Talk:Electoral fraud in the United States

"voter impersonation should be made illegal"?
I'm not an attorney, but I believe that voter impersonation is fraud and is already criminal in all 50 states. Is there any evidence that it's not?

This claim should be reworded or removed -- unless clear evidence can be provided proving that it's NOT illegal in some jurisdiction in the US. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this sentence, although sourced, is confusing and unclear, and so have removed it. Everymorning (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm loath to completely discard the reference to a potentially relevant paper in a law journal. The article begins, "The  act  of  impersonation, where a person votes as some other person, living, dead, or fictitious, is a crime in many democratic jurisdictions."  A footnote then mentions India, the UK, and South Africa, claiming, "The situation in the USA is discussed throughout the article."  On p. 169, they say, "[I]n many jurisdictions, perhaps most saliently the USA, there may be very good political and/or practical reasons for both widening voting mechanisms and for not making the barriers to registration and voting too onerous or complex. ... [M]easures such as postal voting, and generally the relaxing of administrative barriers to registration and voting, increase the opportunities for personation."


 * However, unless someone can provide further evidence that it's NOT criminal in the US, I'm content to leave this reference in this Talk page. I could not find other references to the US in that paper.  I remember hearing in August, 2016, a claim that voter impersonation was already a crime, at least in Kansas and I think Missouri, punishable by perhaps as much as 15 years in prison, though the penalties probably vary between states in the US.


 * And I've not heard anyone suggesting doing away with such criminal penalties. Indeed, the Secretary of State of Kansas requested and received in 2015 the power to prosecute such cases.  And he got all of two convictions in almost a year.  (A Kansas City Star editorial suggested this was a Republican witch hunt, and Kobach “should be stripped of his power to prosecute these cases.” )  DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Bundling footnotes
User:Shaded0 removed one of seven footnotes in a single place, because of WP:CITEKILL. I restored the one deletion while bundling all seven, per Citing sources.

WP:CITEKILL says, "Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided; if more than three are truly beneficial as an additional range, consider bundling (merging) the citations."

I therefore bundled all these references while restoring the one that was deleted. This is such a controversial topic, I think it's useful to keep all seven footnotes. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wash Times piece about driving licenses in NH has nothing to do with voter impersonation
This rubbish Wash Times story about people using out-of-state driving licenses when voting in New Hampshire has nothing to do with voter impersonation. There is as far as I know nothing that prohibits someone with an out of state license from voting in NH and there's no reason to expect that they're not allowed to vote because of it. Here's a story by AP (an actual reliable source) about this horseshit, which makes it clear that there's nothing here that demonstrates voter impersonation or voter fraud. 19:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not A Thorough List
This is not a very thorough list of voter fraud. There is a better list here:


 * Voter Fraud — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExportTester (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think Wikipedia needs to copy Conservapedia. In Wikipedia articles on controversial topics "the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with. This is a rare sight indeed in today’s polarized political atmosphere, where most online forums are echo chambers for one side or the other”, according to Peter Binkley in an invited 2006 article for the Canadian Library Association magazine Feliciter. No source is perfect.  However, the rules of evidence in refereed academic journals is plausibility among other leading experts.  The rules of evidence in legal proceedings in the US tend to be more adversarial and perhaps tighter than typical refereed academic journals.  By contract, the rules of evidence in the mainstream media seems to be whatever most advances the social status of those who control media funding and governance.  And the rules of evidence for a source like Conservapedia seems to be constrained by how well any source fits with their ideology.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I note that your source is about “voter fraud,” including false registrations and absentee ballot fraud, and no one disputes those things happen, and voter ID laws do nothing to stop them. But this article is specifically about impersonation, which voter ID laws purportedly seek to stop, despite numerous studies finding it exceedingly rare. soibangla (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember when history books would give notable examples dating back hundreds of years. The only thing I see here is a statement that Trump made accusations of fraud in his election and a bunch of people saying it's rarely common. I also remember watching period pieces 20 years ago that would portray it happening in the early 1900's. Wikipedia is a joke. Jawz101 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

... the articles is even intentionally not labeled fraud and commenters argue that impersonation is not a form of fraud. Redefining fraud to exclude impersonation, forgery, or basically any form of intentional misrepresentation Jawz101 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

... is fraud Jawz101 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Could foreign interference and hacking be considered voter fraud?
I am not talking about the narrative that is continually pushed by conservatives and Trump, such as thousands of illegals (or at least their definition of "illegals") compromising American elections. We know based on the empirical evidence that that type of voter fraud is rare. What I am talking about is foreign interference in the elections. Remember the Russian interference in the elections of 2016, 2018 and 2020? At least most of the 2016 interference was not voter fraud per se, but it did stir up ire and chaos in the political system. Russia was basically acting as if it were the 51st state of the United States, unlawfully casting its vote to compromise democracy. Now it seems that they (and possibly other enemy countries) are engaged in hardcore tactics such as hacking and manipulating the electoral system, and it is possible that in doing so, the hackers can cast their votes looking as if they came from real American citizens. That would make a good case of voter fraud. Is this in any way relevant to this article, or are the separate articles on the interferences sufficient?  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 21:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you find documents published by sources that are normally considered reliable saying that hackers are casting "votes looking as if they came from real American citizens" when they are not coming from those citizens?
 * If you can find such, then I would support, e.g., adding a new subsection under "Reporting and investigation: with a title something like "2020 vote fraud allegations".
 * The sources don't have to be unimpeachable, only plausible, generally considered reliable, and their claims accurately described in neutral terms, e.g., "On 18 October 2019 ABC News alleged that ...", and cite a source that contains claims appropriately summarized in what you write.
 * If your most reliable sources are publications like the National Enquirer, then I might not support including anything here unless you found a large number of such sources. In the latter case, I would suspect to find stories in more mainstream publications summarizing these claims as questionable, likely false, or vastly overstated.  Then the section might be modeled after the Wikipedia article on "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", only on a much smaller scale.
 * Thanks for asking. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Serious problems with article requiring major changes or deletion?
The problems with this article are numerous, to the point where it might be better deleted than continuing in its current form:


 * There is a long history of voter fraud in the US, real and imagined, which seems to be entirely left out of this article, with literally nothing on the topic addressing its history prior to 1968. One could read the article and believe that there has never been any voting fraud in US history, a laughable proposition. There's a great Wiki article on LBJ's Senate election in 1948; surely fake ballots count as "voter impersonation"?


 * This article begins, "Voter impersonation ... is a form of electoral fraud in which a person who is eligible to vote in an election votes more than once, or ... by voting under the name of an eligible voter." "Fake ballots" and LBJ's Senate election of 1948 seem different to me. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of the article seems to be a long (and slanted) screed arguing against Voter ID laws (which have their own article). For example, the "University of California, San Diego study (2017)" section has nothing to do with voter fraud, other than as a purported justification for Voter ID laws.
 * Half the introduction to the article is about President Trump's unsupported claims, which can't possibly be among the most relevant facts about the entire topic.
 * Why is the article called "Voter impersonation" and not "Voter fraud", when it includes the issue of illegal aliens and non-citizens voting, which is not "impersonation" but a different sort of "fraud"?

I've made some relatively minor edits because the article had a passage without citation that suggested the Pew report found that there was "no evidence of voter fraud" — which is true, but only because the report didn't look for or address fraud at all. He also made broader statements about the lack of voter fraud, but not in the context of "even with the out-of-date data". Bizarrely, this is also covered under an entire section, "Pew Report (2012)" — which is about how the Pew Report has nothing to do with the subject of the article! Another prime example of what a mess this article is.

I also removed a sentence: "On the contrary, inefficiencies in the electoral system resulted in 51 million American citizens being prevented from registering to vote…" as it isn't relevant to the article topic and isn't "contrary" to anything preceding.

I'm sure someone who works on this page can come up with better — and I'm happy to contribute any way I can. Else, perhaps it should be considered for deletion? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This article has received 134 total edits by 57 editors since it was created 2015-12-09. It has attracted 42,327 pageviews since 2017-07-05.  I don't think it would be sensible to try to delete it at this point.


 * However, I agree that there is a need for an article with a name like "Electoral fraud in the United States", and there isn't one. Meanwhile, this article has attracted edits relating to that, since it's far easier (and often more sensible) to edit an existing article than create a new one.


 * Further, I would support "Electoral fraud in the United States" as the name, because there is already a Category:Electoral fraud in the United States, and this article carries that category.


 * Also, I think we should create "Vote fraud in the United States", being an alias, autoforwarded to "Electoral fraud in the United States". This latter title is what came first to my mind, but the English language is defined by usage, not by me ;-)  I would support also creating "Voter fraud in the United States" as another alias autoforwarded to this article.


 * Wikipedia has an article entitled "Moving a page" describing how to change the name of an article like this. If you can create the time to read that article and follow the process outlined therein, I would support that (though I don't see myself creating the time to take the lead in that).


 * Thanks for raising this issue. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns discussed above -- namely that there is no general voting fraud in the U.S. article, and this article deals with a subset of fraud, voter impersonation, but redirects from voter fraud generally. It is also is focused on contemporary issues in voter fraud -- which would be fine, except historical examples like LBJ's senate election are neglected. I'm not experienced enough to feel confident in addressing this problem comprehensively. This looks to me like it should be a sub part of a much larger article. JArthur1984 — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * At this moment 2022-06-21 this article includes 100 "References" to sources routinely considered credible by most Wikipedians. That's far too much material to be absorbed in another article.  To make this article a candidate for deletion, most of those references would have to be removed on claims that they weren't relevant or were improperly described, and I don't see any evidence of that.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * DavidMcEddy your point is persuasive to me. I agree that the material here is good (for what it addresses). We would not want this much good work lost. What is the solution - expand this current article in scope? JArthur1984 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for any major change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Serious problems redux
I am a wikipedia editing know nothing, but isn't there some type of rational oversight that prevents such biased drivel from being published..I mean this is just ridiculous.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickbadertscher (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia Foundation rules asks people to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources.


 * Informally "bias" refers to something that conflicts with my preconceptions. In scientific circles and in Wikimedia Foundation projects, "bias" means a systematic deviation from the best available evidence.
 * The rules of evidence in the court of public opinion is whatever will maximize the power of those who control the money for the media. The rules of evidence in a court of law are sometimes more balanced, actually requiring evidence.  In Fish v. Kobach, Judge Julie Robinson, appointed to the bench by US President George W. Bush, a Republican, concluded that then-Kansas Secretary of state Kris Kobach had prevented almost 1,000 US citizens from registering to vote for every non-citizen he could find who had registered.  The question of non-citizens registering to vote is different but related to voter impersonation.
 * For a summary of my work in this and related issues, I invite you to review Electoral integrity in the United States. An alternative perspective is provided by Paul Weyrich, especially his 1980 remarks to a religious roundtable, where he ridiculed his colleagues who wanted good government saying they had "The Goo-Goo Syndrome: Good Government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. ... [O]ur leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populous goes down."
 * If you have substantive documentation that this article is biased, I want to know. So far, all the serious evidence I have found suggests that the claims of voter impersonation and widespread voter fraud seem like a cover for big money efforts to divide the body politic and make it easier to pick their pockets.
 * Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Barry Morphew mugshot.jpg

Misrepresented Quote From Listed Sources
(Totally new to editing on Wikipedia. Read it every day and now trying to do my part.)

At the top of this article it states that, Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare. Between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 documented instances of voter impersonation. It then goes on to cite three sources.

1. The first source is an article published by The Washington Post in 2014. It cites another Washington Post article for its reference to 31 documented instances of voter impersonation. (Which also happens to be the second listed source for this quote.) The rest of the article offers no analysis on how this number was achieved this number and is more focused around voter ID Laws.

2. The second source is the Washington Post article which was cited by the source above. It is written by Professor Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola University Law School. He outlines his research into voter fraud instances. Again, the totality of this article is focused more around voter ID laws and not voter impersonation as a whole. Regardless, he goes on to cite 44 individual cases of voter impersonation and explains how only 31 of those could have been prevented through voter ID laws. However, there are still 13 remaining cases which still are documented instances of voter impersonation. even if they couldn't have been prevented by Voter ID laws.

3. The third source published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law incorrectly cites the second source mentioned above. It states that, A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims There's a missing second piece to their claim which is that the Professor Justin Levitt found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud which would have been prevented by voter fraud. He still states that the remaining 13 were documented instances of voter impersonation.

I believe the above referenced quote in this article should be removed. The references are more focused on voter ID laws and don't fit very well here. Additionally, the time period referenced isn't very recent. Otherwise it should more accurately state, "Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare. Between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 documented instances of voter impersonation which could have been prevented with a voter ID law" Which doesn't fit in this article, given that it is not focused around voter ID law. Another option would be, "Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare. Between 2000 and 2014, there were only 44 documented instances of voter impersonation." Which feels wholly unsatisfying.

I believe the quote, "Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare." Should remain given the information that follows.

Tribune Pontius Aquila (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Standard advice on Be bold but not reckless ;-)
 * I have not studied the sources in detail. However, your discussion sounds sensible to me. If someone else doesn't like the change, they can change it back or offer something they think is better.
 * Quesion: Is your account configured so you get emails when a Wikipedia article you are watching changes? I ask, because my use of above appeared in red for me. That made me wonder if you would get an email. If you can use help with that, see Help:Notifications. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm finding the first post hard to follow, without an overall explanation of what part of the offending passage(s) are in and explanation of why it/they aren't appropriate for this article. I notice the first paragraph of the lead is about US electoral fraud in general, but the second paragraph is about what kinds of electoral fraud are most discussed (according to this Wikipedia article). This creates a potential fallacy, in that the most discussed forms of fraud may not be the ones that pose the greatest risk of changing an election.
 * I've reverted to a version of the article dated 15:11, 20 July 2024 UTC.
 * It seems to me the 31 cases are reasonably well justified as likely cases of voter impersonation, which is how they are described. The number 44 seems to apply to this from the Levitt article:
 * "In elections from October 2008 through June 2011, 44 individuals with names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers matching the information of individuals listed as incarcerated were recorded as having cast ballots in person in Michigan. It is not clear whether records were further investigated to determine whether the matches represent fraudulent votes or clerical errors in either the incarceration records or the voting records."
 * Not sure this is a good number to use at all, since it could be mostly clerical errors. Also, it does not at all fit the definition of voter impersonation. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The numbers are incorrect though. This wikipedia article states it as " only 31 documented instances of voter impersonation."
 * The original Washington Post article, which the other two lists as it's source, never at any point says that there are " only 31 documented instances of voter impersonation." It states that Professor Justin Levitt documented 31 instances of documented, in-person voter fraud  that would have been prevented by stricter rules around identification at the polling place.  I believe the two are very different. You could have more than 31 instances of in-person voter fraud which couldn't be prevented by voter ID laws. This is a misleading excerpt which cuts off an important piece at the end.
 * The 44 number comes from Professor Levitt stating that out of the 44 cases he found, only 31 of them could have been prevented with voter ID laws.
 * This sentence should be removed or have the line "that would have been prevented by stricter rules around identification at the polling place." added to it. Tribune Pontius Aquila (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Rasmussen poll
I am confused as to why this was removed:

A 2023 poll by Rasmussen Reports of mail-in voters found that 17% of 2020 mail-in voters admitted to voting in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident, and that 21% admitted filling out a ballot for a friend or family member. The poll was met with skepticism by Philip Bump of the Washington Post, who noted that Rasmussen had previously promoted election denialism.

Rasmussen is in the Real Clear Politics average, and Wikipedia includes Rasmussen polls, for example here:  so I think if we include that the Washington Post noted the pollster's viewpoint bias, it's fine. JSwift49 19:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

( edit conflict ) In this edit that 17% of mail-in voters admitted to voting in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident, and that 21% admitted filling out a ballot for a friend or family member. The added paragraph attributed the claims to a poll by Rasmussen Reports, and also mentions that poll was met with scepticism by Philip Bump of the Washington Post.

Since Rasmussen Reports has been described as Republican-leaning both by Bump and the Wikipedia article about it, I don't think this paragraph should be present unless we can establish that Rasmussen Reports is a reliable source. I think the principle Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence also applies. Since 17% is a plausible number for the total number of people who moved state-to-state in the years leading up to the 2020 election, it seems extraordinary to claim that just about all of those who moved voted in the wrong state (although the information available doesn't state the exact wording of the question in the poll).

I also object to the only citation being to a Washington Post article by Bump which takes a negative view to the poll and Rasmussen Reports in general. The meaning of poll questions depends critically on how the questions are worded and how the poll is conducted. Not having a citation to Rasmussen Reports makes the meaning of the poll hard to evaluate.

I'll also point out the conduct that seems to be described in the poll isn't always illegal. Military members and their families are allowed to vote at their address of record, even if they are stationed elsewhere (foreign or domestic). And assisting a voter to fill out a ballot is often allowed, although just casting votes without asking the voter how the voter wants to vote is illegal. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is the source to the poll I only saw positive coverage of the poll in local news (e.g. ) or conservative sites like the Washington Examiner . Rasmussen is quite partisan so if we are not treating the Examiner, FOX News, NY Post as reliable, it wouldn't be either. However RCP and Wikipedia include their polls alongside other pollsters. So that's what I didn't get. JSwift49 19:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, it's OK for a source to be biased, as long as it doesn't lie and isn't careless about the truth of the information it presents. I don't regard FOX News as honest. I haven't read the Examiner. I also haven't read the NY Post except to glance at the headlines on news stands; the headlines were enough to make me pick a different newspaper. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Perennial Sources. Fox and NY Post are classed as unreliable, Examiner is no consensus but should not be used to substantiate extraordinary claims. If the poll is judged as an extraordinary claim Rasmussen should not be used for that purpose. But then it is used for that purpose in other Wikipedia articles. Hm JSwift49 22:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Loch ness monster quote
Am I correct that you removed the following:


 * In October 2020, Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg wrote:

I spent four decades in the Republican trenches, representing GOP presidential and congressional campaigns, working on Election Day operations, recounts, redistricting and other issues, including trying to lift the consent decree.... Nearly every Election Day since 1984 I've worked with Republican poll watchers, observers and lawyers to record and litigate any fraud or election irregularities discovered. The truth is that over all those years Republicans found only isolated incidents of fraud. Proof of systematic fraud has become the Loch Ness Monster of the Republican Party. People have spent a lot of time looking for it, but it doesn't exist.

What's the problem with this quote? It's in the Wikipedia article on Benjamin Ginsberg (lawyer). If the quote is NOT in The Washington Post article cited, then it should be removed from the Wikipedia article on Ginsberg.

If that verbiage is in The Washington Post article cited, then I think something of that nature belongs in this article, though it may be abbreviated, e.g.,:


 * In October 2020, Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg wrote:

"Nearly every Election Day since 1984 I've worked ... to record and litigate any fraud or election irregularities discovered. ... [O]ver all those years Republicans found only isolated incidents of fraud. Proof of systematic fraud has become the Loch Ness Monster of the Republican Party. ... [I]t doesn't exist."

??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That part of the edit I reverted was off the bottom of my screen and I didn't notice it. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I restored the quote in abbreviated form: This article is long enough. It doesn't need the longer version ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved the quote to the Trump section, I think it's in a much better place. It didn't have to do with voter impersonation (where it originally was) but it's perfect to add context to Republican actions in 2020. JSwift49 23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I removed it… I didn’t see a good place for it. It wasn’t a study and wasn’t addressing a specific type of fraud. JSwift49 21:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)