Talk:Electoral fraud in the United States

Kessler undue weight

Proposing to remove Kessler quote flagged as WP:UNDUE as it is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. He is the only one expressing these conjectures and is not as notable as academic specialists that say it is not an issue at all. At the very least, his views should not get so much space in the paragraph relative to the academic experts and may need to add more experts to balance out the section. Superb Owl (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Kessler is an award-winning fact-checking journalist writing in The Washington Post. It is rather ridiculous to remove his analysis of a phenomenon as "conjecture" or call it a "fringe" viewpoint (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Also [1] I didn't add any sources, I added a quote to a PolitiFact source which supported my proposed phrasing, so please return that and return the duplicate source fixes as well. JSwift49 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Kessler is not above controversy and is not an expert. He also is employing WP:SPECULATION (flags that I have added) and is already cited 10 times in this article (hence WP:UNDUE). If we include him, it should be proportional to the prevalence of his views (which I would argue are WP:FRINGE given that no other reliable sources seem to share them)
The quote you added from FactCheck.org is from an article that is cited 7 times in the article (possible WP:UNDUE to quote it) and is from 2020. I am going to put together a more recent (2021-present) per WP:AGEMATTERS sample of how mail-in balloting is discussed per the other sections and will not be including that quote in it. Superb Owl (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Kessler is a journalist who has done in-depth analyses of the issue; and he's as high-quality a news source as you're going to get. His articles/comments here are analyses of the facts, not speculation; and the statement has appropriate weight.

My bad it was FactCheck.org. That article quotes multiple separate experts, so absolutely WP:DUE and valuable. A 2021-present threshold is not only arbitrary and has no consensus, but isn't at all how WP:AGEMATTERS works. The policy simply asks us to "be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded". It doesn't say "don't use any sources before a certain year". JSwift49 21:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Because there are plenty of sources post-2021, I strongly believe we should prioritize the most recent sources which can draw on the latest information and knowledge (such as audits of the 2020 election, for example, with unprecedented vote by mail) - that is a textbook application of WP:AGEMATTERS, especially for a field that has increasing attention and study ever since Trump started making those claims.

While Kessler's claims may not be clear-cut speculation, they are borderline and he still seems to be using a borderline op-ed format. He does not cite any sources for those claims you quote and he is a fact-checker on all topics, and is not a specialist in election claims. And those claims are still contradicted by other articles (which I will add immediately after his quote for context and balance) explaining that election workers are responsible for verifying whether noncitizens vote that contradict this strange and unique claim of his: "if a noncitizen casts a ballot, there is no obvious victim to make a complaint and little public documentation to prove that a voter is not a citizen". Superb Owl (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Prioritizing is one thing, but the testimony of multiple experts from 2020 on this topic is absolutely valuable. WP:AGEMATTERS does not support removing relatively recent content unless newer information replaces or decisively contradicts it.

I don't see how your argument contradicts Kessler. There is no obvious victim to bring a complaint against noncitizen voting unlike other crimes, and yes, since it is up to election workers to verify citizenship, there is little documentation of citizenship that is accessible to the public. A reliable source acknowledging this fact is not speculation nor opinion. JSwift49 22:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's leave the flags until others weigh-in Superb Owl (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

'Not as rare' vs. 'more common/often'

@Gowser I think 'not as rare' for mail-in fraud, while I understand your point, is a bit awkward phrasing since 'rare' is mentioned twice in the same sentence, and "more common"/"frequent"/"often" (as well as very rare) better reflects how sources describe it. If we look at them:

• FactCheck 2024 [2] While the instances of voter fraud via mail-in ballots are more common than in-person voting fraud, experts have told us the number of known cases is relatively small.
• FactCheck 2020 [3] Election experts told us that Trump is exaggerating the amount of voter fraud via mail-in ballots. They say it is more common than in-person voting fraud (something that Trump has repeatedly distorted), but still rare.
• CS Monitor 2024 [4] Yet experts generally agree that fraud related to mail-in voting is more frequent than in-person voting abuses.
• Wisconsin NPR 2024 [5] While election experts say fraud in mail balloting is slightly more common than in in-person voting, NPR reports that it's still such a minuscule amount it's not statistically meaningful.
• USA Today 2024 [6] But while uncommon, fraud seems to occur more often with mailed-in votes than with in-person voting, according to the MIT Election Data & Science Lab.
• MIT 2024 (same source as USA Today) [7] As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting.
• ProPublica 2020 [8] Numerous academic studies have shown that cases of voter fraud are extremely rare, although they do occur, and that fraud in mail voting seems to occur more often than with in-person voting.
• I searched for 'less rare' and found an expert from 2020 who called it 'less rare' [9] and 'slightly less rare',[10] though a NYT article in which his quote appeared also used the phrase 'more vulnerable' Even so, experts say that the mail voting system is more vulnerable to fraud than voting in person. "What we know can be boiled down to this: Voting fraud in the United States is rare, less rare is fraud using mail ballots," said Charles Stewart III of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Didn't find anything for 2021 onward, or when I searched the term "not as rare".

JSwift49 14:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this legwork, very helpful to see it laid out that way. I'm least convinced by the appearance of "rare" twice in a sentence—"Electoral fraud is extremely rare...though mail-in voter fraud is not as rare as etc" is a syntactic parallelism, a good, clear construction IMO.

'More common' v. 'less rare' is not a hill I'll die on. I just find the former imprecise and misleading when something is in fact not common in any way.

I'd be happy with some form of the USA Today phrasing: "While uncommon, fraud seems to occur more often with mailed-in votes than with in-person voting." What do you think? Gowser (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Re. the double rares, I've always tried to avoid using the same descriptor twice in a sentence, but maybe it's just my way of writing things :)

How about "Experts say that mail-in ballot fraud occurs more often than in-person voter fraud, though it is still quite rare..."? 'Occurs more often' seems less potentially misleading than 'is more common', and tying it to experts more clear than 'seems'. JSwift49 15:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The concern that Gowser and I both seem to have is that 'more often' is vague and since this section is focused on frequency, we should be specific. I still think the language 'not as rare' is most precise and still support its inclusion. Superb Owl (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

They said they'd be good with some form of USA Today including 'more often'; I think that's an improvement over the current phrasing so will put that in (still support changing 'seems' to 'experts say'). JSwift49 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Added description of 2018 NC mail-in ballot fraud

Thanks @JSwift49 for reverting my error (I failed to acknowledge the reversed NC congressional election as a result of mail-in ballot fraud). I've done my penance by adding a specific description of that incident in the mail-in ballot fraud section. Please take a look when you can Gowser (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries; and thanks for the writeup! The NC case is currently covered in Notable cases, and I think the extra detail/sources you added would go well there. JSwift49 15:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Done. Gowser (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Great; could you please restore the lead paragraph of the article, too? Not sure if you meant to delete it. [11] JSwift49 16:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of Frequency section

There are two ways that I think make sense to order the Frequency section:
1) Alphabetical (except first and last sections)
2) In rough order of which are the most frequent (per section title) Superb Owl (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Start with the three most discussed: impersonation, mail in and noncitizen, and then the more obscure types. Alphabetizing places undue weight on e.g. double voting which is not as commonly discussed JSwift49 22:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh-in? Would still prefer to order them by prevalence, especially since what is 'most discussed' is more likely to change than what is more prevalent Superb Owl (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Notable cases

This section deals exclusively with actual cases of voter fraud and does not discuss the history of false claims of voter fraud to achieve other political ends (voter suppression or election subversion). I flagged it as WP:UNDUE and believe the section should also have a history of the false claims. Superb Owl (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussing false claims in the 'Notable cases' section is itself WP:UNDUE. This article is about cases of fraud, false claims that cause voter suppression should be discussed in Voter suppression in the United States, and Trump's claims (beyond a summary) into Election denial movement in the United States. JSwift49 23:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

While I still think most info about false claims is better suited to other articles, I added a short section about the history of false claims + turned Trump claims into the 'false claims' section. That way, helps us avoid issues with WP:RECENT and puts Trump's claims in some historical context.

Also, with the lead, please read WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY; best practice is to add content to the body first and then talk about changing the lead, not putting content into the lead that you wish to see in the body. [12] JSwift49 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

False claims section works much better than it was, thank you Superb Owl (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Starting a discussion here so that we can try and reach consensus on a lead that summarizes the body. As I mentioned in my comment, there is not a consensus definition of what electoral fraud is and as I noted in perception, some people define it to include voter suppression and other actions that are discussed on separate articles. Until there is a more concrete, consensus definition we should not elevate one in the lead and instead simply summarize the major points of the article in the lead including how people define the term differently.
Here is the draft in a sandbox since @JSwift49 keeps reverting any attempt to use the article to work collaboratively on a lead. Please feel free to contribute there if you want, but also let's keep the discussion on this talk page Superb Owl (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion; please do not attempt to repeatedly force through disputed changes to the lead. [13][14][15][16]

I think the lead as-is [17] is perfectly fine. The United States government defines voter fraud as a separate category from voter suppression and campaign finance fraud,[18][19] and I had added that to the body. The explainer added by Chumpih also makes clear the difference for the reader between the articles on fraud and suppression. [20]

There were several issues I had with your changes [21] to the prior version [22] namely:

• Changing 'Types of fraud include' to 'Some types of fraud cited in proponents of more restrictive voting laws include'; this is simply inaccurate, one only needs to look at the body of the article to see that pretty much everyone classifies types of fraud in this way, and you removed two sources I added to the lead that reflected that. The word 'include' is also enough to show that the list is not comprehensive.
• Moving types of fraud to the end; as Markus Markup said, we should define what a thing is before providing critiques of it.[23]
• WP:UNDUE weight on false claims. I think the article as a whole already focuses too much on false claims + consequences, there are entire articles devoted to precisely that topic. But even as-is, when you have one sentence in the lead re. notable cases and no sentences re. prevention, we should not have significantly more content referencing false claims/consequences.
  • I think we should keep the lead short and simple; and one sentence that says false claims have a long history and are associated with Trump/election denial movement, as the lead currently does, is proportionate. It's also better to talk about historical prevalence and false claims in different sentences as they are different topics in different sections.
• "Some people consider voter suppression a form of electoral fraud though they are often discussed separately." is not discussed in the article body; unsourced and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY issue.
  • Plus 1) voter suppression is often legal, whereas fraud is by definition illegal and 2) even when suppression is illegal, the US government views it as a separate category of crime from voter fraud.
• "While an anomaly in the 21st century" is simply not needed; the previous sentence talks about how it's rare, and the sentence before that talks about how it's rare; so this is quite redundant.
• "In-person voter fraud, noncitizen voting, double voting, and voter registration rolls that are 'bloated'... verges on nonexistant." quote within the Emory Law Journal source. This quote is misleading. The "verges on nonexistent" actually refers to the means-end relationship between laws and govt interest. [24]
• At the end, mentioning random cases like Florida is WP:UNDUE, mentioning noncitizen voting is rare is also redundant as that's already summarized. (fraud is extremely rare).
• Changing 'affecting the outcomes of United States elections' to 'affecting United States elections', which was unexplained and made the lead less precise to the source.[25] Since we changed 'occasional' to 'only scattered' to better reflect the same source [26] (which I am fine with), we should do the same here. Similarly, 'significantly more prevalent' was changed to 'more prevalent', even though the source [27] and body reflects it was significantly more historically prevalent.

JSwift49 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed feedback - I have incorporated into the draft some of your suggestions including adding back 'significantly', 'affecting the outcomes of' and removed 'anomaly' and the Emory Law Journal quote (I also removed all citations since they should all be reflected in the body)
Here are the areas where I disagree:
1) Why would we want a succinct lead on a 9500 word article - how is one paragraph supposed to summarize that? (to clarify, I do not think the article is too long, just that the lead is too short)
2) False claims are the most notable aspect of this topic and one of the main reasons someone might seek out this article. The relative notability and importance of voter fraud vs. the impacts of false claims of fraud (voter suppression, election subversion, violence and threats, etc.) absolutely should be summarized in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I agree that they should be in a separate paragraph and have reworked the draft to have a paragraph that summarizes those two sections.
3) Definition needs more work. The FBI defines it one way when thinking about what is criminal (that's their job), a political scientist or observer might think about election fraud and voter suppression as two causes of the same outcome: an illegitimate result due to partisan or other unfair skewing of the results. I still think we need more coverage in the body on the definition and what people think voter fraud refers to (the lead language you disputed actually summarizes an article I added in Perception section) before trying to list examples in a way that suggests those are the most common forms of voter fraud. Superb Owl (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the draft; it doesn't resolve many of the issues I raised, though. I especially can't understand the "types of fraud cited in proponents of more restrictive voting laws" claim, these are types of fraud everyone cites so it should not be delegitimized. Also don't get the removal of the statement that fraud has long being a significant topic in American politics, when that fact is a central piece of the article's notability and supported by sources.

1) I think it's good for the lead to stay as a succinct summary; extra detail doesn't strike me as necessary and would hinge too much on discussions of which parts of the article to prioritize.

2) I wholesale disagree that false claims should be the focus of this article. We have Voter suppression in the United States, Election denial movement in the United States, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, all of these cover in detail the issues you talk about. This article is different in that it is about the incidence and history of actual fraud. While tangential topics such as false claims/consequences have their place and certainly add to the topic's notability, it should not be front and center of this particular article to avoid WP:COAT. It should be summarized and anyone who wants to read more about it can read one of the three I mentioned.

3) I don't think we should give much weight to what people think voter fraud is in surveys; this is a legal term and we should stick with that definition instead of getting into semantics. Especially since an article on voter suppression not only exists, but is shown at the top of the article, so readers immediately know where to go if they want to read about that topic. JSwift49 19:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I will soften the language in the first sentence to "Some examples of fraud include" and the second re-emphasis of that point is entirely redundant.
1) Thoroughly unconvinced by this argument that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is too difficult
2) False claims should be reflected in the lead even if they are not the focus. They should at least get a paragraph summarizing those sections. Just because there are other articles that cover some (but not all) of the topics related to false claims, does not mean that those sections should not be discussed in the lead. Frankly, it strikes me as a very bizarre argument to suggest that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY would not apply to any sections in this article.
3) We can both largely stick with the legal definition while also adding a sentence to the lead explaining why some people still consider voter suppression as a form of voter fraud. The two topics interact and overlap and trying to neatly cleave them off is both WP:OR and not WP:PRECISE Superb Owl (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

1) The argument really is, beyond a high-level summary, it can be difficult to pick and choose which details to include (for example your putting Florida in). I think the lead is better off avoiding that and remaining a high-level summary.

2) That's not what I'm saying; it's that your draft emphasizes false claims too much. Voter suppression and false claims make up more than half the lead in your current draft, which is not reflective of the article (and I already think the article itself is too focused on false claims).

3) Since voter fraud and suppression are legal definitions, that's exactly the kind of thing that lends itself well to being cleaved off. I fail to see why people viewing a legal definition a different way deserves any weight besides a mention in 'public perception'. Regardless, suppression is not even necessary for the lead because the voter suppression article link above does the job.

I have updated my draft proposal; gives space to each section of the article (notable cases, perception, false claims, prevention). JSwift49 22:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We are definitely getting closer to a consensus even if there are still some major differences.
1) my latest draft did not mention Florida. I agree it can be hard to choose in some cases, which is why I think if we make a list of examples (double voting, felony voting, etc.) we should be careful not to imply this is a definition of voter fraud or even the most common kinds of voter fraud, just some examples.
2) It is 50/50 in my current draft and that is because expert consensus is that the claims of fraud and their consequences are a bigger concern than actual instances of fraud (and thus the most notable/WP:DUE parts of the article)
3) I am willing to remove that first sentence if we also do not try to define voter fraud in the lead (double voting, noncitizen voting, etc.) as it is not something we still have done well or though through in the body in a significant way other than off-hand mentions. Superb Owl (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s just a list of examples of fraud types discussed in the article; it’s not a definition, so I’m not understanding your point. Listing some main types of fraud helps the reader understand the topic.

I won’t keep repeating myself re. the undue weight/WP:COATRACK of false fraud claims and consequences. But I won’t be supporting a greater relative emphasis on false claims in the lead than there currently is in my draft. JSwift49 00:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In case it is helpful for others to have it here, here is a specific draft summary of the Misinformation and disinformation section and the Relationship to other issues section that I have proposed that JSwift49 objects to including in the lead: "Since 2015, Donald Trump helped to grow the election denial movement in the United States with unfounded claims of electoral fraud, fueled by misinformation online. This perception of voter fraud has led to political violence and threats to American democracy, including voter suppression and election subversion, which remain much larger concerns for experts than voter fraud." Superb Owl (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Should this recent event of a non U.S. citizen successfully being able to register to vote and cast an irretrievable ballot be included in the article

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/30/politics/michigan-chinese-citizen-charged-after-illegally-voting/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-student-noncitizen-voting-charges-china-19edcea1ca92ef163d50282dc55742ba

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/31/chinese-national-michigan-illegal-voting/75967473007/

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/non-us-citizen-charged-casting-ballot-michigan-general-election/

Reported in multiple sources and he was only caught because he turned himself in. Shows that voter fraud and registration is possible. Is notable because reported in multiple sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverted and the restored text

I reverted an addition of a suspected single vote not found to be fraud as far as I can see.[28] It was restored by the original editor. Even if it was fraud, one single vote would be trivia. Looks like possibly an error on the part of the student as they attempted to withdraw the vote, and it was ruled that it will count making the charge of fraud even less likely. There is no adjudication I can find that this was fraud and an encyclopedia cannot make such determinations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I posted above with sources. The sources call it fraud and perjury. It does not seem like error in part of the student as they signed a document stating they were a citizen. It seems deliberate, and it seems like they wanted to test the system (can non U.S. citizens vote). The answer seems to be yes they can and apparently in Michigan those ballots are irretrievable. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You just accused a person of crimes without even a trial, much less an adjudication. You even invented intent. I strongly suggest you strike these accusations before an admin sees it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The AP News source said he signed a document saying that he was a U.S, citizen. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have modified the tone to be less accusatory. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No one here cares what you think "apparently" occurred or what you think "seems" to be intent. You used the word "seem" four times. No source says that he is guilty of anything. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I wrote seems because you wrote “Looks like an error on the part of the student…” I don’t understand why are you allowed to speculate with your perception/opinions while I am not? I will strike my sentences if you strike yours. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not misquote other editors. I said: Looks like possibly an error on the part of the student as they attempted to withdraw the vote. Your assumptions are all suggesting criminal activity. I would never do such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t misquote you, I used ellipsis. But thank you for the explanation about writing about criminal activity on Wikipedia and now I understand that we must be extra careful about writing about crimes. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRIVIA it does not yet merit including in this article. This is not a list article and we do not have space for every individual isolated accusation of fraud. With BLP we should also assume good faith and not speculate as to intent of the individual. Many instances of voter fraud are accidental. Widespread voter fraud is the focus of this article, and it is not evidence of widespread fraud. Superb Owl (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, this article is about widespread fraud. I agree that it doesn’t seem to be widespread or systematic (nothing in the news yet). But it is alarming to me that voter fraud is possible and fraudulent votes can be counted! Wafflefrites (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

One-sided perspective of electoral fraud

The article as currently presented takes the perspective that "electoral fraud" occurs when a person is allowed to vote who is not authorized to vote. But the flip side of this is when a person who wants to vote and who is or ought to be eligible to vote, yet the person is denied the opportunity to vote or is otherwise deterred from voting. There is the article Voter suppression in the United States, but "voter fraud" suggests something that shouldn't be allowed to happen (even in the evidently very small numbers with which this occurs), while "voter suppression", which certainly has a much greater effect numerically, plausibly affects a significant fraction of the eligible voting population.

If "electoral fraud" is anything that improperly affects the voting results, then "voter suppression" is just as much a form of electoral fraud as is the case of counting the votes of unauthorized voters. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the current distinction is appropriate because the U.S. government defines “voter fraud” and “civil rights violations” (ie. voter suppression) as two separate categories of election crime. [29] Voter/electoral fraud is also by definition illegal, whereas voter suppression can take both illegal and legal forms. JSwift49 02:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Very much agree - and many people consider voter suppression (not to mention election subversion) to be a form of electoral fraud when surveyed. I have been advocating for a definition section and lead that summarizes the entire concept that discusses more than this legal definition used by the FBI - would love a second opinion on it Superb Owl (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Voter fraud is a legal term; we should not define it in the lead based on what people perceive it to be, but what the law is. The “Prosecution” section already does that. If we are discussing what people additionally perceive as fraud, that should be limited to the “Public perception” section (which it is). JSwift49 10:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added the US govt/FBI definition to the lead for clarity. The US govt website says 'voter fraud and voter registration fraud', while the FBI says 'voter/ballot fraud'. Since the FBI list is more comprehensive and specifically mentions registration fraud under 'voter/ballot fraud', I wrote 'voter or ballot fraud'. JSwift49 12:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be more clearly explained in a definition section after the lead or in the lead itself while also noting the the definition is not a universal constant. The disambiguation at the top is helpful but not sufficient. Superb Owl (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I take exception to the idea that the government's definition of these terms is of any particular relevance on Wikipedia. The general expectation is that the election results should reflect the preferences of the electorate, and any systematic aspect of the election which detracts from that may be said to impact the election integrity.

Now we have this case of Iowa (there may be other states with similar lawsuits) in which the ballots of over 2,000 voters were rejected because at some point in the past, they had stated they were not citizens. This could have been from documents going back several years, and these would likely be people who have become citizens in the interim. They are given the opportunity to cast provisional ballots, but must come back with evidence to support their claim of citizenship. IMO, only a small portion of these people are going to be bothered to jump through these hoops to get their lone ballots counted, but as for the determination that their votes should not be counted, I'm not sure if you call that "voter fraud" (the election officials are fraudulently failing to count these votes) or is it "voter suppression" (the election officials have set up additional hoops these people must jump through in order to get their votes counted. So "election irregularity" avoids the need for us to distinguish these two categories that interfere with determining the proper tally of votes. Fabrickator (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that voter fraud, voter suppression and campaign finance fraud can all lead to elections being unjustly won or lost. However, this article is only about one of those three categories.

The problem is that reliable sources, by and large, do not conflate electoral/voter fraud and voter suppression or treat them as interchangeable. When combined with the U.S. government explicitly distinguishing the two, there is no basis for WP:OR that merges the two categories. Government + secondary source classifications matter in an encyclopedia, and we should not disregard them based on what we personally think is right. JSwift49 00:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

For me, as a Vermont election official, "voter fraud" is not a legal term. I went to https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/ and from there to the LexisNexis site, and searched the Vermont statutes for "voter fraud". Nothing was found. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

“Fraudulent voting” is though [30] and regardless, as a federal category of crime it applies everywhere in the United States. JSwift49 00:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The link https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/17/035/02015 with "vermont" spelled out won't frighten Firefox. The offense described in § 2015 is narrower than has been discussed in this thread. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but at the federal level, which affects all states including Vermont, voter/ballot fraud is one of three types of election crime that United States government categorizes. That’s what I meant by it being a legal term: it is a government categorization of a legal issue. State-level laws of course have different terms/nuances. JSwift49 01:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The FBI website cited is just a website, the author of which chose some terms that might or might not have widespread acceptance in the FBI. There isn't a citation to anything more enduring, such as federal legislation. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

One point of distinction between "voter fraud" and "voter suppression" is that voter fraud is per se a crime, while voter suppression can be a result of complying with the law. Fabrickator (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Added section on vote flipping

Vote flipping (touch screens changing the voter's intended candidate) has been a common claim since 2004, and I felt it deserved mention here. Please take a look when you can. I'm open to it being moved if there is a better position. Thx. Gowser (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It ideally would go in the false or unproven claims category but our article organization doesn't really seem to work. The organization also implies that everything in frequency is not 'false or unproven' even though the majority of claims for all of those categories are false, unproven or exagerrated. Superb Owl (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That was my question exactly, thanks. Gowser (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting Fraud in a Sad Sack Story

There was voting fraud in a Sad Sack Story, "Senator Sack," that was shown me years ago by a boy who was my cabmate for two years when I was a student at a school called the Ottawa Child Study Centre. In this story, the Sad Sack has apparently been elected Senator, but at the end of the story, General Rockjaw reveals that (I hope I'm writing this correctly):

"It says here the election was proven illegal because too many people jammed the phone lines." Glammazon2 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)