I'm all for more mail in ballots, just saying.
My reading of the situation as it happened is that voting by mail wasn’t secure and led to a situation in which an election wasn’t valid. Do you read it differently?
Here's the formula:
1) Quickly gloss over any real examples of voter fraud. 2) Don't acknowledge prominent Democrat concerns with them only a couple years ago. 3) Don't give any time to real and recent examples. 4) Do throw around the words of people who worry about mail in ballots, carefully pointing out they're all Pro Trump, Anti Muslim activist, some other view point CNN/NYT tells you that you hate. 5) Don't acknowledge any of the ways mail in ballots are objectively weaker and easier to compromise.
Articles like this are themselves misinformation and propaganda.
I will freely admit that mail-in votes are far more likely--about 10×--to be involved in fraud than in-person voting. However, I will also point out that both cases of fraud are quite rare, and far less of an issue in practice than problems such as voter intimidation, voter access, and ballot design, which are known to have afflicted even the largest races in the country (the 2000 presidential election being perhaps the most famous race to have its results altered as a result of poor ballot design).
2) I'm not arguing whether feigning concern is a political tactic, I'm arguing that vote by mail fraud a. exists, b. is so insignificant that it doesn't affect election outcomes, c. still needs to be combated because elections should be seen as irrefutably valid by all voters
3) You can read the facts about the example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
4) Most voter misinformation on Facebook is perpetuated by Trump supporters according to the article.
5) I think all voters should be able to agree that elections, including voting by mail, should be as secure as possible. It seems that as of today, voting by mail is secure enough to warrant its use in general, and more specifically in our current situation where voting at in-person polling locations risks spreading Covid needlessly and would have a chilling effect on voters who fear they would contract Covid and die by visiting an in-person voting location. In fact, I would go so far to claim that the chilling effect from requiring all voting to take place in person during the Covid pandemic would distort the outcome of the election by magnitudes greater than what we would expect from even 10 or 100 times more vote by mail fraud than we have today. Forcing voters to risk their lives to cast their ballot disenfranchises them and is as reprehensible as their ballot being manipulated against their will.
It's so blatant in this article it's amazing anyone can avoid the feeling they're being manipulated.
If you really want to look at the issue, you need to approach it like a security audit. What is your threat model? What are the failure modes? What are the ways that there can be fraud without setting off red flags.
Right off the bat, an issue with all-mail elections is coercion, and suppression. If the ballots all arrive in the mail at the house, someone can use coercion to make sure all the ballots are filled out as they wish. This is much harder to do in person.
And that vulnerability popped up with less than a minute of thought. If approached from a security perspective, I am sure others would pop up.
Now, after serious analysis, it may be concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks, but a serious analysis needs to be done.
Conspiracy theory...what a convenient dismissal of a potentially genuine problem. All of our institutions are rife with abuse but we're supposed to believe voter fraud doesn't exist because WAPO says it doesn't and, more importantly, because Trump said it does...
Edit: and they apparently looked at 3 states. Unqualified journalists should stay away from statistics or "fact checking" - at this point they are actively harming society with their piss poor, agenda driven "analyses".
Those are the 3 biggest states of the 5 that use primarily vote by mail. They contain ~80% of the vote by mail population.
Oh I see, well, clearly, if officials aren't reporting on it then it's not happening. Wapo and blue check marks make it official.
This logic isn't sound but people are happy to swallow hole anything anti-trump.
Edit: not to mention Colorado, Washington, and Oregon probably don't harbor anywhere near the same number of illegal immigrants as do states like California and Texas where this would be more of a concern.
In fact this whole debate is framed illegitimately. States like California automatically register voters when they receive IDs, they allow noncitizens of any legal status to obtain IDs, and we're supposed to pretend this isn't an avenue for illegal voting? Who's going to report these votes if they ostensibly conform to the California rules? But don't worry, Wapo and Huffpo will run their "analyses" and everything will come back squeaky clean.
We all need to hold all of our sources accountable and examine them critically, even when they tell us what we want to hear.
Citation required. The California DMV's own website utterly contradicts what you say:
"The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is permitted to issue a driver license (DL) or identification card (ID) to an applicant who submits satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States (U.S.) is authorized under federal law...DMV will not let you start a DL/ID card application unless you present your social security number (SSN) and your valid BD (birthdate)/LP (legal presence) document...DMV will mail your photo DL/ID card after all tests and requirements have been met and USCIS has verified your legal presence status. "[1]
On a personal level, I know friends who suddenly couldn't drive because their visa expired, even though they were still in legal status while they awaited renewal. Because their license was set to expire the same day as the visa/I94. That's how hard-assed they are about it. (Btw, that's an additional non-citizen "tax" - having to renew your driver's license every 2-3 years, instead of 5 years like a citizen or permanent resident).
So definitely people without legal status can't register to vote this way. How many people with legal status do you think are going to try doing this? Like they went to all this trouble to come to the US legally, and now they'll commit a crime that has very little payoff for them personally and very high risk if they're caught? Remember these are people with a legal presence: they have jobs, USCIS knows where they live, they've been fingerprinted when applying for a visa, they're in the system. Are there FB/WhatsApp groups of non-citizens in legal status coordinating this stuff? Has anyone been arrested for this? Surely if it's going on for so long and at such a scale someone should have been caught right?
Where are your sources?
1. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/ed...
>Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver’s licenses in 2015...took effect on January 2, 2015...(DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017.
And here's the fun part
>That announcement renewed interest in another California law, the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.
Oh, but don't worry, because as you also indirectly point out:
>The law requires that applicants under the Motor Voter Act attest that they meet all voter registration requirements, but critics maintain that the law “lacks the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls.”
Which is a winded way of saying these illegal immigrants are bound by their honor to opt out of voter registration and/or not go out and use their IDs [and default registration] to vote.
So despite the downvotes, I'm not the one who has fallen victim to propaganda here. And the same incentive responsible for this kind of blatantly incorrect citogenesis gives cause to people to risk illegally voting against a man who has been painted by this same media as a literal far right white supremacist. And what risk is there, when media and fact check outlets create citations which allow politicians to claim that this isn't a problem, while potentially benefiting from it?
Also I don't appreciate that you've conflated legal and illegal immigration, though in both cases there is clearly potential for abuse. Under Cuomo a similar motor voter law was passed by the way. The Wapo "study" is intentionally myopic.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act...
"Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury."
Even people without legal status applying for a license or ID have to provide something to identify themselves. If that's not a US birth certificate or passport, it's pretty obvious they aren't citizens and they can't be registered. Stop debating in hypotheticals. Show actual proof of fraud happening at a meaningful scale.
But if we are registering people who should not be voting, that's one less safeguard, and now we are relying solely on the good faith of the people at the booths and the illegal/ineligible immigrants who shouldn't be voting.
At what point are you willing to admit that this is a glaring loophole and an opportunity for massive scale abuse? Are we really just going to blanket dismiss any attempt at securing this system as "voter disenfranchisement"?
Illegal immigrants should not be registered to vote. Period. That's halfway to voter fraud - not to mention that there are other types of voter fraud which are being deliberately conflated.
They're not. Period.
>the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.
So there is no question that they are registered to vote. The remaining argument is whether they are sufficiently prevent from voting after being automatically registered (failing to opt out by accident or choice.)
"How will the DMV system ensure only U.S. Citizens are registered to vote?
State law prohibits DMV from sending information for AB 60 applicants (undocumented driver license applicants) to the Secretary of State. For other applicants, state law requires each person to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all voter eligibility requirements, including citizenship."[1]
If you're undocumented, the DMV already knows this fact and they're forbidden from sending your info to the Secretary of State. So undocumented people can't be registered to vote via the DMV, even if they don't tick the "Opt-out" box on the form (whether through negligence or malice).
If you're documented, it's perjury and voter fraud - very serious crimes for someone trying to stay legal and very easy to uncover with a simple query on the DMV database, joined with voter rolls to see who voted.
Again, do you have any proof of any of what you're alleging actually happening in the real world? I've already shown you your hypothetical scenario is nearly impossible and easy to investigate, yet you're trying to convince yourself and everyone else that "illegals vote in large numbers". Facts don't care about your feelings.
1. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/motor-voter/general-info.pd...
Not once have I said anything like this. I've been trying to show that it's a valid concern.
>tate law prohibits DMV from sending information for AB 60 applicants (undocumented driver license applicants) to the Secretary of State. For other applicants, state law requires each person to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all voter eligibility requirements, including citizenship.
It took some 15 comments and multiple sources before this safeguard was posted - it's not even on the Snopes page. Don't presume I'm arguing in bad faith or dismiss my arguments as "feelings" just because I disagree with you. This is the only snippet in your entire argument that actually prevents illegals from being registered to vote, which was my entire point of contention. Penalties don't matter if no one is enforcing them.
And finally, once again, I'm not suggesting that proof of fraud exists, or is easy to find - what I am saying is that Wapo's laughable absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You're right, and I apologize. It's a long and heated comment thread :-)
> I've been trying to show that it's a valid concern.
Are you at least somewhat more convinced now that these "concerns" are really more about casting doubts on the validity of California's elections? And on automatic registration in general? Because the facts are that undocumented people aren't registered to vote when they get a license or ID, even if they try to.
> It took some 15 comments and multiple sources before this safeguard was posted - it's not even on the Snopes page.
Agreed. It took me some digging to find the exact source too, and I'm surprised Snopes didn't have it. It should have been right at the top of the article.
> Penalties don't matter if no one is enforcing them.
If there was something to find, there would be enforcement. I've already shown that it isn't hard to find evidence of wrongdoing. Why aren't state or federal prosecutors going after them?
Second, they looked at 3 states out of 50. Yes I understand that's where the majority of mail in voting happens currently. That's about to change.
Third, they ignored states with larger populations of illegal immigrants.
Fourth, they ignored opt out motor voter laws which, combined with laws which give illegals drivers licenses (in at least 2 states currently) and automatically register them to vote unless they opt out.
Long story short, wapo found what it wanted find, consumers read what they wanted to read.
[0] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-r...
[1] https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indic...
They seem insecure, but they are not insecure. That is the problem. The perception that public elections are vulnerable to massive voter fraud is what drives these conspiracy theories, not the reality.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...