On Your Vote Disappearing up a Judge's Robes

Among judges of a certain political bent (they know who they are), a common justification for ruling against allowing alternative voting methods seems to be that there is the possibility of fraudulent votes. This despite the fact that those who are fond of this idea never seem to be able to come up with much in the way of examples of this actually happening.

Just so we're clear, a vast body of research shows not only that actual electoral fraud is very, very rare, but that it is also almost certain to be caught when it happens. In the United States, it has had no detectable impact on the result of any major election pretty much, well, ever.

And let's face it, if someone is absolutely determined to cast a vote they aren't supposed to cast, they're going to try to do it whether the method is in person, by mail, by text or by carrier pigeon.

So with context, the argument "we have to restrict methods of voting because someone might potentially abuse the system" is like passing a law banning children from riding in cars because one of the millions of children who ride in cars every day of every year might, somehow somewhen, get hold of a screwdriver from the emergency kit and loosen the gear shift at 75 mph on the interstate while Daddy's not paying attention. Yes, it's theoretically possible, but it hardly makes sense to have a whole law designed to head off this vanishingly unlikely scenario.

It's as classic an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you'll ever encounter.

We could, of course, go into the real reasons why people of a certain political bent want to restrict the ways you can vote, but I have argued about this at great extent elsewhere and usually - not always, which is enlightening, but usually - the pretense is maintained with great vigor. So, at least here, we'll just have to content ourselves with dismantling the flimsy cover story. Which was easy. I think I'll tackle breaking the light speed barrier next.