6

Liberals often claim that while there may be other forms of voter fraud in the United States, like voter registration fraud, the only kind of voter fraud that a voter ID law can possibly prevent is in-person voter fraud (where someone shows up at a polling station and votes when they're not legally permitted), and that there have been almost no documented cases of someone committing intentional in-person voter fraud in the United States.

How many confirmed cases have there been in the United States of intentional in-person voter fraud which could have been prevented if the state in question had passed voter ID laws?

And whatever that number is, has it ever been big enough to significantly alter vote totals? What if you throw in unintentional cases as well?

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 9,043
  • 2
  • 35
  • 70
  • 3
    So lets set a really high bar for acceptance and then point to how no one can get over the bar to show that something is not happening. We do not require ID's in most places to vote. So someone walking in and voting for someone else is not likely to be caught. Twice I had someone vote using my name and both times the election official said that it was probably a mistake that someone was given my sheet on accident. I do not believe in coincidences when they happen repeatedly. – SoylentGray Jan 08 '14 at 19:59
  • @Chad - I think the question as currently written is theoretically answerable, because it's asking for confirmed cases, which means documentation. Even if there's only (for example) 10 confirmed cases, it'd be possible to say for each one whether a voter ID law would have affected it or not. You can't draw a broader conclusion from that, but that's no longer what the question is asking for. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 15:03
  • 3
    @Bobson - Sure its answerable... but it is meaningless. It is basically impossible to confirm the cases because there is no id required to vote. So what happens is when someone shows up to vote and they have already been voted for they are either turned away or given a provincial ballot that never gets counted. There is no investigation no matter how hard you press for one. – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 15:05
  • 2
    @Bobson - what Chad said. How many confirmed cases of voter fraud is a completely irrelevant information, since there's zero way to confirm whether those confirmed cases consitute 0.001% of all voter fraud or 99.99% of it. The whole point is that the lack of voter ID requirement means that one can commit voter fraud with near impunity without almost any risk of detection. Any assertion of how many DO commit it, is merely a random guess. The only purpose a question like this serves is to prove a partisan point by presenting nominally true but useless info that can not illuminate reality. – user4012 Jan 09 '14 at 16:39
  • 2
    @DVK you can't assert that we don't know the detection rate of voter fraud and then say voter fraud is unlikely to be detected. That's a contradiction. – Publius Jan 09 '14 at 17:36
  • 1
    @DVK - I'm only answering the question as written. If it gets edited to remove "confirmed" from the qustion, then I'll delete my answer and vote to close as unanswerable. But as written, it can be answered, even if that answer is meaningless in the larger picture. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 17:52
  • @Avi - We went through this before. Because of different possible ways that voter fraud can be perpetrated that are clearly undetectable, the ONLY possible answer is "We don't know how much voter fraud is there". – user4012 Jan 09 '14 at 18:50
  • Why did you add back in, "What if you throw in unintentional cases as well?" Unintentional fraud doesn't exist. So the answer to that question is zero regardless of whether VoterID is being used in that state. – user1873 Jan 10 '14 at 02:22
  • @user1873 Well, whether you classify it as fraud or not, it's still possible that there may be cases of unintentionally voting when not legally authorized to do so, so that's another possible situation that voter ID laws could potentially prevent. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 10 '14 at 02:43
  • @KeshavSrinivasan, That is correct. VoterID could prevent unintentional voting when a person wasn't legally allowed to vote. Your question through isn't about unintentional voting, but known cases of fraud. So, it is important to note that liberals are incorrect when they say, "the only kind of voter fraud that a voter ID law can possibly prevent is in-person voter fraud." – user1873 Jan 10 '14 at 02:50
  • Well, by the definition of fraud you're using, they're correct, because unintentional illegal voting wouldn't be fraud. But in any case, I am also interested in confirmed cases of unintentional illegal in-person voting which could have been prevented had the state in question passed a voter ID law. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 10 '14 at 03:24
  • @KeshavSrinivasan, "I am also interested in confirmed cases of unintentional illegal* in-person voting"* the bolded part doesn't make any sense for the reasons I indicated above. If you vote but don't know you are inelligible, it isn't illegal. If you are interested in unintentional inelligible voting, I suggest you reword the question. – user1873 Jan 10 '14 at 05:47
  • I should clarify, "usually isn't illegal." Some recent laws have made it illegal for aliens to vote when they are ineligible, regardless of whether tbey were aware of the fact that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. – user1873 Jan 10 '14 at 14:43
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - I've edited my answer to also explicitly address "confirmed cases of unintentional illegal in-person voting". – Bobson Jan 10 '14 at 18:17
  • @user1873 If you're aware of confirmed cases that are older than 2000, I'd be happy to hear about those too. I think "Voter ID law" is a pretty standard term, referring to the laws that a bunch of state legislatures have proposed and/or passed in recent years. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 13 '14 at 22:42

4 Answers4

13

TL;DR

  • Cases of confirmed fraud (prosecuted or not): 10 (0.4%)
  • Cases of confirmed fraud or non-citizen voting (which would be caught by checking drivers licenses): 52 (2.5%)
  • Total confirmed illegal votes by non-felons (which puts an upper bound on our data): 239 (11.6%)

~~~~ How many known cases? ~~~~

This article appears to be the most in-depth investigation of the topic.

A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 [until 2010] shows that ... in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

In an exhaustive public records search, News21 reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation.

Their conclusion was that very few cases of fraud were of the type that could be prevented by voter ID laws. Most cases involved absentee ballot or registration fraud (where your ID would not be checked). Those that involved in-person fraud were usually of the "able to vote twice" or "am I eligible in the first place" variety, which is also not resolved by proving that you are who you're supposed to be.

Their database only has 10 cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the only kind that a loose voter ID law would catch (i.e. any proof of ID). A stricter form which required a type of ID which only proven citizens could get (such as a driver's license) would have eliminated 52 more cases of (probably) unintentional fraud. Taken together, these account for 2.5% of all reported cases over a ten year period.

There's also their 187 cases of generic "Casting Ineligible Vote" by Voters, which includes some felon voting (not caught by voter ID), some non-citizen voting (which is included above), but mostly there isn't information on what type it was. If you assume this extra set is entirely the kind of illegal voting that would be caught by voter ID, and that there's no overlap with the above set, that raises the total to a maximum of 239 cases of illegal voting (11.6%).

~~~~ So what is the impact? ~~~~

Under this worst-case scenario, where all of the 239 cases reported come from separate instances of detectable voter fraud, it's still not enough to have any significant impact on the majority of elections. These cases were spread throughout much of the country, over a twelve year spread. But even if they were all concentrated in one district, in one year, they still wouldn't be enough to have an impact on any national-scale election. For example, the smallest districts (on average) have around 500,000 people. Even assuming that only 125,000 (1/4th) of those are actually registered voters, and there's only 10% turnout, that's still 12,500 votes cast. A 51-49% split would have the winner win by 250 votes, which is more than the 239 known cases of fraud.

To put it another way, there were 351,971,792 votes cast (total) in the presidential elections in the years in question (2000, 2004, 2008) (2012 was too late to be included in the database). 239 votes represents 0.0001% of that total.

~~~~ References & Notes ~~~~

I will point out that I only looked at national-scale elections: Representatives, Senators, and the President. It's possible that local elections (for mayor or other city/county positions) were decided by a small enough margin that a few people voting fraudulently (deliberately or not) would have swung the result. However, I'm not going to look into the data that closely, and the smaller the vote, the harder it will be to vote too often.

Finally, I'd like to also reference this answer, which points out that in order to have even 1000 deliberately fraudulent votes:

[E]ither one person has to travel to and vote at a 1000 booths to supply a 1000 votes, or a 1000 people have to collude to vote above and beyond any normal legal incentives to vote. Which is why Tammany Hall corruption was quite visible.

Note: The database is as comprehensive as possible, but is not 100% complete. See here for details, but basically not all government officials responded. However, if the government didn't respond, any fraud they may have had cannot be considered "confirmed".

You can query their data directly here, as well as images of every document they sent or received as they were building it.

Bobson
  • 24,560
  • 2
  • 66
  • 128
  • 3
    What if only 1% or less of voter fraud is being detected? We had 30% turn out at my precinct and 20 cases where someone tried to vote but found that someone had already voted for them and had to fill out a provisional ballot(that gets tossed), that translates to ~70 total votes, our alderman was selected by a margin of 8, and our School Superintendent by 11. – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 16:45
  • @chad you'd have to demonstrate that detection rates were that low. Also, this report is included in my answer. – Publius Jan 09 '14 at 17:33
  • I can say that there were 20 examples at my polling place with a 30% turn out. Extrapolate that out and you get to 70 instances out of 750 that is almost 10% not under 1% That is one polling place. – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 17:37
  • @chad then without data, you can't make a statement about the detection rate. – Publius Jan 09 '14 at 17:38
  • @Chad - it doesn't matter for this question what percentage is being detected. The OP asks about "confirmed cases". If the case isn't detected, it can't be confirmed. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 17:41
  • @bobson - your statement says - "while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal" you put the bad data data in your answer you get the penalty flag for it. – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 17:43
  • @Chad - Ok, I've removed that from the quote, since it's not relevant to the point I'm making. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 17:44
  • @Bobson - My point is that you point is flawed because your data collection is flawed. – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 17:45
  • @Chad - And my point is that it doesn't matter. If only 1% of cases are reported and confirmed, then statistics on how many confirmed cases fall into a certain category are still valid. The fact that 99% of the cases aren't reported doesn't affect reporting on the subset. If I ask "How many registered users has this SE question helped?", I don't care that (for example) 95% of all visitors who may or may not have been helped aren't registered users. I only care about the ratio of upvotes to views (or registered views - not sure if they're tracked separately). – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 17:49
  • @Bobson - But your answer is wrong because your answer relies on a report that was compiled using flawed data. Your answer will always be wrong so long as you rely on that.\ – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 17:51
  • @Chad - Where is the flaw in their data? – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 17:53
  • @Bobson - They refused to investigate reported instances. It is the bury the head in the sand technique... it doesnt result in good data. – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 17:54
  • @Chad - Do you have an example of News21 refusing to investigate something? Because if the election officials / court system refuses to investigate, then that's an unrelated (and disturbing) problem, but if News21 failed to follow up on something for their database, that would be a relevant issue. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 17:58
  • Read the comments... its all right there. News 21 is only using the accepted reports from the FEC. Not the reports that were discounted or deemed unable to investigate. I can double their report of 10 incidents just in my precinct in Peoria IL – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 18:01
  • 1
    @Chad - I don't see that anywhere in their official methodology. As I read it, they asked each official who might possibly have records for their records, not just the FEC. And if the official failed to investigate them, that's (as I said) an unrelated (and disturbing) problem which in no way affects the question of confirmed cases. And like I commented on the question itself, I think this question is asking for useless data, but it is data that exists so it can be answered. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 18:07
  • Then think of the downvotes as a promoting a useless question tax – SoylentGray Jan 09 '14 at 18:09
  • 1
    That's what downvoting the question is for, but you're free to downvote the answer for any reason you like, including "I flipped a coin" or "The question is stupid and so is anyone who answers it" (exaggeration mine). I'm ok with that. Just don't claim that the answer is flawed just because it answers a flawed question which uses a flawed definition to ask for flawed data. – Bobson Jan 09 '14 at 18:13
  • 1
    I'm only interested in cases that would be preventable by voter ID laws, so don't include the 74 felon voting cases. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 10 '14 at 21:57
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - Do you find that this answer substantially addresses your question, aside from the digression about felon votes? If so, I'll remove that, tighten it up slightly, and address the scale of the numbers. – Bobson Jan 11 '14 at 23:12
  • Yes, it's a very thorough answer. And adding something about the scale would be great. Thanks! – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 12 '14 at 00:45
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - Added some comments on the scale, and the other changes. Also some formatting to break it up. I'm glad I could answer the question for you. – Bobson Jan 13 '14 at 00:16
  • 1
    Thanks! I'm sorry you have zero net votes despite completely answering my question. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 13 '14 at 01:16
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - That happens a lot around here, unfortunately. At least upvotes count more than downvotes do. – Bobson Jan 13 '14 at 14:41
  • The study is useless because that's not the type of voter fraud that voter ID laws are intending to catch or prevent. It's the family and friends voting for other family and friends (who the voter knows isn't going to bother to vote) where this will have the most impact. These cases don't get reported because nobody files a report. Another type of voter fraud is by people who have their main home in one state and a second in another state and they end up voting in both states. When I lived in Florida a paper did research and found over 200 New Yorkers who did this in just my county alone. – Dunk Nov 13 '14 at 21:53
  • @Dunk - Two things: First, if the law is not enforced by the poll workers, then it doesn't matter whether it exists in the first place. Likewise, if violations of the law aren't reported, then they also can't be prevented. It doesn't matter if I have to give DNA proof of my identity in order to vote, if the poll worker lets me in and out of the booth five times to vote in place of my family members. So in order to have any sort of rational discussion we must accept the reported numbers as the true numbers (or provide proof that they are significantly wrong). – Bobson Nov 13 '14 at 22:02
  • @Dunk - Secondly, please reread the study and my summary of it. Voter ID laws wouldn't prevent absentee voting in another state while visiting the polls in your current state. They could prevent voting in one state, driving to another state, then voting there, but I'm assuming very few of your New York/Florida people did that. Voting in place of family/friends would be prevented with voter ID laws, but the whole point of the study, this question, and my answer is that that doesn't actually happen. – Bobson Nov 13 '14 at 22:07
  • @Bobson:Our government has a very high incentive to have the people believe that our elections are legit. They have no incentive to do anything that would give an inkling otherwise. Thus, the government has no reason to even attempt to investigate voter fraud allegations because nothing good can come of it for the government. No effort has ever been made to determine the extent of voter fraud and what little has been done has had active efforts to prevent this determination. Those active efforts to derail such minimal checks are suspicious. Where there's smoke there's usually fire. – Dunk Nov 17 '14 at 22:06
  • @Dunk - Why should the government care? Aliens are mind-controlling us all anyway, and vote totals are made up by our secret overlords and don't actually correspond to what people do in a voting booth. (And if you disagree with my claim, prove otherwise.) – Bobson Nov 18 '14 at 01:45
  • My point is that even if there was massive voter fraud, the government wouldn't reveal that info. Since keeping stuff like that under wraps could be difficult they do the next best thing and do everything they can to ensure there is no way to determine if voter fraud is occurring. So if someone can't prove voter fraud is occurring, it doesn't mean much. The system is set up purposefully to make sure it is hard to prove. – Dunk Nov 18 '14 at 15:51
  • The fact that so many people believe vote fraud is occurring is enough reason that giving the perception of legitimacy should be addressed. Voter ID laws won't stop vote fraud by insiders, but it will create a perception that only valid voters are indeed voting at the voting booth. Next stop would be coming up with ways to verify absentee ballots are indeed coming from a valid voter. Voter ID laws is just 1 step in trying to ensure legitimate elections. It isn't the end-all be all. But it is an important step. – Dunk Nov 18 '14 at 15:52
  • 1
    @Dunk - And my point is that if there was massive voter fraud going on, someone would have been able to demonstrate it by now. Improving the perception of legitimacy is all well and good, but it risks becoming security theater if not done carefully. Personally, I'd rather see laws about voter verified paper trails (which can be hand-counted in case of discrepancies) than voter ID laws. – Bobson Nov 18 '14 at 17:01
  • 1
    @Bobson:I disagree that someone would have been able to demonstrate it by now. With today's rules, it is nearly impossible to determine and that is by design. If safeguards get put in place THEN that opens up the possibility. So the harder the pushback there is against putting common sense safeguards in place, makes it all the more suspicious that there really are some shenanigans going on. I don't disagree with your "voter verified paper trails" idea and Voter ID laws is certainly not the whole answer, but at least it is a very easy, very inexpensive and unobtrusive common sense beginning. – Dunk Nov 18 '14 at 21:33
3

From http://www.wral.com/state-elections-officials-seek-tighter-security/13533579/:

(this is just one state, with nearly 1000 likely voter fraud issues; at least 81 of which - "dead souls" - 100% certainly would have been prevented with voter ID laws; and if the voter ID has residency requirements, would ALSO prevent the other 765).

I am not even going into ~200 thousand who COULD have committed voting fraud if they were inclined to do so; again preventable by Voter ID laws.

Strach said North Carolina's check found 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to match registered voters in other states on their first names, last names, dates of birth and the final four digits of their Social Security numbers. Those voters appear to have voted in North Carolina in 2012 and also voted in another state in 2012.

... The crosscheck also found 35,570 voters in North Carolina who voted in 2012 whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states in 2012, but whose Social Security numbers were not matched. ... "A lot of states don't provide last four SSN, or they don't have that information," Strach explained.

Additionally, the analysis found 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose first and last names, dates of birth and final four Social Security number digits match voters registered in other states but who most recently registered or voted elsewhere. That last group, Strach said, was most likely voters who moved out of state without notifying their local boards of elections. "Those may be voters we need to remove because they've left North Carolina."

Strach also said a "10-year death audit" found 13,416 deceased voters who had not been removed from voter rolls as of October 2013. Eighty-one of those individuals, she said, died before an election in which they are recorded as having voted.

user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386
  • Very interesting. There's no confirmed cases in there, yet, but I expect them to turn some up once they've done the individual vote checking. This may significantly change the data I based my answer on... – Bobson Apr 03 '14 at 21:53
  • 2
    The investigation hasn't gone through. The article says a number of times that this could be the result of error rather than fraud, and it hasn't found that these instances of fraud could have been prevented by voter ID laws. This is not a good answer. Not to mention that the question asks about known cases of fraud. – Publius Apr 03 '14 at 22:33
  • @Avi - Ah yes. Voting with the name, date of birth, AND the social security # of a dead person is a very clear case of error that can't possibly be fraud and requires deep investigation. Also, the article mentions the error about people who are registered to vote in 2 places (they forgot to notify);NOT about people who acually voted in 2 places. – user4012 Apr 04 '14 at 02:32
  • 1
    @DVK Then perhaps the investigation will bear your point out, but until then, declaring that there are numerous instances of fraud is premature and inconsistent with established data. – Publius Apr 04 '14 at 04:46
  • @DVK - Don't read more into the article than it says. It only says the last four digits of social security numbers matched. Since they're assigned sequentially within a group (0000-9999), it's quite feasible for two people with the same name to share an arbitrary last four. See the Birthday Problem for an example of how that works. – Bobson Apr 04 '14 at 10:48
  • @Bobson AND dates of birth? Really? – user4012 Apr 04 '14 at 11:55
  • 1
    @DVK - Likely? Not really. On the other hand, you're dealing with 101,000,000 records. 765 cases of overlap in that set is still only 0.07574% overlap. That seems within the realm of possibility to me. However, my main point was that you shouldn't claim that the social security numbers matched, when it's only the last four which did. This report is definitely worth following up on, and I'll be watching for more updates to it, but it is currently only preliminary, uninvestigated results, not conclusive proof. – Bobson Apr 04 '14 at 14:14
  • @Bobson - care to test that theory? Let's ask on Statistics SE. What are the chances that 765 pairs of people with SAME names, SAME DOBs, SAME last 4 SSN digits, voted in 2 states in the same election. Oh, and it's not 100M records. It's just one state. I'm too lazy to check but they likely have 1-2M registered voters. – user4012 Apr 06 '14 at 14:22
  • 1
    @DVK - I tried running the numbers via Wolfram Alpha, and it choked on calculating them. I'm willing to believe my gut feeling is wrong, but I don't care enough to go ask about it. On the other hand, read the article better: If it was just one state, there couldn't be any matches to other states, because you only have one state's worth of data. The program is run by a Kansas consortium, checking 101 million voter records. - So that's 765 people in NC who match some of those 101 million elsewhere. – Bobson Apr 06 '14 at 15:34
  • However, regardless of the statistics, this is only a suggestive result that requires further investigation, and the people presenting the data to the state know that: "Now we have to look individually at each one," Strach said. "Could there have been data error?" Attempting to use it as proof of anything is premature. – Bobson Apr 06 '14 at 15:35
  • @Bobson What was the calculation you tried to do in WolframAlpha? I have WolframAlpha Pro, which allows for extra computational resources, so I can try running it if you tell me what I should input. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 00:21
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - I'm pretty sure it won't help, given the scale of the numbers, but it's worth a shot. It's also possible that I'm feeding garbage into it, and GIGO. But I tried: (365*10000)! / (((365*10000)^101000000)*(365*10000-101000000)!) That's the odds of two people in a 101,000,000-person set sharing a given birthday/social-last-four (365*10000). – Bobson May 14 '14 at 11:07
  • @DVK - You might be interested in this followup article I just came across. Apparently, four state representatives are in that "potential fraud" data set. – Bobson May 14 '14 at 11:12
  • @Bobson I think the probability is equal to 1. Has it occurred to you that 101 million is much larger than 36510000? So there just has to be repeats. It's the pigeonhole principle: given 101 million pigeons and 36510000 holes to put them in, you just have to put more than one pigeon in one of the holes. In fact, it's a mathematical certainty that there is one birthday and social security last four digits that 28 people out of the 101 million share. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 14:52
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - Yeah, but I was hoping to get something like 400% out of it (i.e. on average four people will share that information), or 150000% (1500 people)... Admittedly, I just checked and I missed the definition of the problem such that (for classic birthday problem) it's only valid if n <= 365. Is there a variant that supports extending it beyond probability of pairs? – Bobson May 14 '14 at 15:04
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - You keep saying 101 million people. That state's voter rolls are 2 orders of magnitude less – user4012 May 14 '14 at 15:20
  • @Bobson This should help: math.stackexchange.com/questions/35791/birthday-problem-expected-number-of-collisions – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 15:21
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - In typical Rubber Duck fashion, I went to go ask a more specific question about it on math.SE, and ended up realizing that the equation I should have used is simply (101000000)/(365*10000) ~= 27. On average, we can expect 27 people in that data set to have the same birthday and last four. – Bobson May 14 '14 at 15:59
  • @Bobson No, that's not the average, that's the minimum. The pigeonhole principle guarantees that at least 28 people will have the same birthday and last four digits of the social security number. To find the expected number you have to use the formulas given in the math.SE link I gave. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 16:42
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - you're forgetting same name... Don't let desire for a certain outcome blind you to actual facts. Firs, Last name AND SSN digits AND birth date matched. – user4012 May 14 '14 at 16:45
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - Using the linked formula, I got 101000000 back out. Maybe we're trying to solve for different things? – Bobson May 14 '14 at 17:02
  • @DVK - Yes, but as far as I know, there's no practical way to calculate the odds of a shared first/last name. So I'm solving for what I'm able to. – Bobson May 14 '14 at 17:04
  • @DVK - And I'm using 101 million because that's the whole database's data set. As far as I remember (I didn't double check the article), they weren't reporting any duplicates within the state. – Bobson May 14 '14 at 17:10
  • @Bobson To clarify, which of the following are you trying to calculate? 1) The expected number of people who share a given birthday/last four digits of social security number combination 2) The expected number of people who share their birthday and last four digits of social security number with someone 3) The expected number of birthday/last four digits of social security number combinations which multiple people share – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 17:19
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - I think #1, but I'm not positive. I'm trying to answer What are the chances that 765 pairs of people with SAME names, SAME DOBs, SAME last 4 SSN digits, voted in 2 states in the same election., except without the names portion. – Bobson May 14 '14 at 17:23
  • @Bobson I think the calculation you should be doing is #2, not #1. You're trying to find out how many people have a matched birthday/social security combo with someone, not how many people have a particular birthday/social security number combo. And the reason you get a number very close to 101 million if you try to do calculation #2 is that most likely almost everyone will have a match with someone. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 17:38
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - I guess the question is, then: Just one match or more than one? How many in each bucket? How much leeway is there to have matching names? – Bobson May 14 '14 at 17:42
  • @Bobson - No offense but you're doing a useless calculation then. the name portion will reduce your probability by several orders of magnitude, since the set of names is drastically bigger than either birthdays OR even SSN 4digits. So instead of – user4012 May 14 '14 at 17:55
  • 2
    @Bobson According to this site, there are about 5000 first names and 150 thousand last names in the US: howmanyofme.com So assuming 150 million possible full names (which is a vast overestimate), the expected number of people with matching names, birthdays, and last four of social is 18: www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=101000000%281-%28%281-1%2F%2836510000*150000000%29%29%5E%28101000000-1%29%29%29. But of course the actual number may be orders of magnitude higher if you make the number of possible names more realistic. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 17:55
  • Sorry, The URL was bad. Here it is: tinyurl.com/mycomputation – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 18:11
  • 1
    If we assume that, e.g. only 1% of the set of first name/last name combos are actually in the realm of possibility, then the expected value becomes 1863, or 931 matches. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 18:24
  • @KeshavSrinivasan - Thank you. That's what I was looking for. That roughly matches my intuition that it does happen on a noteable-but-insignificant basis. Of course, it's a very rough number, but i doubt there will be a better one. – Bobson May 14 '14 at 18:52
  • @Bobson Well, depending on your assumptions on how much of the pool of first-name last name combinations are within the realm of possibilities, you can get results that are the same order of magnitude as the 765 figure we're talking about. – Keshav Srinivasan May 14 '14 at 22:44
  • 2
    Matching "date of birth" is a lot less frequent than matching "birthday"... The former includes the year. – Ben Voigt May 29 '14 at 17:39
2

Very few cases of voter fraud, of the kind preventable by voter ID laws, have ever been identified. Texas' recent voter ID law would have only prevented four cases of fraud. Nationally, an analysis of alleged cases of voter fraud found only ten instances of fraud since 2000 that voter ID laws would have prevented. The Department of Justice found that 40 people had been indicted for voter fraud in federal elections between 2002 and 2005. In these cases, there is a certain (albeit very small) amount of voter fraud, but only a small fraction of that fraud could be prevented by voter ID laws.

Publius
  • 10,484
  • 42
  • 61
  • 2
  • Are you retracting your answer now based on this info? http://www.wral.com/state-elections-officials-seek-tighter-security/13533579/ . That's just one state. Dead people voting; people voting in 2 places. – user4012 Apr 03 '14 at 20:57
  • I may if the investigation finds that a) such fraud occurred, b) the fraud could have prevented by voter ID laws, and c) they can explain why other investigations have found vastly different amounts of fraud. – Publius Apr 03 '14 at 22:32
  • @Avi - generally, ID prevents you from voting as someone OTHER than yourself (like, a dead person). What exactly would you consider a sufficient proof that a Voter ID law would prevent an individual from voting as someone else who's dead; OR as themselves but at the wrong address? – user4012 Apr 04 '14 at 02:34
  • @DVK An investigation by a reputable source finding that a certain number of instances of fraud could have been prevented by voter ID laws. – Publius Apr 04 '14 at 04:45
  • Second sentence is presented badly. Correct: "We know of only four cases of fraud that would have been prevented" – Ben Voigt May 29 '14 at 17:33
0

Here is at least one person who voted improperly in all major elections for four decades:

According to the Times, Hernandez cast improper votes in "every major election" since 1976. That's at least 10 of them, twice as many if it includes midterms.

Noncitizens, including legal resident aliens, are forbidden to vote in every state. States that have sought to incorporate verification of citizenship into the voter-registration process have encountered obstacles from the Obama administration and denunciations from the New York Times.

It is pretty hard to know how many of these cases have occurred given the fact that there is no "master list" of U.S. citizens (which I regard as a good thing, actually). However, given lax proof requirements at registration, and even laxer requirements of identity proof at the time of voting, the results of every local/regional election in areas highly populated by non-citizens is in doubt.

At least Kansas' Voter ID Law requires that

Persons registering to vote for the first time in Kansas must prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.

Thus, there is at least one voter ID proposal that would have prevented ineligible persons from registering in the first place.

Sinan Ünür
  • 1,277
  • 8
  • 11
  • 2
    The catch here is that I'm not sure if voter ID would have fixed this. Given how his citizen status slipped through so many cracks in his life here in the US. In addition, according to that article, he should have already been granted citizenship but due to yet another error he wasn't. –  May 24 '14 at 17:04
  • 2
    It's worth noting that he did have a driver's license (unreported in the linked article, but mentioned here) which would have provided sufficient proof of ID to have voted, if he were checked. Thus, while this is a good example of what voter ID is intended on catching, it's a bad example of a case where it would have caught anything. – Bobson May 27 '14 at 14:58
  • @Bobson if something like the Kansas law were in effect at the time of his first registration, his status would have been caught. As I mentioned, in the U.S. one can prove one's citizenship, but it is impossible to simply find out that one is not a citizen. – Sinan Ünür May 28 '14 at 20:58
  • 1
    @SinanÜnür - Agreed. If it were in effect in whatever state he voted in when he went to went to register then, yes, it would have been caught. However, since that part of the law only affects registration of first-time voters and not ability to vote at the polling place (unless Kansas has same-day registration), I don't think it really count into what's normally considered the "VoterID law" group. The typical "Show an ID to vote" type of law wouldn't have had any effect on him. – Bobson May 28 '14 at 21:10