Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

18
  • 5
    This answer could be improved by clarifying how much fraud would be needed to turn the 2016 election. According to your link, that is about 78 thousand in three counties. Knowing where to cheat in advance and also ensuring that fraud survives recounts and audits is an exercise for the reader. Commented Jul 31, 2020 at 23:57
  • 4
    @AffableAmbler I agree to the absurdity of it. At the national level, it's simply a boogeyman.
    – Cort Ammon
    Commented Aug 1, 2020 at 0:48
  • 5
    In Washington, you may cancel your ballot and get a new one. So it would be pretty easy to avert those first cases, make it a functionally useless way to conduct voter fraud (even more so than it already is). Commented Aug 1, 2020 at 1:34
  • 3
    @puppetsock Exactly zero, which the answer makes pretty abundantly clear. Commented Aug 6, 2020 at 0:41
  • 2
    @BobE I considered the argument pretty trivial. It is always easier to do more fraudulent behavior when restrictions are relaxed. That being said, I hope it came through clearly that my primary argument is a frame challenge that says it doesn't matter, because it would have to increase fraud by multiple orders of magnitude before it could materially change an election.
    – Cort Ammon
    Commented Aug 6, 2020 at 3:19