12 October 2006
Election fraud can take many forms, but the two that are most in the public eye happen on opposite sides of the polling booth.
On one side, an election can be fraudulent because of issues surrounding the voter - the casting of the vote. For example, supporters of photo ID legislation argue that without it, there's no proof that a voter is who she says she is or if she is really entitled to vote. This is commonly known as "voter fraud."
On the other side, an election can be fraudulent because the votes "counted" were not the votes "cast." This argument examines the voting and counting mechanisms. Some call this "vote fraud" and it is the primary impetus for a "paper trail" for electronic voting systems.
Another issue of concern is voter intimidation -- actions designed to influence a vote, either to not vote at all or to vote a certain way.
A 2003 report, Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud, reaches the "overall conclusion ... that the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes."
Nevertheless, assertions of widespread fraud are key messages in the 2006 mid-term elections. The US House of Representatives, in September, passed a bill that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections. This is a much more stringent bar than set by Congress with in 2000 with HAVA, the Help America Vote Act.
Election fraud can take many forms, but the two that are most in the public eye happen on opposite sides of the polling booth.
On one side, an election can be fraudulent because of issues surrounding the voter - the casting of the vote. For example, supporters of photo ID legislation argue that without it, there's no proof that a voter is who she says she is or if she is really entitled to vote. This is commonly known as "voter fraud."
On the other side, an election can be fraudulent because the votes "counted" were not the votes "cast." This argument examines the voting and counting mechanisms. Some call this "vote fraud" and it is the primary impetus for a "paper trail" for electronic voting systems.
Another issue of concern is voter intimidation -- actions designed to influence a vote, either to not vote at all or to vote a certain way.
A 2003 report, Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud, reaches the "overall conclusion ... that the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes."
Nevertheless, assertions of widespread fraud are key messages in the 2006 mid-term elections. The US House of Representatives, in September, passed a bill that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections. This is a much more stringent bar than set by Congress with in 2000 with HAVA, the Help America Vote Act.
What's all the Fuss About?
The Election Assistance Commission, formed by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, is charged with "identifying, deterring, and investigating voting fraud in elections for Federal office" as well as "identifying, deterring, and investigating methods of voter intimidation."
HAVA provides for two approved forms of ID -- photo and non-photo. Both Georgia and Arizona have had their photo-only voter identification laws thrown out by the courts.
On 11 October 2006, USA Today broke a news story suggesting that the EAC had sat, for more than four months, on a draft report that disputed claims that extensive voter fraud takes place.
HAVA provides for two approved forms of ID -- photo and non-photo. Both Georgia and Arizona have had their photo-only voter identification laws thrown out by the courts.
On 11 October 2006, USA Today broke a news story suggesting that the EAC had sat, for more than four months, on a draft report that disputed claims that extensive voter fraud takes place.
