politics

Is it preferable in a democracy to either ensure all legitimate voters are able to (which means some people who are not legitimate voters will have their votes count) OR ensure all illegitimate votes are not counted (with the risk that some legitimate voters will be denied)

Obviously it’s ideal to be perfectly inclusive/exclusive but I don’t see any mechanism to make that happen currently

Ensure all legitimate voters are able to vote, 100%
Similar reasoning to why the death penalty should never be a thing

Protect the rights of your citizens first and have EXTREME punishments for knowingly committing voter fraud

depends on the subgenre of democracy.

in a constitutional republic, the former may be stable w/ close to 80% turnout & no gerrymandering. otherwise, if the votes are de facto nonfungible, I would see the latter as necessary.

How can non legitimate voters have their votes count lol voter ID fixes that!

aspiring shrimp farmer ~ eng @ bloom (yc s21)

I think everybody can probably admit there’s some every year, it would be crazy if every election was exactly 100% accurate. 

So the question is the definition of “widespread” and to your point I don’t know if I see nation wide fraud, but how much fraud do you need to influence an election? Probably not very much if it’s in PA or MI for example

Given there’s been no solid proof of widespread voter fraud in the decades that we’ve been allowing the former, the latter seems super detrimental with little/no upside imo

So I think ensure all legitimate voters are able to vote