically, whenever states go about trying to verify their voter registration databases, they end up wiping out swaths of real, actual voters for various reasons, which usually makes it a non-starter. I doubt it's very common in a fraud sense (though there are probably a lot of people who aren't supposed to be able to vote who end up voting), but either way, it's a difficul…

No, you were asked first. How would you do it without getting caught? How would you amass that amount of funding, and that number of people, and keep it all quiet?
Post reply on HN