bbauska

How many times does it need to be committed to affect the results of an election?

Well your source noted 26 US electoral results that were close. AS a percentage of the elections that were held since 1800 its a remarkably small number of electoral results.
And many listed are thousands of votes apart. Or were for electoral college votes, which may or may not have mattered in the final tally. (Except for Florida I think none did actually)
And the problem you have is that the fraud could have been committed eitehr way. Maybe the fraudulent vote made the election closer.
Be that as it may, lets say someone sets out to vote fraudulently. They change costumes and get in line dozens of times ? ....Consider the actual execution. In many areas voting lines are hours long... In many polling locations are great distances apart .... really, the execution of voter fraud by one or two people in enough numbers to effect an election is impossible . And if a lot of people get involved on a large scale its far more likely that the scheme is detected or someone talks ... (The law of large conspiracies...)
And then they have to worry that some nut on the other side is doing the same thing and cancelling them out! Oh why bother?


Fate

After Gore v. Bush, I don't know how anyone with a brainwave can deny a small amount of fraud could change an election.

I'd think that anyone would take away from the Florida mess that there should be an independent, neutral electoral commission, a properly maintained and managed voters roll, and a more intelligent ballot design and construction and better run polling stations. All expensive fixes that would have far more effect at increasing the peoples faith in their democracy.
Instead you're worried about some lunatic running from polling booth to polling booth in sufficient numbers that he could change the course of the vote. In Gore v Bush that would have meant he drove to 417 polling locations to vote.... The price of gas these days precludes this activity! That and the average 4 hour line up that occurred in Florida..
Conspiracy theories like wide spread election fraud never survive the test of reality...

rickyp wrote:Fate

After Gore v. Bush, I don't know how anyone with a brainwave can deny a small amount of fraud could change an election.

I'd think that anyone would take away from the Florida mess that there should be an independent, neutral electoral commission,

. . . kinda like the IRS?

Instead you're worried about some lunatic running from polling booth to polling booth in sufficient numbers that he could change the course of the vote. In Gore v Bush that would have meant he drove to 417 polling locations to vote....

Uh, no. A relative few could easily do this though, Sr. Foolish.

The price of gas these days precludes this activity! That and the average 4 hour line up that occurred in Florida..
Conspiracy theories like wide spread election fraud never survive the test of reality...

46 States. Disprove that with "reality."

fate

46 States. Disprove that with "reality.

"

I've no doubt in a vastnation like the US that there is some voter fraud. Even impersonaisation fraud.
And I've no doubt that it might happen at least once in 46 states in a federal election.
But, as Bbauska's evidence proves, few of the thousands elections are close enough that a few acts of fraudulent voting might affect the out come. And the only evidence brought forward is that the actual rate of commission of the crime is vanishingly small.
Using the vanishingly small potential for a successful fraudulent act to affect the out come, in order to devise ways to suppress the votes of poorer, older people .
remember I'm on your side. I believe IDs are a good thing. I just think that the government has to pay for the ID, and find a way to ensure that all qualified voters actually have been provided such, at no cost to the voter. The problem with all the voter IDs brought forward is that there is no attempt to accomplish this ....Which actually may be a constitutional issue... (Forced acquistion of ID that costs money is a "poll tax". You in support of having to pay for the right to ote?
Not because the motivation is actually to reduce fraud, but because the motivation is to lower the turnout among certain demographics...

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wisconsi ... ruling.pdf

Trying to crack down on in-person voter fraud isn't a strong enough justification for Wisconsin's voter ID law, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, because voter impersonation virtually never occurs now and is unlikely to become a real problem in the future.
In striking down the 2011 law signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R), U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman held that although the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 2008 that states had an interest in preventing voter fraud, Wisconsin's voter ID law wasn't justified because voter fraud in person doesn't really exist.
"The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin," Adelman ruled in Frank v. Walker. "The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."
The judge also held that re-enforcing public confidence in the electoral process wasn't a sufficient justification for the voter ID law. He noted that there was no evidence that law enforcement authorities were simply failing to catch instances of voter impersonation because they were hard to detect.
If voter impersonation is occurring "often enough to threaten the integrity of the electoral process, then we should be able to find more evidence that it is occurring than we do," Adelman wrote. "If, for example, voter impersonation is a frequent occurrence, then we should find more than two unexplained cases per major election in which a voter arrives at the polls only to discover that someone has already cast a ballot in his or her name

."

Doctor Fate wrote:It's not rare. Danivon posted proven fraud in 46 states.

No I did not. I referred to a list of 46 States where fraud convictions or prosecutions had taken place. A conviction is indeed proven. A prosecution is not (especially if it has not resulted in a conviction).