Talk:Electoral fraud/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggestions for citation improvement

I think that the main issue that this article has is that there are several sections of text without any citation at all. The third paragraph in the introduction lacks a citation and the entire “Disenfranchisement” section has only 1 citation at the ending, even though there is 6 paragraphs here. “Vote Fraud in Legislature” has only 1 citation at the end of 3 paragraphs. The second paragraph of “Secret Ballot” is uncited, as is the 2nd-5th paragraphs of “Transparency.” There are several uncited facts and quotations under “Intimidation” as well. The sections “Misrecording of Votes” “Misuse of Proxy Votes” “Destruction or Invalidation of Ballots” “Voting Rights Act of 1965” and “Artificial Results” are completely lacking citations.

Many of the 61 sources listed appear to be valid, but there are a few that need additional attention. Specifically, several of the sources are very old, with web pages that were accessed most recently in 2008 or earlier. These sources should probably be checked out. There also seem to be some sources that have at least a slight left-leaning bias, such as The Atlantic or CNN. I looked at the article from The Atlantic and it doesn't appear to have been based in solid research or written by an expert. Two of the sources are written entirely in Russian. Source number 61 is just a link to the Amazon.com page where you can buy the Ebook that was cited. Finally, several of these links are totally broken and should probably be replaced or deleted.

Finally, electoral fraud became a discussion point during the USA 2016 election and remains featured in the news, and I think the article could be updated to reflect that. However, I think that a strong point of this article is that it focuses on this topic as an international issue and is not too US-centric so this would need to be balanced.

BEHNKEKJ0737 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Need to Update Sources

The information provided in this article is well detailed and there are abundant sources; however, the sources that are still being used in this article are out-of-date. For example, citation #3 under the section "Electorate manipulation" led to a site called "web.archive.org". The site contained an informative news article that was published in January of 2005. Especially with the recent political changes of the USA 2016 presidential election, much of the political and electoral processes have evolved in the 12 years since 2005, so the information may not be legitimate and relevant during 2017 or in the future. Ciolkokm9975 (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ciolkokm9975 - what are you looking for? Recent retrospective overviews like The history of 'rigged' US elections: from Bush v Gore to Trump v Clinton and Election 2000: Before and After: September 2012 State Legislature Magazine ? Or are you looking for current items taking positions, like the Pew report or polls about Half of Republicans would reject election result if Clinton wins ? Or is it specific deadlinks in the article that need replacement ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Election security

There's Election security and Electoral fraud. Why? John Moser (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Where to put electoral errors?

Electoral errors are pervasive: errors in counting, errors in adding, badly programmed computers, etc. Only the intentional errors are "fraud" with a home in this article.

• Where should we put accidental errors?

Often we do not know whether an error was fraud or accident, so they could be here, but I think it's better to keep them separate, since the cures are better simplicity, supervision, staffing, software testing, etc. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be best to start Electoral error (or something similar), after which it would probably be appropriate to include a brief section (plus a {{Main}} hatnote) discussing the overlap of the two subjects at either article _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

US section needs corrections

There are a bunch of problems:

• POV language: "ostensibly" is not neutral (it would be fine to instead explain criticism of lawmakers' motives); and "alleged" refers to accusations of a crime, not potential future crimes (i.e. alarms are installed to foil "burglary", not "alleged burglary".
• "But many experts counter that voter ID laws are not very effective against some forms of impersonation"—this assertion is not found in any of the cited material and should be excised.
• "In each case: Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, and may adversely affect minority voters"—this isn't in comprehensible English, and should be excised.
• The information on North Carolina (and other states) is out-of-date and should be updated or excised.

I would love to hear thoughts—otherwise I will go ahead and correct the above. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Secret ballot discourages voter participation?

There is a claim made here that "Others argue that the secret ballot ... discourages voter participation.". No argument or explanation of how it does so is made here. The cited source for this claim is a short opinion piece from The Atlantic which IMO doesn't actually make a good case that the secret ballot decreases turnout (just an observation that there was a correlation between the two), and also despite being titled "Abolish the Secret Ballot" doesn't actually seem to be arguing for that, so much as for publicising who did or did not vote. This claim isn't even made in the Secret ballot article. So I'm wondering - is "abolish the secret ballot to reduce fraud / increase turnout" a sufficiently notable argument to discuss here, and if so, is the cited source sufficiently notable to support it? Iapetus (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Citation needed regarding "Trump suggested ... they could vote twice"

@Don't Vote 2020: Do you have a credible source documenting that, "In 2020, Donald Trump suggested to voters in North Carolina they could vote twice, once by mail and another at the polls, to test the system." If yes, please provide the source.

I don't know why User:Sro23 reverted that addition, but I believe it was probably for the lack of a credible reference. I heard a claim that Mr. Trump said that people "should" (not merely "could") vote twice. If it's accurate, I think an exact quote from a credible source might be appropriate to include in this article. This article could also benefit from identifying whatever laws were reported as having been violated and whether they were felonies, misdemeanors or ordinance violations. However, Wikipedia requires a credible source.

Thanks for your attempt to contribute to this article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

On-going US fraud

• Tsioulcas, Anastasia (2020-10-12). "California Officials Tell State GOP To Stop Distributing Ballot Drop Boxes". NPR.

71.178.129.215 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

See also section

2020 United States presidential election should be added there. 71.244.246.185 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I would support adding a brief section on allegations of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election. However, everything would have to be backed by solid references. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose adding the 2020 US election to this article. That would be undue coverage for a current-events incident with no lasting significance to the subject of the article. So far, allegations of fraud in this election have been widely debunked. The allegations are relevant to articles about the election, but not relevant for this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add a brief section on this election.

This is NOT a short term aberration that will disappear after this election. This issue will be a major threat to democracy everywhere until it gets proper coverage in the media and is then properly managed.

In my judgment, the allegations of voter fraud and electoral fraud became such an issue in this campaign precisely because of our for-profit advertising model for funding media, as noted in my "Wikiversity:Confirmation bias and conflict". The mainstream media in the US have been regularizing electoral fraud at least since Republican Christian conservative Wikiquote:Paul Weyrich said in 1980, "I don't want everybody to vote." If they had given more coverage to allegations of voter suppression, voter caging, etc., in the 1980s, this would not be an issue today. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about 2020 election fraud has been debunked. Saying it has been debunked doesn't make it so. Your debunking of fraud debunking has been debunked. Election fraud has been rebunked. See? 2A02:A313:823D:4E00:ADAC:3202:114C:2676 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

California GOP ballot boxes

I removed this paragraph from the page, which was under the heading "Unofficial ballot boxes":

During the 2020 United States presidential election, the California Republican Party set up illegal ballot drop boxes, which did not follow California election rules and were misleadingly marked. The boxes were in Fresno, Los Angeles, and Orange County, and were additionally reported in Ventura County. California officials issued a cease and desist order to the California Republican Party which required removal of the boxes in four days.

I think that including this incident under "Voting process and results" gives it undue weight because of recency. This was a very minor incident, which was quickly discovered and corrected. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

blatant vandalism and contempt for others

@TomCat4680: Are you smarter and more moral than President Trump and his supporters? How do you know that? Based on what evidence? The blatant lack of civility exhibited in changing "Trump" to "Drumpf" raises questions about that in my mind.

It's a blatant violation of the Wikimedia rule to treat others with respect (called "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" in Wikipedia). That rule exists in part because few people win arguments trading insults. If you have the mainstream media behind you, you may be able to "win" that way. However, that's more likely to create obstacles to collaboration than build bridges useful for positive collaboration.

Important parts of Hilary Clinton's defeat 4 years ago, according to Abhijit Banerjee; Esther Duflo (12 November 2019), Good Economics for Hard Times, PublicAffairs, Wikidata Q85764011, are the following:

1. Her "deplorables" comment insulted many voters.
2. Barack Obama's "war on coal" was turned by Mitch McConnel into an insult on people who took pride in living in communities that had fueled the industrial revolution in America for centuries.

I think Banerjee and Duflo are 100% correct on those points. Hilary lost on many other grounds as well. In my judgment, the mainstream media everywhere are hostile, often clandestinely, toward anyone perceived as less favorable toward those who control the money for the media; see my "Wikiversity:Confirmation bias and conflict". However, trading insults only creates obstacles to collaboration and cooperation when we need bridges.

I'm reverting your edits if someone else hasn't beaten me too it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't change Trump to Drumpf. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please excuse. Someone changed "Trump" to "Drumpf". I was responding to that. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Tomcat4680: You appear to have done that with this edit. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't mean to. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Voter Integrity Fund"

Pkeets made this edit, which I reverted [1]

I reverted it because it makes a false claim; the article specifically states that "Braynard and Sandoval claim that they have found evidence of possible fraud, but they have yet to make any detailed findings public." The edit also does not include that the so-called "Voter Integrity Fund" is not associated with the US Government but instead is an arm of the Donald Trump campaign.

I invite discussion of the PROPER way to include this link and its information into the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This information should not be used. The "Voter Integrity Fund" is only a few weeks old, and is a minor player at best in the search for voter fraud in the 2020 US election. Adding this to the four-sentence paragraph on the 2020 election gives it WP:UNDUE weight compared to its importance. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Prosecution

@Snooganssnoogans: deleted a sentence citing the number of prosecutions in the US, saying Heritage Foundation was not RS. Heritage is a major foundation, with a point of view, so WP:RS says, " When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate..." Heritage has editorial control, and the cited information is simply a list of many small cases they have found in court and press sources, which they cite and which are independent of them. In-text attribution was given. I'm not aware of anyone disproving the database, though plenty of people see the cases as small, and disagree with Heritage's concern about major electoral fraud. It's valuable for the Prosecution section to have more info on actual prosecutions, especially these typically small ones, instead of just the one national case from the Philippines. Kim9988 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank with ties to the Trump administration. The source used in that edit was from the Foundation's website: "Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America". That post specifically ties the voter fraud database to right-wing efforts to limit mail-in voting, as seen in the first three sentences: "All-mail elections have received heightened attention in the media these past few weeks. Prominent liberals highly endorse the idea, claiming it allows people to do their patriotic duty without risking being infected by the coronavirus. In reality, without rigid safeguards to prevent fraud, misuse, and voter intimidation, absentee ballot fraud—while it may occur sporadically—already has affected the outcome of elections in states and counties across the country." Heritage Foundation specifically calls out "prominent liberals" as the rationale for the database collection. It is not an unbiased reliable source, and should not be used. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: @Kim9988: @Toughpigs: In my judgment, it's worse than what User:Toughpigs described.

In Fish v. Kobach Judge Julie A. Robinson concluded that Hans von Spakovsky had made many "misleading statements" in his testimony, and concluded that he testified not as an "expert witness", as he had been billed, but as an advocate. For example, Judge Julie A. Robinson (18 June 2018), Findings of fact and conclusions of law in Fish v. Kobach (PDF), Wikidata Q97940156 noted that in Spakovsky's testimony he had "cited a U.S. GAO study for the proposition that the GAO 'found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration roles over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.' On cross-examination, however, he acknowledged that he omitted the following facts: the GAO study contained information on a total of 8 district courts; 4 of the 8 reported that there was not a single non-citizen who had been called for jury duty; and the 3 remaining district courts reported that less than 1% of those called for jury duty from voter rolls were noncitizens. Therefore, his report misleadingly described the only district court with the highest percentage of people reporting that they were noncitizens, while omitting mention of the 7 other courts described in the GAO report, including 4 that had no incidents of noncitizens on the rolls." (Judge Robinson, by the way, was appointed to the bench by President George W Bush, a Republican.)

The "1,285 proven instances of voter fraud in America from 1982 to 2020" are probably real, though they are also almost certainly deliberately misinterpreted to support the claim of a massive problem of individual vote fraud.

My conclusions from this are as follows:

1. The incidence of individual voter fraud in the US is minuscule in comparison to the problems of voter suppression and gerrymandering, as documented in Wikiversity:Electoral integrity in the United States.
2. I don't understand why Spakovsky's "misleading" testimony did not reach the level of perjury.
3. Spakovsky is also a member of the Georgia Bar, whose code of ethics includes "Candor towards a tribunal". However, that rule may only apply when representing a client in a Georgia court. Still, Judge Robinson's comments strongly suggest that Spakovsky's testimony violated any reasonable expectation of candor in that case.

In sum, I think it might be appropriate to cite that database in this article while also also observing that Spakovsky and The Heritage Foundation are NOT impartial observers but instead are propagandists trying to blow this issue totally out of proportion to its relevance to the political realities in the US. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the reference after reading this Reuters report[2] which pointed out that the figure of "proven instances of voter fraud" is disputed. Per Reuters, "That figure may be misleading. The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, which often sides with progressives in legal fights, looked at the same data set in 2017 and found that, in many of those cases, the alleged wrongdoers never cast a ballot." The mere fact that the Heritage Foundation's voter fraud team includes figures who are primarily known for lying about voter fraud (see Hans von Spakovsky does not give one confidence in the datasets and analyses they produce. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, Kim9988, and Toughpigs: Thanks for the reference to this Reuters report. In my judgment, it absolutely should be discussed in this "Electoral fraud" article followed by a link to the Heritage Foundation report and Fish v. Kobach. That Reuters report should also be cited in the article on The Heritage Foundation. If that Reuters report also mentions Hans von Spakovsky, it should be mentioned in the article on him as well. If it mentions Fish v. Kobach, it should be cited somewhere in that article, also, I think. Wikiversity:Confirmation bias and conflict suggests that the mainstream media have driven the extreme political political polarization we've seen in recent years internationally, in substantial part, I believe, by mostly suppressing analyses like in that Reuters report to benefit those who control their sources of money.

In my judgment, Wikipedia is a major contributor to world peace and conflict resolution, because it provides a platform where people with very different perspectives can collaborate on what can and cannot be said. Otherwise, we are all trapped in echo chambers of our own construction.

I don't know if I can find time for it today. If someone else does, I would appreciate it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: @DavidMCEddy: @Toughpigs: The Brennan study cited by Reuters said, "At least a quarter of the cases in the database do not even involve ineligible people voting or attempting to vote — the conduct of concern to the president’s Commission.3 Instead, the database inflates the prevalence of voter fraud by including a broad variety of conduct. For example, it includes allegations of voter intimidation, vote buying, interfering or altering ballots by election officials, wrong-doing pertaining to the collection and submission of signatures on ballot petitions, and technical violations of ballot-assistance laws. These cases may identify misconduct and problems associated with election administration, but they are not the kind of voter fraud that the Commission members profess to seek to address."

It appears that the Brennan report confirmed all cases were real cases that were either prosecuted or prosecutable, so the total is relevant in this article's Prosecution section, which covers all types of electoral fraud. Brennan's point that many cases were unrelated to Heritage's proposed policies is legitimate in that context, but not relevant in the broader article here. Kim9988 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that the Brennan report indicates that Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source on this matter. The sentence that Snooganssnoogans cut from the article is: "The Heritage Foundation's election fraud database listed 1,285 proven instances of voter fraud in America from 1982 to 2020, averaging 34 cases per year." The Brennan report says that this is flatly untrue.

From the report: "The database includes 749 "cases" involving almost 1,100 individuals. Only 105 cases come within the past five years, and 448 within the past 10 years. Thirty-two cases are from the 1980s and 1990s. Indicative of its overreach, the database even includes a case from 1948 a case from 1972."

So the statement that the database listed "1,285 proven instances of voter fraud" is untrue; that is the number of individuals involved, not the number of "instances". The average of "34 cases per year" is also incorrect.

We should not mention this database at all in this article. The Heritage Foundation is a biased source, trying to slant their presentation to achieve partisan political goals. Even if we cite the Brennan report's criticism, including all of that material would give the Heritage Foundation's work undue importance on the page. This material belongs on the Heritage Foundation's article. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a fact that there has been lots of propaganda on this point.

I haven't looked at the Brennan report, but if it says what I understand from this discussion, I think that needs to be said here somehow (in addition to saying it in the Heritage Foundation article). DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I simplified the entry, and added the Brennan analysis of it. Kim9988 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this and agree fully with Toughpigs; please do not re-add it before gaining consensus for wording. Credulously claiming the HF listed "proven cases" is absolutely WP:UNDUE. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The latest text was:

The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database listed 1,300 proven instances of electoral fraud in the United states from 1982 to 2020, averaging 33 cases per year. The Brennan Center for Justice found that as of 2017 three quarters of entries in the database involved ineligible people voting or attempting to vote, and the other quarter included voter intimidation, vote buying, interference or ballot alteration by election officials, wrong-doing in collection and submission of signatures on ballot petitions, and technical violations of ballot-assistance laws.

We could drop "proven". Brennan Center reviewed database very carefully and did not find errors. Kim9988 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kim9988: Have you read the report? They say, "There is nothing in the [Heritage Foundation] database to confirm claims of rampant voter fraud. In fact, it shows just the opposite. ... [T]he database inflates the prevalence of voter fraud by including ... allegations of voter intimidation, vote buying, interfering or altering ballots by election officials, wrong-doing pertaining to the collection and submission of signatures on ballot petitions, and technical violations of ballot-assistance laws." I suggest we add something like the following in the appropriate place in this article:

The Heritage Foundation’s "election fraud database" lists over 1,000 cases of what they call "voter fraud", which combines fraud by election officials, e.g., "Altering The Vote Count", and "Forcing or intimidating voters ... to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with assistance', as well as "Ineligible Voting", "Impersonation Fraud At The Polls" and other vote fraud by individuals and "Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots", which is sometimes done by election officials and party hacks. In 2019 Mehrbani of the Brennan Center for Justice reviewed this database and concluded, "There is nothing in the database to confirm claims of rampant voter fraud. In fact, it shows just the opposite. ... [T]he Heritage Foundation’s database undermines its claim of widespread voter fraud." Moreover, the integrity of Hans von Spakovsky, a lead person in creating that database, was questioned in the "Findings of fact and conclusions of law" in Fish v. Kobach, written by judge Julie Robinson, who had been appointed to the bench by U.S. President George W. Bush, a Republican. He had testified that "up to 3 percent" of people called for jury duty in one federal jurisdiction were non-citizens, and he implied that that could be generalized to the entire U.S. In fact, his 3 percent figure applied to one of eight federal jurisdictions mentioned in a GAO report he cited, when 4 of the remaining 8 reported zero and the other three reported "less that 1 percent" non-citizens.

I think we should include a discussion something like this, which cites the Heritage Foundation "election fraud database", and describes it as having been portrayed as something different from what it actually contains. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I appreciate your analysis. I don't think we need to say that much. For the reasons you say, it's not right for us to describe it as a "voter fraud" database, and I didn't do so in the short green wording above (from which I proposed removing "proven"). If we don't describe the database as voter fraud, I don't see why we would cover Brennan Center's argument with Heritage about whether it's voter fraud. This is an article about all kinds of Electoral fraud. So the entire database is relevant to this article: voter fraud and official fraud. Furthermore the green wording proposed above notes that the database has 33 instances per year, which is a neutral encyclopedic way of saying it does not show "rampant" fraud. Spakovsky's integrity on citizenship of jurors might matter here if he were the only verification of the database, but Brennan Center reviewed the database and found it did contain the various kinds of electoral fraud mentioned in their summary. Virtually every major source Wikipedia cites has made errors (newspapers & journals have errata sections; every politician has been fact-checked). The issue here is accuracy of the database, which Brennan Center confirms does cover Electoral fraud. Kim9988 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References