Talk:Electoral fraud in the United States

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 He also made broader statements about the lack of voter fraud, but not in the context of "even with the out-of-date data".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 "Wikipedia: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)

@Ekpyros Four years later: I added an 'early history' section (19th-early 20th century) but it's not my area of expertise, so if I missed any significant cases feel free to add them. JSwift49 16:18, 28 August 2024 (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)

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.

References

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

@Tribune Pontius Aquila: Standard advice on Wikipedia: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 {{re|Tribune Pontius Aquila}} 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, [1] and Wikipedia includes Rasmussen polls, for example here: [2] 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 JSwift49 (talk · contribs) 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 [3] I only saw positive coverage of the poll in local news (e.g. [4]) or conservative sites like the Washington Examiner [5]. 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. [6] 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

@Jc3s5h: 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 moved the abbreviated version to 'Frequency' section since it is more relevant there (discusses 4 decades) than in a section on Trump Superb Owl (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose (and have reverted unless consensus) as while it's an important quote, it only talks about the Republican Party so it's not an encyclopedic summary. It's perfect for the Trump section because it was written in response to Trump, and while it mentions the history of the GOP that is important context to his actions. JSwift49 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move it to that section in the first place from what I can tell but will see what others have to say. It discusses Republicans because Republicans are the ones pushing this narrative of voter fraud - not sure what is unencyclopedic with that Superb Owl (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise I included it as a citation in the lead of 'frequency' (with the quote spelled out in the source). I think that's appropriate/proportionate. JSwift49 18:34, 4 September 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)

References

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

Possible inclusion from AP wrt Ohio

Here's a RS (AP) stating "Ohio’s elections chief on Wednesday referred for possible prosecution 597 apparent noncitizens who either registered to vote or cast a ballot in a recent election."

Link: https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65 73.123.180.173 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Ohio attorney general might or might not take an interest in these cases. My guess is that if any further investigation is done, it will be found that the majority of the instances will turn out to be non-citizens with similar names to citizens, cases where the DMV automatically registered someone to vote but it can't be proven the person affirmatively stated they are a citizen, people who didn't click a citizen box on a DMV record but who are citizens, or people who have a record with USCIS because they entered the US before they had US passports, but now have proof of citizenship and didn't inform USCIS of the change. (This could be through obtaining a passport or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which are issued by the US State Department, which doesn't talk to USCIS.)

The 595 instances of possible non-citizen voting or registration can be compared with the removal of 154,995 registrations. That last number demonstrates that voter registration roles are not highly accurate records and a substantial number of innocent errors should be expected. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - we should stop including speculations like this that seem politically motivated. This page is turning into a laundry list of 'possible noncitizen' stats with no reliable evidence suggesting that is the case Superb Owl (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It could go in 'estimates of frequency', but the 'non-citizen voting' section already has figures from Arizona, Virginia and Alabama. If a number of convictions occur out of this, it can go under 'Notable cases'. JSwift49 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Arizona, Virginia and Alabama 'figures' are very dubious and their inclusion was done in a very NPOV way by @JSwift49. I honestly do not think they should be included at all and we should only include reliable secondary sources Superb Owl (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The amount of speculation has been very high in the last few years and highly partisan. Even ignoring that, why would an encyclopedia include any speculation? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I quickly collapsed them into one sentence and am trying to streamline the problematic ODU study - not sure it needs a whole paragraph, let alone the 3 it had before Superb Owl (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the Arizona study in particular, as it was reported on in the Washington Post and impacted a court decision (with the judge saying it was credible). But I agree that it was missing context before. With context, it provides additional evidence that Richman's 2014 study was flawed.

As for states, there has certainly been speculation, but we also can't disregard that state agencies have reported small numbers of potential non-citizens being removed from rolls. I think if we summarize it like the AP did: [7] that several GOP states have done reviews that turned up small numbers of potential non-citizens, and mention an example like Virginia with appropriate context, it is more encyclopedic than not mentioning them at all. JSwift49 15:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you can pitch a reworked version of the Arizona study including the history of the author for context but the author does not seem particularly credible so I am hesitant to include it. Not impressed by GOP governors and politicians making claims that they do not provide evidence for Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What I'm not getting here is why figures from government investigations are "speculation". It's one thing to remove politicians claiming fraud exists based on anecdotal/false evidence. But when state agencies conduct investigations and find several hundred or thousand potential non-citizens, that seems absolutely notable and WP:DUE to me.

I would in fact argue that it provides added context to the article: even Republican states counting potential non citizens only find them to be a small part of the electorate. JSwift49 17:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

These are not neutral investigations. When they are exposed to the slightest scrutiny, many have fallen apart. Why would we include preliminary 'results' of 'possible' non-citizens registered and not wait for a verified, final tally from a more reliable source than a politician? Superb Owl (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any notable investigations that fell apart that you can share? If so they would be good to mention as context alongside the above investigations. JSwift49 17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

These are no different from voter roll purges which are very imprecise and capture large numbers of voters who should not be removed. Superb Owl (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In 2019 Texas questioned the status of almost 100,000 registered voters. The effort stumbled when, within days, it was found that 25,000 of the names had been added by mistake. The effort was blocked by a federal judge and in April 2019 the Texas secretary of state agreed as part of a legal settlement to abandon the effort. -- Jc3s5h (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: Have you read Fish v. Kobach?

Steven Wayne Fish and others sued Kris Kobach, then Secretary of State of Kansas, for unlawful denial of the right to vote. Kobach claimed there was a massive problem of vote fraud by people not legally allowed to do so, including 11.3 percent of non-citizens residing in the US amounting to some 3.2 million votes in 2016. The court found that "31,089 total applicants ... [representing] 12.4% of new voter registrations [were denied] between January 1, 2013 and December 11, 2015". Meanwhile, Kobach, who claimed this was a massive problem, provided evidence of only 39 cases of non-citizens having registered to vote in Kansas, which represented only "0.002% of all registered voters.

Moreover, Kobach called Hans von Spakovsky as an expert witness, whose testimony included citing a U.S. GAO study that 'found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration roles over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.' On cross-examination, Spakovsky acknowledged that he had failed to mention 7 other jurisdictions reporting percentages of noncitizens called for jury duty: 4 were 0. The other 3 were less than 1%.

I think Spakovsky should be tried for perjury, because he clearly intended to deceive the court in his testimony.

Moreover, "The voting rate among purported noncitizen registrations on [a Kansas temporary driver license] match list is around 1%, whereas the voting rate among registrants in Kansas more generally is around 70%."

Judge Robinson, an H. W. Bush appointee, noted that "400 individuals [in Kobach's Election Voter Information System] have birth dates after their date of registration, indicating they registered to vote before they were born." I don't know how many of those actually voted before they were born. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Replying since pinged: Def deserves the mention in the article it has JSwift49 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like we have consensus to remove Hans von Spakovsky, not sure why he was re-added? Superb Owl (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree to remove Hans von Spakovsky: He's a clear example of leading personalities to deliberately defraud the public on this issue, orchestrated by Kris Kobach, then Secretary of State of Kansas. I'd be pleased with any wordsmithing that makes that point better. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed him from being quoted as a former FEC commissioner in an unrelated section that did not provide any context as to the Kobach case or any other controversies on the issue. Superb Owl (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the desire for more context, I included him in the non-citizen section, in a sentence which clarifies 1) he's a Republican and 2) that claims of widespread fraud were unsupported by evidence. JSwift49 13:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the consensus here. This addresses none of the concerns around portraying Hans accurately in relation to Kobach case. Superb Owl (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I added the descriptor agreed on here in the article. Really shocking that he was not convicted of perjury after reading more about that case. And not an isolated incident either Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus wasn't to remove him either though. If we just describe him as "Hans von Spakovsky, who gave false information..." and don't say anything else about who he is, that's not NPOV.

I have moved mention of von Spakovsky to the Kobach case, and added his claim about the GAO study as mentioned by DavidMcEddy. Replaced with Mike Johnson as a 'prominent Republican' JSwift49 13:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Notable examples

Is anyone else concerned that listing every example of voter fraud that receives press coverage is WP:UNDUE? For a phenomenon that is described as 'rare' 'very rare' 'exceedingly rare' and 'almost never occurs' devoting that much space of an article to exceptions seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me Superb Owl (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is called 'Electoral fraud in the United States', not 'Why electoral fraud doesn't occur in the United States'. Listing particularly notable cases of fraud (not "every example" as claimed) is in no way WP:UNDUE for this article and is in fact necessary for it to be encyclopedic. The article already discusses in detail why each type of fraud is rare, and has an entire section devoted to Trump's false claims. JSwift49 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic here. I also want to point out that many of the examples are listed twice - once in that standalone section and in other sections as well Superb Owl (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If many examples are listed twice, the article should be rewritten to eliminate the duplication. When each duplicate is eliminated, the Edit summary should say, "eliminate example mentioned in the section on _____". DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I take your points about duplication so I removed the three cases also listed in the 'Mail-in ballot fraud' section; there's just one duplicate now and its second mention is that it was cited by an expert. JSwift49 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

1) Propose removing 'United States elections' from the lead as it implies voter fraud in national elections despite the evidence of fraud existing mainly in local elections.
2) Propose removing 'with some experts stating that mail-in voting is more vulnerable to fraud than voting in-person' from lead as WP:UNDUE. Mail-in fraud is considered very rare. Superb Owl (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

1) It implies no such thing, since it clarifies in the same sentence fraud has mostly affected elections at the local level. If you go to United States elections it takes you to Elections in the United States, which begins with "In the politics of the United States, elections are held for government officials at the federal, state, and local levels."

2) Not WP:UNDUE. If we are summarizing the lead sentences of each of the four types, each is listed as very rare, and additionally multiple experts have said mail in fraud is more likely to occur than in-person. Saying something is rare but more likely to occur than other rare events is encyclopedic. JSwift49 16:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not addressing the article, per se, but instead your editing rationales. Your justifications for removing sourced content is troubling, in this case with 2:... whether or not mail-in fraud is actually rare or not is beside the point. The fact is, "some experts" do indeed state that it's more vulnerable, and it's very well sourced. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your perspectives so far but will gladly hold off on using that logic until others can weigh-in and we can get consensus on this Superb Owl (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Context of public opinion

Propose adding back the chart that shows the full context of the Berkeley poll. Given that election fraud conversation impacts all of these other election concerns (as mentioned in this article) it seems very relevant to include this poll Superb Owl (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reversion and re-adding of objective edits

@JSwift49, I noticed some more removal of reliable sources, valuable examples and watering-down of language throughout the article before we have been able to reach consensus on which language to use (such as deciding between describing voter fraud as 'extremely rare' or 'very rare' or both). I reverted your edits and manually added back the ones that seemed constructive. Superb Owl (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Useless and nothing more than venting, without diffs. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This diff needs consensus. Those two are different, not redundant. I chose 'quite rare' as a hopefully more precise term that is more agreeable. Superb Owl (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with 'quite rare'. JSwift49 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

How about 'highly rare' in the lead? JSwift49 18:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Highly rare is not a phrase that is really used in English and seems imprecise. Extremely rare is already somewhat watered-down. I think that is appropriate for the lead unless you prefer to go back to listing two descriptors like 'very rare' and 'exceedingly rare'. Superb Owl (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let's just stick with the two descriptors JSwift49 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I think it makes sense to remove is 'occurence' - which seems a bit awkward/unnecessary. We could just say "Electoral fraud in the United States is considered by most experts to be very or extremely rare." Superb Owl (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm I see your point though would prefer keeping 'occurrence' so that that sentence and the 'estimates of frequency' sentence aren't exactly the same. I agree if there was one adjective it would work better. I searched 'highly rare occurrence' and it came up in several news/academic articles, what's the concern about imprecision? JSwift49 18:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It just obfuscates and waters down the sentence unnecessarily. I am going to remove it until a compelling reason arrives. This is not an academic article and is supposed to be approachable for people at all levels. Superb Owl (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to qualify the claim with 'most experts' then it seems more precise to use just 'extremely rare' instead of both 'extremely' and 'very'. The majority of experts pretty clearly say various versions of 'extremely'. Superb Owl (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, for concisity JSwift49 12:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This diff might have been an accident but no reason given for deleting nonpartisan efforts (is now more clearly differentiated). Also important to note that the Latinos in question are citizens trying to vote. Superb Owl (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I gave a reason and stand by it. This is an article about electoral fraud and its effects. You have not shown how nonpartisan organizations helping people to vote is relevant. [8] JSwift49 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I will work on making that clearer Superb Owl (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You removed a line supported by four reliable sources that voter fraud is more likely in small/local elections. How is this less relevant to an Electoral fraud article than nonpartisan organizations registering citizens to vote.[9] JSwift49 16:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Those are different edits, and most sources should be maintained as they have been shuffled around the article throughout the series of 21 edits you made. Picking one diff does not mean four reliable sources are gone from the article Superb Owl (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

? I asked why you removed the content. JSwift49 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Seemed like fluff that implies, without evidence, that a problem exists that was crowding out more substantive and verifiable content (a recurring theme in your edits so far) Superb Owl (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• WaPo: [10] "In the last half-century, there are only scattered examples of where election fraud appeared to have made a difference in the outcome. They often take place in races that attract relatively few voters and thus the impact of fraud could be greater."
• NPR: [11] "As many experts have said for years, Adams said instances of voter fraud are rare and more likely to be found in small, local races than in a statewide or national election."
• Governing: [12] "What the researchers did find, however, was that illegal voting was most prevalent in local races, where a small number of votes could alter the outcome. In other words, in the few instances where illegal voting happened, it was not in a presidential election — the contest that has been the focus of the attacks on mail voting by Trump's base."
• WaPo from 2012: [13] "In the past three years, six legal cases have laid out, step by step, ways that elections can be stolen. All involved local races, for positions such as magistrate, county clerk, mayor and state representative."

It doesn't matter what it implies, if experts say it's both rare and more common in local elections, then that's what we write. JSwift49 17:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

First, that was already in the lead and a bit redundant for a minor point, and second, my main objection is not that aspect but the elevation of republican challenges to mail-in voting to open the paragraph. The general structure of the article has lots of examples like this of 1) false/misleading/unproven claims or attempts to solve problems justified by those claims 2) verifiable facts and context. However, this is potentially a harmful approach that instead of elevating facts, actually works to elevate unproven claims before discussing what we know to be true. This seems like Wikipedia:False balance. Superb Owl (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is specifically about how common fraud is, and what elections fraud is more common in is a central question, so not a "minor point". Re. the Trump paragraph, Republicans challenged mail-in voting (which objectively happened), and someone wrote an op-ed criticizing Republicans challenging mail-in voting, it's pretty straightforward to link the two no? JSwift49 17:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edits [14] were not WP:NPOV. For example:

• Illegal non-citizen voting is considered rare[43][44] very rare,[45][46] extremely rare,[47][48] exceptionally rare,[49] exceedingly rare[50][51] or 'so rare as to be insignificant.'[52]
• Voting rights advocates worry that the rhetoric about noncitizen voting could have a chilling effect on Latino citizens and naturalized immigrants trying to vote.
• They have been driven by Republican politicians since 2010 with the stated aim of preventing voter impersonation.
• The belief that an election was not legitimate can lead to political violence such as the January 6 attacks and threats against election workers.

is not neutrally presented content and is filled with loaded language. It's the responsibility of any Wikipedian to revert or correct such language and I will continue to do so. JSwift49 16:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

These are what the sources say - if the sources are unreliable and need to be better attributed, then let's do that but I have not seen any evidence of misquoting or improperly using wikivoice here. Superb Owl (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I undid this diff, for example, and then redid it but keeping instead 'extremely rare' for illegal noncitizen voting as the median option, as opposed to the watered down 'rare' or 'very rare' that you have been pushing throughout the article regardless of what most source say Superb Owl (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This diff about the chilling effect should not have been deleted. Unclear what is wrong with it. Political violence and threats are a very real fact of life for many people because of voter fraud claims. I am still expanding that section if you want more context. Superb Owl (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Classic example of WP:LOADED language: "deterrent effect" is much more appropriate than the emotionally loaded "chilling effect". JSwift49 16:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is more important to be precise when describing threats of political violence and the impact it has on people. This is not an area that makes sense to water-down, as you did by also removing the reason why vote-counting was moved to more secure locations in that same edit (intimidation by poll watchers) Superb Owl (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

How is "deterrent effect" imprecise? JSwift49 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"They also warn that the focus lays the groundwork to sow doubt in the election results and could have a chilling effect on legal voting among immigrants, especially Latino voters." - WaPo Superb Owl (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

After a quick search all the other times I found the term "chilling effect" used was by attributed quotes or non-news sources. [15][16][17][18][19][20] So it's not universally used and remains emotionally loaded. It's not 'watering down' to use a less emotionally loaded term that conveys the same thing, it's encyclopedic. JSwift49 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The phrase is still attributed to advocates and is not a general statement of fact Superb Owl (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

How about saying it would deter Latino voters, and then a quote from LULAC president describing it as a "chilling effect". [21] JSwift49 18:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a good compromise for now unless/until others weigh-in Superb Owl (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal:

Voting rights advocates have expressed concerns that rhetoric about noncitizen voting could deter Latino citizens and naturalized immigrants from trying to vote.[22] In 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton executed search warrants in multiple counties related to fraud and ballot harvesting allegations. LULAC president Roman Palomares said this could "create a chilling effect that will stifle the Latino vote." [23]

Though honestly this is less about perception and more about prevention JSwift49 18:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about elevating Ken Paxton's conduct here because it could be read that fraud and ballot harvesting is going on and that is the reason for the chilling effect. (Paxton not super reliable on this topic in particular). I think the sentence as-is with single-quotes is proportionate. Superb Owl (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm iffy on Paxton too since that's not about public perception, so OK let's not.

Re. replacing "worry" with "have expressed concerns" and "have a chilling effect on" with "deter" ... besides WP:WIKIVOICE, I also think it's better because it shows that these orgs aren't sitting around worrying, they've actually expressed concerns. And 'deter' spells out more clearly what they are concerned will happen, 'have a chilling effect' can be read ambiguously. JSwift49 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

As it is written now seems perfect. Do not see how that would be an improvement on this more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE version:
Voting rights advocates worry that the rhetoric about noncitizen voting could have a 'chilling effect' on Latino citizens and naturalized immigrants exercising their right to vote. Superb Owl (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have kept the wording for now but added 'According to The Washington Post' so that it's clear who made the 'chilling effect' quote.

"Those experiencing voter intimidation can call 866-687-8683." isn't encyclopedic content JSwift49 12:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Another example: "Georgia seems the most likely state to overturn election results on unfounded claims of fraud in 2024 due to recent changes in who oversees elections." [24] According to who? Read WP:WIKIVOICE, opinions must be attributed. JSwift49 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the author because I am not a subscriber but can attribute it to the New York Times Superb Owl (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

https://archive.is/ is your friend; give it a try! JSwift49 18:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not use websites where it is unknown who has created them. Superb Owl (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl I'm OK with removing the quote from the Republican Lawyers' association, but in the same edit you also removed the encyclopedic, longstanding line "Organized absentee ballot fraud has caused isolated elections to be invalidated by courts" (which you previously changed to 'isolated' and I was OK with). Not sure if accident but please restore. [25] JSwift49 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:Synthesis. These are just three examples listed, which already exist in the other section. Do not think they belong here per WP:UNDUE in the first place. Superb Owl (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not accurate, the Bridgeport article says But in Bridgeport, Connecticut’s largest city, ballot manipulation has undermined elections for years. and describes four examples of courts overturning (including the main story) In 2022, a judge ordered a Democratic primary for state representative to be rerun amid an allegation of ballot fraud. In 2018, Bridgeport was forced to hold three primaries for City Council. The first was invalidated over a miscounted absentee ballot; the second was voided by the State Supreme Court in part because a police officer had improperly collected absentee ballots. Similar episodes have been documented back to the 1980s

Also, the Miami Herald article (which I can replace the other Miami article with) describes two cases. [26] JSwift49 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Still synthesis. It remains a general theme with this article that bears repeating and attention: there are still too much emphasis on examples and too little analysis from secondary sources of overall trends in this article. Will continue flagging problematic portions of the article inline and would appreciate those flags not being removed until issues are addressed Superb Owl (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I found an article by a law professor that gave it a number so that's better anyway. JSwift49 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That law review article is definitely better as it is not synthesis but it still needs context (out of how many elections that were run during that period) Superb Owl (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It honestly doesn't, it's stating a fact. It only needed context if the point of this article was to persuade people fraud was rare, which it is not, it's an encyclopedia. JSwift49 18:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify - it is worth including as-is, but the ideal source is one that puts raw data and outliers into context. The Brennan Center, for example, is good at putting into context what percentage of ballots cast have been proven to have been done so illegally Superb Owl (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Propose shifting this article towards more reliable secondary sources and removing all WP:Primary sources. The reasons are:
1) Wikipedia prefers secondary sources like meta-analyses over a random list of examples of one-off studies or opinions by politicians or even individual experts.
2) It is becoming unmanageable to continue to faithfully summarize, flag, or challenge all the primary sources that keep getting added to different sections which do more to clutter and confuse than provide helpful information and context Superb Owl (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose, I think it's incorrect to say peer-reviewed articles/studies are primary sources, they are analyses of the facts (election data). If we can summarize a news article we can summarize an academic one, and initial mistakes are no excuse for removing everything.

As to what Wikipedia prefers, let's look at something similar: the 'Democratic backsliding' article. Democratic_backsliding#Forms Democratic_backsliding#Causes_and_characteristics It's full of sections that present different individual scholarly arguments alongside each other. The way the article currently is is in line with Wikipedia. JSwift49 22:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify my proposal - the issue is not 'are primary sources allowed on Wikipedia' but is 'should we include primary sources if we have better secondary sources that address the same topic' Superb Owl (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I should also clarify that this restriction for this article would help with repeated issues around selective interpretation of primary sources. For example, Aliens study that you keep quoting - the aliens question shows that some people do not fill out surveys carefully and is certainly an outlier primary source if you interpret that differently than the Washington Post columnist cited who says in the same article 'Contrary to Trump, Pence and Kobach, nearly all political scientists and reputable experts believe that voting fraud is a non-problem in the US.' and 'if you rely on survey evidence to ‘prove’ the existence of voter fraud, you should also believe that large numbers of Americans are kidnapped by space aliens.' That is not at all how it reads, and fixing it creates another example that says what is already summarized in secondary sources: fraud is a non-issue. Superb Owl (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

More simply put – if you rely on survey evidence to ‘prove’ the existence of voter fraud, you should also believe that large numbers of Americans are kidnapped by space aliens. About the same number of people – 2.5 percent of the population – say that they have been involved in both. [27] That's what the study found. JSwift49 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is why we aren't supposed to be interpreting studies ourselves and why secondary sources are more useful. I strongly suggest we delete reference to the study altogether, especially since its conclusion is so easily misunderstood. Response error is a real thing. That is why 2.5% is not credible as a number to cite. That is why Richman's work has no credibility in academia. Superb Owl (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The quote I posted was from a secondary source (WaPo) analyzing the study JSwift49 10:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have re-added it but without the 2.5% statistic, just that Americans when surveyed admit to alien abduction at the same rate as voter impersonation (that is both what WaPo says and doesn't emphasize the number) JSwift49 12:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Still seems WP:UNDUE - just because one secondary sources covers it, does not make it useful here, especially when taken out of context Superb Owl (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• HuffPost [28] One study has suggested that as many people commit voter fraud, as think that they have been abducted by aliens.
• NYU Jordan Russia Center [29] One study finds that respondents are more likely to effectively admit to having been abducted by aliens than to reveal that they engaged in “voter impersonation fraud”
• UCLA LPPI Voting Rights Project [30] Ahlquist, Mayer, and Jackman (2014) found no systematic evidence that voter impersonation occurs, concluding that the proportion of the population reporting impersonation is no different than the proportion of people who report that they were abducted by extraterrestrial beings

It's not being misinterpreted by the article JSwift49 19:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not the article, it's @JSwift49. Here are some other quotes that provide more context as to the thesis of that article that are more relevant than the sensationalist and easily taken out of context quote that @JSwift49 has selected. "Contrary to Trump, Pence and Kobach, nearly all political scientists and reputable experts believe that voting fraud is a non-problem in the US. So why is there such a consensus? Some – including Trump’s defenders – have claimed that voter fraud is widespread. However, there is no good empirical evidence that voter fraud occurs often enough to have any plausible impact on elections...If people answered yes to all questions with about the same proportions in both the space alien abduction experiment and the voter fraud experiment, then this suggests either that people are rushing through the surveys carelessly, or that alien abduction is a much bigger problem than any of us knew." Superb Owl (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am relating how reliable sources describe the study’s results. That’s our only responsibility here, and I don’t see how your quote is inconsistent with what my sources say anyway. JSwift49 02:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your selected quote is vague and not specific. Farrell is arguing that the study shows that people are rushing through the survey which is why the results do not align with any other studies or experts. I will add the context and then we can see whether we want to keep or delete it when its conclusion is made clear. Superb Owl (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The results don’t align how ? It corroborates other studies that show voter impersonation is rare because alien abduction is rare, and the same number of people admitted to both. There is no point of going into the nuances of surveys if most reliable sources that mention the study don’t. JSwift49 02:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how to better explain the findings here other than to say that if this is your interpretation, I think it proves the point that it is not particularly helpful and is quite confusing. As with most primary sources, they do require context about the nuance of the study and its context. Another reason why it is better to stick with reliable secondary sources. Superb Owl (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

? I have shown four reliable secondary sources that describe a study in a specific way. What sources support adding a different description into the article? JSwift49 02:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Another example: Possibly outdated/selective and WP:UNDUE 2012 Hasen op-ed quote when his 2024 position on voter fraud is 'Trump has been able to manufacture doubt out of absolutely nothing; fraud claims untethered to reality still captivate millions of people looking for an excuse as to why their adored candidate may have lost.' (I added this to the Trump section). Superb Owl (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hasen thought non-citizen voting wasn't a Republican fantasy, but that the number of non-citizens voting is small, as evidenced by the context (three other quotes) in which this quote is presented.

This is an article primarily about the incidence of voter fraud in the U.S., not what people think about Trump's false claims. Put your quote in Election denial movement in the United States JSwift49 20:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of how that section relates to the article as a whole. It absolutely belongs Superb Owl (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I never said the section didn’t belong, but that the quote isn’t notable enough for inclusion in this particular article. Regardless the Hasen non-citizen quotes are now one of him saying it can’t be dismissed as a fantasy, vs. four saying the numbers are small, which isn’t at all contradictory. Here in 2012 for example he also said it happens but only occasionally.[31], and he called it “not a phantom problem” but only “small numbers” in 2014. [32] Of course someone who believed the numbers were small would still oppose Trump’s claims of massive fraud. JSwift49 02:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not follow the objection here. Also, per WP:AGE MATTERS "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years."
A quote from 2012 is less relevant than a quote by the same author from 2024 as it does not have the benefit of all 12 years worth of research that happened in between, which in this academic field, seems significant. Superb Owl (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of studies from around 2012 are in the article. Besides, the mention is due alongside the other more recent quotes, because as far as I can tell he hasn’t contradicted or disavowed his positions from 2012/2014.

(Even in the hypothetical scenario that he did, the evolution could then show that non citizen voting is less common now than before.) JSwift49 02:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That 'evolution' would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is also why I have objected repeatedly to studies and quotes from 2012 or 2014 that have been debunked or newer studies that summarize and build upon all of the latest research. Superb Owl (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t saying we should describe it as evolution, just that it’d serve a purpose to have quotes from both time periods in that hypothetical scenario.

But that’s a moot point because you haven’t shown how he’s contradicted his position from 2012/14. JSwift49 02:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

And what we know about non-citizen voting is that it's also extremely rare. It does happen occasionally. Sometimes it happens because non-citizens are registered to vote and don't know they're not allowed to vote. There are very few cases of this.1
Election expert Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project and professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a blog post that the law that the high court allowed to be reinstated was “bad and unnecessary.” 
“Unlike voter ID laws, that often have not been shown to have a big effect on turnout, these documentary proof of citizenship laws matter a lot,” Hasen wrote. “They stand to literally disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters for no good reason.”2 Superb Owl (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the 2012 Hasen quote assuming WP:BOLDLY that this is enough evidence that WP:AGE MATTERS when elevating a 12-year-old quote over more recent quotes that contradict it. I have also part of the 2024 quote elsewhere in the article as it is relevant commentary to the 'Prevention' section Superb Owl (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't shown a contradiction (and you replaced it with a 2016 quote, which isn't much better). However, I accept your point about elevating the 2012 quote over the others. So, I have reworked it like so:

Richard Hasen has said that non-citizens are not voting in large numbers[81][82][83] and cited a 2016 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling as showing "there is no evidence it is a serious problem",[84] though he has also said that it cannot be dismissed as an imaginary occurrence.[85][86]

Which is accurate, DUE and a consistent position. JSwift49 13:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not better or DUE. This continues to be outdated and cherry-picked to support a fringe position that carries essentially no weight among experts today including the expert who said the thing. Superb Owl (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Kessler right below said a similar thing: the scarcity of evidence "does not necessarily prove that the phenomenon does not happen". You can believe, as Hasen does and said twice (2012 and 2014) that it's not a serious problem but it's not an imaginary occurrence either. If you find an instance of Hasen saying it's an imaginary problem, then we can update it. JSwift49 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that this is due weight. Please do not remove the flag without consensus Superb Owl (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

September 6th edits

Want to flag a bring a number of edits by JSwift49 to get some consensus here. They are grouped into 3 themes:
Burying the lead (making it harder to understand the key points with unnecessary details or verbage)

1) Double voting subsection

2) Prosecutions section

3) Fish v. Kobach paragraph

Removing notable information (possibly in an NPOV way) without first flagging or requesting any clarification

1) Modern influence operations

2) Georgia possible role in 2024 elections

3) Removing January 6th - it is not just notable for violence but for attempting to change election outcomes

4) 2020 is important context for why the change was made

5) Not sure why 2024 election is off-limits

6) Was not just Trump, and was 2020 and 2024

Removing flags without addressing the issues

1) another disputed outlier primary source - there is no consensus on its inclusion Superb Owl (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

For most of these, I added back flags or restored content that was deleted Superb Owl (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

These complaints are, for the most part frankly, meritless.

Burying the lead

1) This was fixing the same study being cited twice in different paragraphs.

2) The main point of the NYT article was not that "most prosecutions don't realize they are breaking the law", it's that most prosecutions result in different outcomes. I fixed an WP:UNDUE violation while still keeping that content in.

3) More detail in the case was originally added by DavidMCEddy and while I agree with removing some of it, the 67 statistic is useful and not "unnecessary" at all.

Removing notable information

1) Material is the same, just making the point of the article more concise. This article is about electoral fraud in the United States, and the type of disinformation by authoritarian regimes does not need its own drawn-out sentence.

2) "Georgia seems the most likely state to overturn election results" WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRYSTALBALL

3) Jan 6 was already mentioned under the political violence section. We do not need to bring it up every time 2020 is mentioned.

4) It says that Detroit poll workers received protection after being intimidated. We do not need to spell out that people were knocking on the windows changing 'stop the steal', in an article about the occurrence of electoral fraud in the U.S.

5) WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation

6) "Donald Trump and allies" is fine with me.

Removing flags without addressing the issues

1) I find it interesting that in an article called "Electoral fraud in the United States", you would try to remove a study on electoral fraud that was discussed and analyzed in the Washington Post (a secondary source) and found credible by a court, yet you insist on including all of the above irrelevant detail to bang readers over the head with speculation and the details of election denialism – which, I may remind you, has its own article. JSwift49 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

(Also, the concern you expressed was that the study didn't indicate that fraud ie. non citizen voting occurred, so I changed it to add data of non-citizen voting estimates, so I did in fact address your flag.) JSwift49 20:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the inclusion of these outlier studies and whether they are more misleading than informative. It is akin to mentioning a number of studies that doubt the human contribution to climate change in an article about climate change. It is WP:UNDUE. Secondary sources are better than primary sources. Superb Owl (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A study that doubted human contribution to climate change wouldn't be taken seriously by the Washington Post or a court of law. I framed Richman's studies exactly as the Post did so that's a secondary source. The result also isn't an outlier, it still shows very small numbers, and it's not comparable to the GOP politicians at all. The 2014 study is mentioned as context and is mostly about why researchers disputed it, so not WP:UNDUE whatsoever. JSwift49 21:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Electoral fraud is not as widely understood or researched as climate change so that is not an apples-to-apples comparison. 2024 Washington post certainly does not entertain it as a serious threat or put undue weight on that study. Superb Owl (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I didn't originally make the comparison :) The Post article, which is specifically about the prevalence of non-citizen voting, actually spends about half of the text discussing Richman. JSwift49 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of the analogy. The 2014 Washington post blog posts are very different from 2024 Washington Post articles given all the research that has happened since that is not in line with that disputed survey. Superb Owl (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article discussing Richman is from 2024. Are you arguing that we should only remove the 2014 (outlier) study and not the 2023 study? Because that would take away context that the RS mentions. JSwift49 22:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right - I missed the 2024 article. Still mostly cited just by one publication and is one disputed study. Seems WP:UNDUE in its current form. Maybe we cut in half, or maybe take out altogether. The 2023 study is absurd in its conclusion - it says 'let's assume that half people on the voter rolls voted' - lots of non-citizens end up on voter rolls by accident but most do not try to vote. That is a huge leap. Superb Owl (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There were two studies. The second isn't widely cited as it was confidential and released as a redacted version exclusively to the Post. The Post devoted half its article about non-citizen voting to Richman when it didn't need to – that's the opposite of WP:UNDUE. We aren't in a position to impose our own judgments on this study like that, as we aren't experts. JSwift49 23:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I will try to find a more reputable academic meta-analysis to put some more of these bad studies to bed. Even the Washington Post can make mistakes Superb Owl (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I finally dug into what the bulk of reliable sources had to say about Richman and his work. It is reflected in the article. I did not realize how widely cited he was by Trump and election denial camp and might have changed my mind on his inclusion. We might want to include him, but if we keep him, WP:DUE means he gets significantly more criticism than neutral coverage since that is proportionate to the reception he has gotten in reliable sources. If it is too many paragraphs for one professor, we could create an article for Richman and move the content over there. Superb Owl (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I like what you've done here, I have consolidated most sources into 'The study was criticized by numerous academics and has been described as discredited or debunked.' though still mentioning Shaffner, the 200 political scientists etc. The original paragraph in its more detailed form could go into an article on Richman. JSwift49 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with consolidating per my previous comment. That is WP:UNDUE to give equal time in this article to ideas that for a wide variety of reasons are not credible. All those reasons should be listed if we are going to list this study and others like it. Superb Owl (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph about Richman's 2014 study is 8 desktop lines long with 5 1/2 about how the study is criticized + notable criticizers (including a second study), 2 lines describing what the study was, and 1/2 a line about Richman rebuking Trump. That is in no way WP:UNDUE and is the very definition of "more criticism than neutral coverage".

Your proposal [33] was 16 lines long, and is pretty much just listing less notable people who discredited the study, or individual reports on it being discredited, which is WP:TOOMUCH for this article. But it would be appropriate in an article dedicated to the study/Richman himself. JSwift49 20:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The study, after reading a wider array of sources than WaPo, seems far more notable for why it was debunked and by whom than for what it alleged. I think we should add back the full context or remove the study entirely. The context helps to explain why the Aliens survey and any other surveys is so flawed. Maybe there just needs to be a survey subsection to really dive into the nuances of surveys and why they are controversial Superb Owl (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not missing key context; within the scope of the article it’s fine, readers won’t be misled in any way that it’s legitimate. I suggest you write an article on Jesse Richman and include all of the detail re. Methodology there, so anyone who wants to dive deeper and learn about it can do so.

Also connecting it to aliens/doing an analysis on surveys sounds like WP:OR and waay outside the scope of the article. We are not experts and it’s not our job to analyze studies in this way. JSwift49 01:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear while I appreciate you writing the article about Richman’s surveys I think it’d make more sense to just write it on Richman himself, since it also discusses his stance on Trump, court testimony etc. JSwift49 03:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I was considering that and am open to that Superb Owl (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose [34] this, this article is specifically about studies of how common fraud is, and should report on studies + immediate context if secondary sources do so. It should not report on other things that Richman was involved in, that should be saved for the article focusing on him. See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.

I'm of two minds of whether to make Richman's article into a bio, because most bios of academics I've found don't go into that much detail about their projects, but I haven't seen an article focused on one group of studies like that before. I added a lead for now and am probably leaning toward it becoming a bio. JSwift49 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I added the methodology criticism to this article, so we should be good to go on making a biographic article on Richman, which talks about adjacent things like the Kansas court testimony, what he thought about his study's use etc. Draft:Jesse Richman (academic) JSwift49 14:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose its inclusion altogether and wanted to show you what WP:DUE summary of a study that by 2017 was not even considered as relevant within the field of study. The entire section, in my opinion, should be removed or trimmed down to one or two sentences explaining that a study happened, linking to his article and explaining why it has no credibility. Superb Owl (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You flagged it as "This section may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view and explaining the responses to the fringe theories.", when the entire paragraph is explaining the response to said fringe theory. And you flagged it as "relies excessively on primary sources" even though it's almost exclusively news reports. [35]

I have to agree with @Marcus Markup, your justification for removing and mass-flagging notable, well-sourced content with proper context is troubling. JSwift49 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If I misused the flag then please let me know which flag is more appropriate. I think this is the proper flag for this article and these sections so long as we are giving undue weight to studies that have been debunked and watering down the criticism of those studies Superb Owl (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion that the criticism is "watered down" is nonsense; the vast majority of the lengthy paragraph about the 2014 study is devoted to criticism. We report on it and debunk it since it is a highly notable study (which spawned a second study). This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. Plus, Richman's 2023 study was not debunked, either, the court gave it weight, and the WaPo reported on it, so we're not removing that. JSwift49 16:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that a judge is the same as peer review or meta-analysis and think that all Richman studies are undue weight. Until his 2023 data can be verified, it is speculation and his reputation is, to the say the least, not great. As for his first study: In 2017, The New York Times said that the debate has moved on from Richman's study (whose claims it described as having fallen apart) to whether or not any evidence for noncitizen voting existed. His work is given no weight in Academia. Why would we give it weight here? Superb Owl (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The study is given proper context including a response from Levitt. A reliable source (WaPo) published it, and it's not up to us to say it was wrong to do so. Richman's original study is highly notable for being debunked and spawning a second study, so an encyclopedic article covering non-citizen voter fraud studies should include it. JSwift49 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This really seems like another POV push that is detached from objectivity. We might need a third opinion on this Superb Owl (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." If this came to pass, these events would certainly merit their own article and would be highly notable. They are from reliable sources and not WP:OR.

The most notable part of election fraud in the US is the consequences of that essentially false belief/conspiracy. Sanitizing an article of discussion of the fallout of this belief in significant electoral fraud is NPOV. Superb Owl (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"...though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view". Regardless the main point is that this article is not about election denialism, it's about the incidence and history of electoral fraud. We can write about how the perception of it caused political violence/failed overturning attempts, but speculation about Georgia, or violence in the future by "some experts", does not belong here. JSwift49 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Do not follow the logic here. This is extremely notable as both a cause (motivation for these claims of electoral fraud) and effect (outcome). It seems inescapable that this article would cover it in detail. Superb Owl (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly: 'claims of electoral fraud', ie. election denialism, ie. its own article. Of course the effects of public perception should still be discussed briefly, but especially no need for speculation. JSwift49 21:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

agree to disagree Superb Owl (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence: "Electoral fraud in the United States is considered by most experts to be extremely rare."

The problem with that is obvious. It provides criticism of a thing, before even defining what the thing is. Astoundingly bad work. This is an encyclopedia, not the Daily Kos, for Pete's sake. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed – I started the lead now with "Electoral fraud in the United States involves illegal interference with the process of United States elections.", then describe types, and then how common it is. All the old lead content is still there JSwift49 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As of 2024 experts say noncitizen voting is easy to verify

Why was this removed? @JSwift49 Superb Owl (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't support that. Election administration experts say it’s not only provable, but it’s been demonstrated that the number of noncitizens voting in federal elections is infinitesimal. That's different from 'easy to verify' JSwift49 18:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Also your change here is unsupported. [36] Levitt said "while the CES data here does look to me to be more reliable than Prof. Richman's prior forays, I'd need some more information before I believed it were reliable." He also said he would be curious to know how many of the noncitizens who registered in Arizona cast ballots, as turnout could be lower than average.

The original text included all of this: Justin Levitt, who was skeptical of Richman's earlier research, said that while more information was needed, the CES data "does look to me to more reliable" than in Richman's previous studies, though he posited that actual turnout among non-citizens could be lower than Richman estimated.

Your change takes out of nowhere that Levitt would need to see actual evidence of non-citizen voting to be convinced. That's not what he said, he said the data seemed more reliable though he needed more information on it, and was also curious about how many noncitizens voted. JSwift49 18:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is what he said - I took out the 'more reliable' bit because then we have to reexplain just how unreliable he thinks the previous studies were to give that context. Superb Owl (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a rephrasing of the same thing. Provable is a synonym to verifiable. We can use verifiable to be closer to the source Superb Owl (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of rephrasing of the same thing though, the three sentences you have added are basically three different ways of saying the same thing: it's extremely rare. We should merge into one sentence

• Illegal non-citizen voting is considered extremely rare by most experts.
• According to the Associated Press, "there is no indication it’s happening anywhere in significant numbers" as of 2024.
• Election administration experts say that it is provable and has been demonstrated that the number of non-citizens voting is infinitesimal.

JSwift49 19:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it is provable according to election experts is distinct from the fact that it is rare. Sure, some trimming can be done but these are also the most notable findings on the topic and thus WP:DUE would suggest that they be given proper space and not reduced to make way for more discussion of the findings of debunked studies or dishonest experts or politicians. Superb Owl (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The “provable” in the article refers to proof that it is rare, not that it’s always provable when it occurs.

It’s also not very useful when it’s a vague statement like that. Instead we should cite a specific expert who says it’s provable. JSwift49 01:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that it is referring to the fact that verifying a voter's citizenship is provable and has been demonstrated. Here is the full quote for context in case that clarifies what it is referring to:
“The answer is that it’s unanswerable,” the Louisiana Republican said in response to a question about whether such people were illegally voting. “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable.”

Election administration experts say it’s not only provable, but it’s been demonstrated that the number of noncitizens voting in federal elections is infinitesimal. Superb Owl (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s not how I read it. Johnson is saying “we think a lot of illegals are voting, but we can’t prove it”.

Election officials are saying “we can prove that a lot of non-citizens aren’t voting.”

Neither specifically mentions verifying a voter’s citizenship JSwift49 02:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

how about: According to the Associated Press, election administration experts say that it is provable and has been demonstrated that "there is no indication it’s happening anywhere in significant numbers" and that the number of non-citizens voting is infinitesimal. Superb Owl (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

But that’s just repeating the same point twice with different wording. “There’s no indication it’s happening anywhere in significant numbers” and “the number of non citizen votes is infinitesimal”. Three times if we count most experts saying it’s extremely rare. There is no need to elaborate on the general statement that it’s rare and we should quote a specific expert if we go further with talking about provability JSwift49 02:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why the Associated Press is not a reliable sources on this and why you have deleted 'provable' again. Please use inline flag to explain your issue if you have one with the word or explain it here Superb Owl (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The article says "not only provable, but demonstrated", it's redundant to include both since demonstrated is stronger than provable. JSwift49 16:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree - those are two different things and should both be included per the source Superb Owl (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl There isn't a consensus for your interpretation of 'provable' [37] so self-revert (or will be removed again). JSwift49 19:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I will add a quote from the source to put this to rest so that you stop 'summarizing' away analysis from reliable sources Superb Owl (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't solve the issue, so I'll ask again: self-revert. The dispute is what 'provable' refers to. [38] "whether or not non-citizens vote" is not an accurate summary in my view, what's referred to in the article as provable is that only a small number did. JSwift49 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I will add the full quote then so that there is absolutely no summarizing going on and so that the AP article isn't being removed without a coherent reason (really struggling to see how you are reading this) Superb Owl (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the sandbox section with the full quote and 3 different workable versions with the word 'provable'. We might need a third opinion on this one if it is so objectionable that not even an inline flag can express or address your concerns Superb Owl (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding the full quote does not address this specific dispute, because "whether or not non-citizens vote" still remains. It will be removed if it stays until a consensus on the meaning of 'provable' is reached. This isn't a case of undue weight or newer stats preferred it's a case of getting the source right.

Re. my reasoning, I'll try to explain more clearly:

• Johnson: “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable.”
• Johnson says that lots of illegals voting is the thing that isn't provable.
• Election administration experts say it’s not only provable, but it’s been demonstrated that the number of noncitizens voting in federal elections is infinitesimal.
• Elections administration experts say it's provable and demonstrated that the numbers are small.

That's different from saying it's provable whether or not a non-citizen/non-citizens vote.

The it's in "it's not only provable" can only refer to something in the sentence itself or to the sentence before, and it certainly isn't referring to the sentence before (lots of illegals voting). So we can only associate 'it's provable' with what is described in the sentence itself. JSwift49 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants are a smaller subset of noncitizens. A quote addressing noncitizens as provable and 'infinitesimal' includes illegal immigrants. Still not sure what the disconnect is here and why it is so objectionable Superb Owl (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to ask for a third opinion? Superb Owl (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there an objection to According to the Associated Press, election administration experts say it is provable and demonstrated that the number of noncitizens voting in federal elections is infinitesimal.? JSwift49 19:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's use that for now Superb Owl (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I think I'm only at two sets of reverts in 24h, but to be safe I'll self-revert so you can add it. UPDATE: nvm already added new content JSwift49 20:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It's an important paragraph in the story, and it's so defective that the entire article should be excluded. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h What I don't like about the AP article is that it doesn't name any experts who say this, and the unclear wording. So I also support removing this sentence (I'm just saying if it *must* be included, it should be the less extraordinary claim above) JSwift49 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Suburb Owl's statement "verifying a voter's citizenship is provable" is utter nonsense; it has no meaning.

JSwift49's statement 'Election officials are saying “we can prove that a lot of non-citizens aren’t voting.”' is not useful. Of course we can prove that lots of non-citizens didn't vote. Anybody claiming that most noncitizens deserves to be shunned.

The real meaning of the statement is that it is provable that noncitizens vote, and the number of these votes is infinitesimal. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

On further thought, I think that's the most reasonable interpretation. But I'm relying on a mix of what's in the article and what I know from outside the article. So it's a poor statement. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we are reading it the same way: It is provable whether or not noncitizens vote, and they do so in infinitesimal numbers Superb Owl (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think what the author means is it's provable that noncitizens vote, and they do so in infinitesimal numbers. But I don't think I could prove that's what the author meant just from what's in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

According to WikiBlame "As of 2024 experts say noncitizen voting is easy to verify" never appeared in the article (doing a case insensitive search). Why shouldn't I hat this section right now? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h [39] It had a comma after '2024' JSwift49 18:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that the sentence is supported by a citation to AP story by Ali Swenson dated May 18, 2024. I see nothing in the story that supports the idea that noncitizen voting is easy to verify. The words "easy" and "verify" do not appear in the story.

I have read various stories and documents, and I think I came across one that said that certain votes, that appear questionable at first glance, were easy to resolve. But that was in the context of a criminal investigation of one voter at a time. When that much attention is brought to bear on one vote, it's usually easy enough to resolve most cases; the person voted or not. The person was a citizen at the time of the vote, or not. But in the context of looking at all the votes cast in a large election, and trying to figure out reliably if any were cast by non-citizens, there's nothing easy about that. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Placement of 'Notable Cases' appendix

I think this list belongs at the bottom of the article, as is common with other articles that put data-heavy appendices at the bottom next to 'see also' Superb Owl (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You have already argued for removing the list altogether in another thread [40] no one has yet supported either of your proposals, and the list's current placing has stood for a while before this, so please self-revert.

Of course, it isn't an appendix, electoral fraud is the main subject of the article. To cover false claims of electoral fraud before talking about notable instances of it is backwards. JSwift49 18:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I still do not agree with its placement above the bottom but curious to see what others think. Will move back for now Superb Owl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You didn't move it back though, you moved it below 'public perception' [41] Trump is not an extension of 'notable cases', because Trump's claims were false and Election denial movement in the United States. If anything 'public perception' and the Trump section should go together since public perception is mostly about false claims. JSwift49 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not revert you if you move it up higher, but it is better if you do it so it is clear that that is where you want it to be Superb Owl (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

When I glance at news media coverage of a few of these events, I see they are covered as individual stories, so I don't think they should be placed at the bottom. It's not at all like obsolete feet details. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Propose auto-archiving

This talk page is getting long. I propose auto-archiving. I'd appreciate input about which bot is best for this. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't say "abducted by aliens"

I take no position on whether this story should mention the meme that that in one or more surveys the number of purported noncitizens who say they voted is similar to the number of people who say they were abducted by extraterrestrials. What I objected to is using the word "aliens" rather than "extraterrestrials". I object because of the crimes described in Sex trafficking in the United States, and the likelihood that some of these crimes were perpetrated by actual aliens. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Further disputed edits

In this diff @JSwift49
1) removed examples of other conspiracy theories
2) removed the analysis of the impact on democracy by placing it with a different sentence about Russia and China (after initially deleting the NYT claim) Superb Owl (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary of existing disputes

Started a sandbox page to try and succinctly summarize the existing disputes, that when coupled with the inline and other flags in the article, can hopefully help someone new to this page (or someone having trouble keeping up with all the comments) to weigh-in on the various disagreements.

@DavidMCEddy, any chance you have the time/interest to weigh-in on some of our ongoing disputes? Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proof of Citizenship section

Proposing to add back context to this section that was deleted. There are no articles on the subject outside of this one and it would be useful to have a fuller discussion of the impacts of proof of citizenship laws, including who they impact most. No clear reason given for removal other than 'concise' but this paragraph has 3 sentences and am unsure why one or two more is too many. Superb Owl (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an automated, built-in-to-Wikipedia to perform a word count for an article. When I copy it into Microsoft Word I get a count of 8188 words. The table in the article size guideline indicates a size over 8000 words "may need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size." I know I could write 1000 words on the problems with the SAVE act. The reason I don't is this is being dealt with in the political sphere on a partizan basis. It isn't about what it says, it's about who you hate.

I don't favor adding to this section; a new article would be more appropriate. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If the article is too long, I propose moving the 'Notable cases' section to a 'History of electoral fraud in the United States' article and having a three paragraph summary in this article. That section is nearly 2000 words and we could save 1500 words with that change alone. Superb Owl (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"The researchers found that 4% independents, 2% of democrats and 1% of Republicans did not have proof of citizenship documents. is IMO not notable enough to include as the Dem/Rep numbers are very close to each other.

You have been trying to remove 'notable cases' for a while now, first because it was somehow undue [42] then because it was a list [43] and now to make room for your preferred content. Since proof of citizenship is basically a voter ID law, I'm thinking more in-depth information about it could go in Voter identification laws in the United States. JSwift49 18:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Having said that I like what you did with the Kobach and Richman court cases; since they are linked to court cases and not studies it would make more sense to discuss them in the proof of citizenship law section. I'm not opposed to more content, but it should be notable, and the content I removed in my opinion just isn't. JSwift49 18:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So you do not agree with the proposal to move most of the 'Notable cases' to a separate history article? Superb Owl (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no need for a separate history article, and the pattern of your suggestions has always seemed to be removing or minimizing cases of fraud from this article. JSwift49 18:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with that logic and your accusations and am adding a more appropriate flag to that section pending consensus. I am asking to add 7 words. You are asking for 1500. Will not rehash our other arguments here. Superb Owl (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Voter ID laws article might be a better place for it - will work on adding and linking and see how that looks Superb Owl (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this article can have more information about the court cases (since that also ties into the frequency) and the Voter ID article can be focused more on enfranchisement issues. Idk. I'm fine with proof of citizenship all remaining here, too, I just want the content to actually be notable. JSwift49 18:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think court cases are less relevant here given they are mostly about a specific case in a specific state and extrapolating from data from these witnesses who are not widely regarded for their work is WP:UNDUE. I do think they are more relevant on that article as the cases are specifically about whether or not to enact a citizenship law, not whether or not noncitizen voting occurs. Superb Owl (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I would be fine with moving all the court cases to the Voter ID article. Since the voter ID article already discusses major court cases related to voter ID. JSwift49 19:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears you just deleted most anything critical of these laws and kept only the pieces that tried to assess whether they were doing anything to prevent fraud. I am reverting your mass deletion until we can discuss it here. Superb Owl (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, it said critics have said that noncitizen voting does not occur and the laws would disenfranchise eligible voters who lack easy access to such documents.[284][285] A June 2024 Brennan Center study estimates that 21.3 million citizens (9% of voters) do not have easy access to documentary proof of citizenship, and that 3.8 million citizens lack access to any form of documentary proof of citizenship, often because their documents were lost, destroyed or stolen.[286][287]. Since we had decided (I thought?) the place for more details about certain laws is in Voter identification laws in the United States, then that's enough because it gets the point across.

Also, I kept the parts assessing whether they were doing anything to prevent fraud because this article is called Electoral fraud in the United States JSwift49 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We had not decided what to remove or keep and clearly have different ideas. I have made clear what I think should be removed via inline flags. Perhaps you can try that first Superb Owl (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

? You haven't explained what you want here, you just said I removed most all criticism which was untrue. I assumed since you moved the content to the Voter ID article you don't want this section to be as detailed. JSwift49 20:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I specifically said I wanted to move the content over there to see how it looked. Not to then delete the half of the content here. I do not think any content should be removed from this section, except maybe some of the 2023 Arizona case. I think content to this section should be added, if anything. Superb Owl (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason to have all that detail + the exact same content in both articles; why not just summarize the arguments/cases here, and have all the detail in the Voter ID laws article? It's what every other prevention section (Voter ID laws, Signature verification, Election audits etc.) does.

Flagged as excessive detail JSwift49 20:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion in another talk page about quotes in citations

This article is being discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Line feed characters in quote within a citation.

Notable Cases issues

@JSwift49 continues to remove section flags without addressing or discussing the concerns raised about length and neutrality, so here are my concerns for the talk page to weigh-in on:
1) NPOV: After addressing in depth the NPOV issues of the 1996 partisan house hearing by presenting findings of less partisan bodies like a grand jury and secretary of state and analysis by experts of the evidence as 'disputed' and 'highly contested' @JSwift49 erased most of those and then removed the NPOV flag which was there because the rest of the examples that JSwift added should get the same kind of fact-checking and examination before they are presented as if they have been vetted for their neturality. This is a common theme of JSwift49's edits on this article - to present an accusation by a partisan or unreliable source prominently and then object to most efforts to contextualize where that figure came from, how reliable it is and what the final findings were once the investigations were completed.
2) Length: I am concerned that the list of examples are too many and would be better off in their own article with only a few relevant and well-contextualized examples remaining here (<1000 words). Superb Owl (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the fourth separate thread since September 3rd where you have tried to remove/demote 'notable cases', which has been a long-term feature of this article. To recap: first you try removing because it's undue [44] then demoting because it's an appendix [45] then once in prose form because it's too long [46] and then you argue that it's "not neutral".

In fact notable cases of fraud are the main subject of the article and far more worthy of inclusion than details on proof of citizenship law cases (which are already in the Voter ID law article)

It is good that you added context to the 1996 case. The only thing I erased was the grand jury sentence, because that was a criminal investigation into an organization, and the main takeaway was that no noncitizen voter was criminally charged (which the AG said). Details can be read on the Loretta Sanchez page if anyone's interested.

"Notable cases" is shorter than the "Frequency" section and about the same length as the "Prevention" section, neither of which you flagged as "too long". As for neutrality, this was the only instance that was a Congressional investigation, and all others are from historians or court findings, and sourced reliably. I will continue to remove your flags because they are frivolous/WP:BLUDGEON and nobody has supported your arguments in the past three threads. JSwift49 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

First off, you greatly expanded the section, then I added the flag, and nobody has supported your removal of the flag. I have offered twice to seek a third opinion to settle other disputes unless/until others chime in so I am not sure what to do here except to keep the flags until the concerns are addressed or the flag is voted down by a third party Superb Owl (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

One editor opposed your argument re. placement [47] and one only expressed support for eliminating duplicates (which I then addressed). [48] A third editor also expressed concerns about your general rationale for removing content. [49] JSwift49 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

And as a result we no longer have flags that reference those discussions. We just have 2 flags that nobody else has weighed-in on yet that I outlined above. Superb Owl (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The length concern is basically the concern about undue weight again; and the neutrality argument is not relevant here as outside of the Sanchez case, this section is not reporting on the findings of partisan investigations. It is relaying what reliable sources have said about historian/court findings. JSwift49 00:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The length concern arose after another editor expressed concern that the article was beginning to get long and so we needed to ration additions in another section. Until I can confirm that other editors with different perspectives have looked at your contributions in that section, this seems like a perfectly reasonable flag to add. Superb Owl (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor in question specifically expressed concern about adding to the "Proof of citizenship" section [50][51], which you regardless have continued to expand. A good chunk of the article is either tangential (about false claims of fraud and the effects of them) or text already verbatim in Voter identification laws in the United States#Proof of citizenship laws. Therefore, trying to cut the article length by removing "Notable cases" instead makes no sense.

Of the two editors who responded to your flags on "Notable cases", neither expressed objections to my content that I didn't fix. And the "Notable cases" section was lengthened in response to your earlier concern that it was a list. JSwift49 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I still think it made more sense as an Appendix-like list towards the end of the article - I did not explicitly recommend you take it out of list form. Still not sure what makes a case 'notable' in that section. I have been working trim in other sections article and have done that, including in 'Proof of Citizenship' section without sacrificing important context. Depth in some examples is also valuable as opposed to a couple dozen very shallow (with many NPOV) 2 sentence summaries of different types of fraud/suspected fraud (which is largely what this article was a couple weeks ago). My stance continues to be, if you want to give an example of fraud, we should be able to give it proper context without having our edits immediately deleted as excessive detail without discussion or even a courtesy inline flag to provoke discussion about the concern to allow for others reading the article to weigh-in. Superb Owl (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

But when it comes to notable cases the rest are either proven or attributed opinions of historians. So I’m not sure what other context needs to be added. Regardless if you have an issue with one case it’s no reason to flag the entire section.

Context is good but I explained my rationale. Proper context, in a summary article like this one, does not mean separately spelling out every expert’s opinion or development. A lot of times I’ve also had to remove/fix content for failing verification or being unencyclopedic.

How is detailing specific proof of citizenship laws that are verbatim described in another article more relevant to an article about fraud than notable cases? JSwift49 11:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, especially in the section called 'Notable cases' but even there it seems discussion of the court cases, consequences, and steps taken to prevent fraud in the future are too much context? I really do not understand that.
I read that section in depth and flagged it as overweighting examples in big cities and (currently) blue states. Huey Long and other examples of voter fraud have occurred throughout the US and this section should have relatively more of those examples as well Superb Owl (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not initially including examples you found (Long is a good example, don't get me wrong) is not a reason to flag with an NPOV violation. It's a reason to improve by adding content. This is why I have had broader concerns about the way you use flags.

Plus, there were already plenty of examples discussed not from big cities/currently blue states. JSwift49 17:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is perfectly reasonable to add a flag while working through the issues flagged (as I am) and it is an NPOV or UNDUE violation or both Superb Owl (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In just that Notable Cases section I counted:
25 examples of Democrats are listed as the perpetrators of fraud or implied (big city)
vs
4 examples of Republicans being listed as the perpetrators of fraud (or implied).
This seems very imbalanced to me. Another editor might TNT it, but I just am flagging it for now Superb Owl (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Party affiliation was not a consideration in my research. You are welcome to add more notable cases where Republicans committed fraud. But removing party affiliation entirely just because you’re unhappy too many Dems are listed is quite unencyclopedic.

Also “implied” lol. Many cases are more notable precisely because they happened in big cities JSwift49 19:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Also as I explained, it is less accurate to use prosecution as a metric for non-citizen voting since as established in the 'prosecution' section, not all perpetrators of voter fraud are prosecuted, and may instead receive warnings for example. So a bipartisan audit is far better than the number of people arrested. This isn't about removing context. JSwift49 23:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has had many examples, including that section, where all voter fraud cases are crudely lumped together in one nefarious-seeming number. As this article is about voter fraud, if an example is given, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that we should discuss why it happened, what were the motivations/causes and what were the consequences. Most of these cases result in few prosecutions because they were mostly accidental or were dismissed as not even being fraud at all. This seems extremely notable and its exclusion or pushing it onto other pages seems to violate NPOV as that context is also covered in reliable sources, not just the headline numbers. Superb Owl (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Context is important eg. with partisan state investigations, but the NC BOE is bipartisan, so I don't see why you need context when they are reported in reliable sources as identifying 41 noncitizens who voted (unless some later turned out to be an error). Maybe some were accidental and maybe only some were prosecuted, but this section is about the incidence of noncitizen voting, so I say that distinction is not important. 41 non citizens out of millions is also hardly nefarious-seeming. JSwift49 00:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In terms of that case, not all voter fraud cases are the same. The frequency of malicious/intentional vs. unintentional is relevant there. Not sure why that can't be discussed. Also not sure why you deleted the 3 cases referred for prosecution over the last 3 NC elections. That seems like really valuable context and cannot understand why that is no longer in the article. Superb Owl (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, the sources suggest to me that prosecutions are not as reliable a measurement as reliable audits, because lack of prosecution does not necessarily mean lack of intent. If we have reliable audits available we should use those. It's a section about frequency, regardless. JSwift49 00:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

But prosecutions are a reliable source for proven intent, which is relevant to reliable sources and should be to us as well Superb Owl (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Legality of busing people to the polls

Per the edit of 13:18, 12 September 2024, providing voters with transportation to the polls constitutes paying people to vote and is therefore a violation of Federal law.

Normally I would just put this on my personal list of other editors' "silly edits", but this is really presented in such a confusing way that I am putting this here to alert others about this claim.

For those with Wikipedia library privileges, the following link will provide free access: Why Busing Voters to the Polling Station is Paying People to Vote.

The presentation strikes me as very confusing, but as best as I can tell, it indicates that the courts do not currently consider providing free transportation to the polls to be a violation of Federal election law, and if that's the case, then this is pretty much all moot. (Admittedly, given that this got published in a reputable publication, I must most certainly be wrong!) Fabrickator (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It confused me too - seems like it's trying to claim that providing transporation is payment but it isn't? I'm going to split into two paragrahs Superb Owl (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hasen quote

Richard Hasen wrote that in January of 2024 that, "Trump has been able to manufacture doubt out of absolutely nothing; fraud claims untethered to reality still captivate millions of people looking for an excuse as to why their adored candidate may have lost."

@JSwift49 has threatened to continue reverting this quote as WP:UNDUE. I disagree as does User:209.212.21.169. Anyone else care to weigh-in? Superb Owl (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I flagged it because the quote now appears twice in the same section (it was added the second time by the IP) [52] JSwift49 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the flag and the version you created now that the first seems to have more consensus to include the full quote (pending any discussion here) Superb Owl (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)