Faith in elections and election integrity is incredibly important.

Unsubstantiated claims of election fraud should be punished severely. Politicians who baselessly erode confidence in elections without providing timely evidence should be ineligible for political office at least and potentially tried for treason.

▲

rayiner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Faith in elections is a two-way street. The election system must also be fully transparent, minimize the degree to which voters must trust election administrators, and keep records that would allow evidence of voter fraud to be detected. You can’t punish people for not providing evidence if you’ve designed an election system that fails to keep the information that would allow anomalies to be detected.

▲

afavour 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The election system must also be fully transparent

It should not be fully transparent. I should not be able to look up who you voted for. That should be private information.

With that caveat in mind, to my eyes the election system we have is doing exactly what you’re saying it should do.

	▲	vitally3643 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not what transparent means here.

▲

mulderc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My states system is very transparent and has many systems for detecting fraud but people on the right claim otherwise and they are either ignorant of how it worked or just lying.

	▲	tmp10423288442 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What’s your state?

▲

dawatchusay 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This and a comment under it start with the exact same sentence. “Faith in elections and election integrity is incredibly important.” There’s something wrong here and it makes me doubt HN

	▲	phs318u 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That’s not what I’m seeing. pclowes starts off the comment you quoted (“Faith in elections and election integrity is incredibly important”), then rayiner responds with “Faith in elections is a two-way street” and engages with pclowes point by providing a broader perspective. They are not “the exact same sentence”.
	▲	morkalork 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Don't worry, various governments around the world are working hard to ensure online communities can only be accessed with ID verification. Will that ease your doubt in the future?

▲

readthenotes1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doing such is probably as old as elections.

Without going too far back, https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/factchecking-clintons-vote...

▲

baggy_trough 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

bediger4000 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Voter ID does little to help there, since ballots aren't (and should not be) tied to a specific voter. Faith in tabulators, voting procedures and doing risk limiting audits help more.

▲

afavour 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you’ve spent a little too long huffing right wing media glue.

There are valid arguments against voter ID requirements. Primarily that not everyone has ID. Any push for voter ID should be paired with a comprehensive program to aid folks in registering for a valid ID.

And yet it rarely is, because the aim of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise eligible voters, rather than clamp down on voter fraud. Voter fraud being something that has never been proven to have any effect on electoral outcomes. There has never been any proof any single election in the US has had its result changed because of voter fraud. It is a made up scandal.

▲

baggy_trough 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you’ve spent a little too long consuming left wing media. My evidence is that essentially no other developed democracies treat voter ID in this recklessly casual manner. Even the Obama presidential library requires ID to enter!

	▲	afavour 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So, like I said in my previous comment, any moves to require ID in order to vote should be paired with comprehensive programs to make sure ID is free and easily available to all eligible voters. You haven’t considered why it isn’t? > recklessly casual I say again: there's absolutely no evidence that fraudulent voting has come anywhere close to changing the outcome of an election. Or had any statistical relevance at all. And there are a lot of people looking for that evidence.
	▲	plagiarist an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Which Amendment in the Constitution outlines the right to enter the Barack Obama Presidential Library?
	▲	ImPostingOnHN an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Repeating talking points instead of actually responding to the comment you replied to, is not making you and your side look very credible or competent. Wait! Wait. Before you reply: I fear you may have read my comment but heard "repeat talking points again, attack person who was unconvinced by them". Please don't do that.

▲

plagiarist an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Voter ID is a "solution" to a nonissue problem of a handful of people casting votes illegally. Everyone clamoring to implement voter ID is a disingenuous liar with the motive of disenfranchising citizens. Disenfranchising large numbers of people is a far greater problem for faith in elections and election integrity.