Skip to main content

At this point, the politics of "voter fraud" are pretty clear. Republicans use claims of voter fraud to justify draconian rules and voter purges that are targeted at traditionally Democratic-leaning demographics and geographic areas.

But how do you explain the so-called voluminous cases of non-citizen voting, double voting, deceased voting, and felon voting? Aren't there numerous studies that show that those sorts of fraudulent voters are commonplace?

The talking point is "fraudulent voting is rare" but what are the real facts? Some juicy tidbits:

  • "Dead voters" typically voted before they died, often by absentee ballot
  • "Felon voters" are frequently people convicted of more minor crimes, and are actually eligible to vote
  • The matching rules used to find voters who voted more than once are statistically useless
  • Virtually none of these cases of fraud would be resolved by a more stringent voter ID law

A report by the Brennan Center in 2007 absolutely eviscerates claims of voter fraud.

Matching Problems

One class of allegations of voter fraud centers around finding the same person voting in multiple places. But the assumptions that underly those accusations assume that two people with identical names and birthdates are the same person.

In reality, the chance that two people in a group of just 23 people have the same birthday is 50%. The chance that two people in a group of 57 people have the same birthday is 99%. The Daily News breathlessly reported in 2004 that more than 46,000 people were registered to vote in both NY and CA.

To check for voters registered in both places, the Daily News matched computer records from election officials in New York City and Florida.

Records of the city's 3.7 million registered voters were matched against a statewide Florida database of 10.7 million registrants based on first and last name, gender, birth date and middle initials


Which brings us to the next point, being registered more than once.

Multiple registrations

The Daily News hung its hat on the fact that being registered in more than one place is evidence of intent to vote in more than one place. 14% of Americans move each year, and with many New Yorkers moving to Florida, it is not surprising that a large number of New Yorkers who moved to Florida are still registered in New York. In fact, there is no legal requirement for those who move to notify their local election officials.

A small study in New Hampshire found that 67 people were registered to vote in both Dover and Durham, but that none of those voters voted more than once.

Importantly, increased voter ID requirements would not reduce this sort of "voter fraud".

Dead voters

Sensational reports about "dead voting" have a serious methodological flaw. These studies typically match death records after the election with votes. A study of 89 allegedly deceased voters in Maryland in 1995 found zero actual deceased voters. They had all voted before dying.

Additionally, elderly voters frequently vote by absentee ballots, so many of these cases are voters who voted before the election by absentee ballots, and die afterward.

Felon voters

In 2005, the GOP alleged that Dino Rossi lost herhis close election against Christine Gregoire as the result of illegal felon voting. In that case, hundreds of the cases cited were  actually people who committed juvenile crimes. And reports of felon voting simply assume that people convicted of a felony are not eligible to vote, and do not investigate the possibility of a restoration of voter rights.

And of course, the matching problems mentioned above are in play here as well (again, simply assuming that somebody with the same name, gender, and birthday is the same person is hysterically irresponsible).

Requiring photo ID would not prevent this, even if it was happening.

Returned mail (aka caging)

A popular technique used recently is to show that people are still on the voter rolls even if they no longer reside in the district in question. There are numerous reasons that could cause mail to be returned undelivered:

  • Pure error (in 1990, 4.8 million forms were returned undelivered, but 1.8 million were able to be delivered by hand)
  • The person uses a PO box
  • The voter has moved but remains eligible to vote without re-registrations (moving within a precinct)

Requiring photo ID would not prevent people voting if they moved outside the eligible district.

Commercial address

Another cited example of fraud is signing up to vote in areas zoned as commercial or in government buildings. Firstly, zoning is not dispositive. Additionally, in many cases, homeless people are registering to vote at the location of their shelter.

Requiring photo ID would not resolve the issue of people fraudulently registering to vote in places where they do not live.

Documented cases of fraud

When all of these maybes are taken into consideration, positively tiny numbers of documented fraud are found. Usually in the single digits in a given state. For instance, in Missouri, a state that was the subject of a frenzied search for voter fraud, only 6 cases of double-voting were found, none of which could have been prevented by increasing photo ID requirements.

In 2005, an attempt to prove that significant double-voting had occurred in New Jersey found just 8 cases of invalid voting--all double-voting. None could have been prevented by more stringent photo ID requirements.


Claims of voter fraud are based on incredibly flawed metrics for "identical persons". In the case of voter registration problems, the most significant "problems" are due to moving to a new address and re-registering there, something that 14% of Americans do every year.

The celebrated Daily News study took an extremely common case of such moves (New York to Florida), but showed just 400 cases of claimed double-voting (when their headline sensationally reported 40,000 cases of fraud). With more than 7 million votes case in both New York and Florida, it's not at all surprising that 400 cases of people with the same full name, gender, and birthdate voted in both states. In fact, it would be surprising if there were significantly fewer such cases.

And here's the kicker: these claims, completely unsubstantiated, lead to significant voter purges (the recent dramatic lawsuit in Ohio is an example of such a case). So instead of solving a serious problem, Republicans are looking to purge common statistical side-effects (same-name, same-gender, same-birthdate registered twice or deceased), juvenile "felons", people who moved in the last year.

And in many cases, the screen for "same person" is even less stringent than same-name, same-gender, same-birthdate. If you see a study claiming to prove significant voter fraud, take a look at how they determined same-personhood.

And finally, increased voter identification requirements resolves virtually none of these problems. I'd strongly recommend taking a look at the full study. We need to be armed with the facts about how common problems and statistical anomalies are being twisted into claims of widespread fraud.

Originally posted to wycats on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 03:40 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not voter fraud, its election fraud (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drgardner, 57andFemale

    We need to call it what it is. It took years for democrats to start calling republican lies "a lie." It wasn't no "misstatement" or "misleading," it was a damned lie!

    Now we need to stop letting them frame the discussion and start calling it what it really is, "election fraud engineered by republicans."

    As long as we let them frame the discussion we fall into their trap and stay on the defensive forever. Lets take the offense and start calling them on their dirty tricks. If it's organized thuggery and intimidation, lets call it that. Don't ever let them go in and stop a recount just by threats and intimidation like they did in Florida in 2000.

    We should be thinking and saying "Never again!" And we need to call their lies and intimidation and election fraud for what it is.

    Hopefully enough informed people will be out at the polling places challenging "great big white guys" who ask for identification. Lets be there and ask for their identification, and their authority to talk to any voter.

    If they refuse to provide it then you have grounds for voter intimidation complaint.

  •  Voter ID (0+ / 0-)

    You made this statement three times in your diary:

    Importantly, increased voter ID requirements would not reduce this sort of "voter fraud".

    But you do not explain why.

    Seems to me a national ID would indeed keep voter registration rolls pretty clean and at least guarantee they could only be registered and allowed to vote once.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 04:21:57 AM PDT

    •  ? (0+ / 0-)

      A national ID, in itself, doesn't seem to help with that problem at all.

      Maybe you mean that if everyone has a unique identifier, there could be a master national registration DB to ensure that people are only registered in one state. Something like that?

      •  Yes. I can't see how (0+ / 0-)

        any valid ID system could work without a national database.  It's really about time we did something like this given the number of electronic records already online.  And Social Security numbers were never meant for that kind of tracking.

        BTW- Obama's idea of universal online health records will no doubt require some sort of national ID.  We might as well just bight bullet and do it sooner or later.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

        by Skeptical Bastard on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:53:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, I haven't thought that through (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think it's inherently unreasonable to have a national database that keeps track of people's permanent residences -- but implementation could be a major problem.

          Carter-Baker called for a national ID, and I was never philosophically opposed to that, but Spencer Overton made a strong case that in the real world it is a bad idea. In part it would depend on whether -- and how!! -- the government was serious about making sure that everyone got an ID.

    •  That's not what they want (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      According to Republicans, stronger photo ID requirements on the state level would solve voter fraud problems. However, most of the cases they complain about could not be resolved by stronger voter ID.

      Felons, for instance, are who they say they are, and would presumably have valid photo ID. Those registered in multiple places would also have valid photo ID.

  •  Dino Rossi is a man (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HudsonValleyMark, thenekkidtruth

    I'm not being misogynist here; Dino is in fact a dude.  I wish I could also refute the claim that he is a Washington State resident, but no such luck.  He's one of ours.

    Thanks for the ammo regarding Dino's whining about 'felon' voting.  I didn't know that.

  •  I'm registered to vote in WA and in CA (0+ / 0-)

    I did everything I could to un-register in Washington state when I relocated to California in late June 08, but I'm still receiving Washington state voter's collateral by mail, so I know I'm still registered there.

    I have no intention of voting in the state of WA, of course, but by Republican rules, am I somehow guilty of voter fraud? If so, I have no real way to defend myself.

    After Sep 2008, I have NO INTEREST in hearing about your "welfare queens".

    by thenekkidtruth on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:24:20 AM PDT

  •  Does Liddy vote? (0+ / 0-)

    Because if G. Gordon Liddy votes is it only okay for "repented" republican felons to have their civil rights restored?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site