Identifying Election Fraud Using Orphan and Low Propensity Voters

Abstract

Although voter ID laws have become a hot topic of political debate, existing scholarship has failed to produce conclusive evidence concerning the existence or frequency of electoral fraud, especially the type of fraud that would be prevented by photo identification laws and signature verification protocols for voting by mail. We propose a new method of measuring election fraud, especially identity fraud, that is superior to previous measurement efforts because it measures actual instances of fraud rather than waiting for conclusive proof of fraud produced in a criminal prosecution. We test our method in multiple jurisdictions, including two known cases of electoral fraud, and we find no additional cases of fraud. We speculate that public access to voting and registration records play an important role in preventing this type of election fraud, suggesting that these practices are perhaps more important than voter ID laws in preventing election fraud.

Alien Abduction and Voter Impersonation in the 2012 U.S. General Election: Evidence from a Survey List Experiment

“…16 While we refer to items here by the numbers in Table 1 item positions were randomized in the actual survey administration. 17 Here is where we believe the survey experiment and ''orphan''/low propensity vote methodology of Christensen and Schultz (2013) will be particularly complementary since they are able to examine individual votes in specific geographic areas, thereby identifying questionable ballots.…”

“…By contrast, the 2000 presidential election almost certainly was altered by poor ballot design in Palm Beach County, which resulted in at least 2,000 voters who intended to vote for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman casting their ballots for Pat Buchanan by mistake (Wand et al, 2001). Christensen and Schultz (2013), in a clever twist, develop a new method relying on votes that are highly unusual based on a voter's past and future voting behavior as a way of identifying voter impersonation. Specifically, they argue that ''orphan'' 8 and ''low propensity'' 9 votes are those most likely to be fraudulent, since they are the least likely to provoke an investigation.…”

Can Voter Identification Laws Increase Electoral Participation in the United States? Probably Not—A Simple Model of the Voting Market

“…Unlike for the foregoing "who possesses ID" question (see Stewart, 2013, p. 25), empirical evidence for the present "turnout" question does not point to a relatively general, consensual conclusion (e.g., Christensen & Schultz, 2014). To the contrary, some studies find that voter ID laws have a depressive, albeit small, effect on political participation (Alvarez et al, 2008(Alvarez et al, , 2011Stewart, 2013); others find that simply lacking requisite ID significantly reduces turnout (Hood & Bullock, 2008); still others find no or statistically insignificant turnout effects from voter ID laws (Erikson & Minnite, 2009;Rocha & Matsubayashi, 2014); at least one finds that voter ID laws have an unexplained positive influence on turnout (Larocca & Klemanski, 2011); and yet another, in line with the pro-voter ID argument from the preceding paragraph, "purports to show that voter ID laws can boost turnout by promoting confidence in the integrity of the electoral system (Lott, 2006)" (quotation from Citrin et al, 2014, p. 229).…”

“…Proponents assert that these laws make the American electoral system less vulnerable to malfeasance, while opponents argue that they create new barriers to the polls, especially for minority and disadvantaged populations (e.g., Christensen & Schultz, 2014;Citrin, Green, & Levy, 2014). With respect to the latter of these, Rocha and Matsubayashi (2014) observe that [l]awmakers appear well aware that levels of [electoral] participation reflect, in part, the costs associated with voting.…”

One Person, One Vote: Estimating the Prevalence of Double Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections

“…One of their primary pieces of evidence is that few people have been successfully prosecuted for voter fraud. Not everyone, however, accepts these conclusions, both because such prosecutions are dependent on the investigation of, or at least allegations by, legal authorities (Fund 2004) and because voter fraud may be difficult to detect when it is done well (Ahlquist, Mayer, and Jackman 2014; Christensen and Schultz 2013).…”