Comment

Comment on How does US "early voting" works logistically speaking ?

How would a dishonest person add extra? Here in Australia you go in, get signed off on a book, and they give you a piece of paper for your voting preferences. You don’t get unlimited papers to vote multiple times.

My hypothesis is that the dishonest person is an official, so they can be the person giving the ballots/envelope, they were present when we opened the box with ballots/envelope to put them on the table, and have access to the box where they’re stored to refill the table over the day. So getting ballots/envelope is quite easy, and all in less than 2 minutes you can put them in the box and sign near a sick/old person name. Looks like even easier if you close/open the voting office every morning/evening for a week, and store the box for the night. So I am curious about the safeguards.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Kelly@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

sign near a sick/old person name

With postal voting and mobile polling places the sick and elderly are given opportunities to vote in Australia.

Even without those facilities it would take a fair bit of effort to identify and sign for a statistically significant number of sick/elderly.

source
- KeepFlying@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I think this is the strongest protection against this attack. You’d need to identify enough people at enough varied polling locations to be significant enough to sway an election.
  
  Do too many at one location and it raises flags. Cast a vote with a name that also votes absentee or at another location, raises flags.
  
  You’d have to distribute enough fake votes over a large enough area and across enough different shifts to not get anyone’s attention. And that’s expensive and hard to keep secret due to how many people would be involved.
  
  source
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
In general that would be pretty easy to identify. If the number of votes were large enough to impact an election you’d see voting numbers that are far greater than you expect based on the population and demographics of the area served by a particular voting office. In addition you’d see counts greater than you expect when certain people are working but not for others.

In addition usually you have to check in at a desk or table to get your ballot. An official dishonestly stuffing the ballot box would also have to somehow fabricate real voters checking in at the desk, or else there’d be more ballots than people who checked in and they’d identify the fraud. Where I live you check in with your ID card so unless the official had a bunch of IDs of valid registered voters they’d be caught.

Lastly voting fraud is a crime pretty much everywhere, so getting caught is bad.

A more realistic version of voting fraud is what is being planned in the US: getting supporters of a candidate (in this case Trump) to volunteer at voting locations and having those people fabricate evidence of fraud. This can just be their testimony, but it can be used later in lawsuits to give face value validity to accusations that the election was stolen, and used as justification for violence or a coup. This is what Trump tried, poorly, in 2020. They will try better in 2024.

source