RK readers know all too well the problems that have been experienced nationwide with electronic, paperless voting machines. A postal regulator has proposed that we should move to voting by mail. Ruth Goldway, a Commissioner at the Postal Rate Commission, gives lots of good reasons for the switch in this New York Times op-ed. Reciting some of the problems in the last election cycle, she states: GÇ£There was, however, one state where all went well: Oregon, where everyone votes by mail.GÇ¥
Since Oregon adopted Vote by Mail as its sole voting option in 1998, the stateGÇÖs turnout has increased, concerns about fraud have decreased, a complete paper trail exists for every election, recounts are non-controvertible and both major political parties have gained voters. Moreover, in doing away with voting machines, polling booths, precinct captains and election workers, the state estimates that it saves up to 40 percent over the cost of a traditional election.
Vote by Mail could offer real advantages if it were adopted nationwide. Voters would not need to take time off from work, find transportation, find the right polling station, get babysitters or rush through reading complicated ballot initiatives.***States that have adopted measures like GÇ£no excuse necessaryGÇ¥ absentee ballots find that the public is eager to avail itself of the opportunity to vote by mail. As many as 30 percent of voters didnGÇÖt use the polls in November. In Washington State, where 34 of 39 counties vote entirely by mail, 70 percent of NovemberGÇÖs votes were cast by mail; in California, the number is near 40 percent.
ThereGÇÖs more at the link. It seems to me the states need to look seriously at this option. IGÇÖm all for systems that are cheaper, more accurate, and increase turnout.
Your thoughts? Do you see problems with the proposal? Additional benefits? It would be great if we get enough reasoned comments on this to forward them on to some of our state officials.
I've always been a fan of governments trying new ideas (within reason) rather than endless debate and studies funded by parties and organizations with vested interests. The fact that Oregon IS voting this way and getting positive results provides real world results for other states to base their decisions upon.
I'm sure it's not a perfect system and there will be legitimate questions - but Oregon's successes are a very compelling reason to take this option seriously.
One thing going for this idea -- you can't hack several hundred thousand postal workers. I think we need to go to a more decentralized system.
This sounds like a good idea. Maybe Governor Kaine would set up a special bi-partisan commission to look at this, and charge the commission with returning recommendations by a date certain.
What are the effects on political advertising and the way campaigns approach voters? Does the mail approach mean more TV/Radio/Mail ads to cover the week(s) between when voters get their ballots and when they are due? Or is the same amount distributed over a longer timeframe?
Is the notion of a precinct done away with? This would drastically change the way votes are counted, tracked, and to some extent analyzed.
Plus, there is already local experience to draw from: the absentee ballots. Almost 30,000 were cast in Fairfax County alone for the Senate race this year. We're not talking about completely uncharted waters.
Perhaps the most damning of the comments (IMO) is the reliability, or lack thereof, of postal delivery. If you vote, you want to be sure your vote was counted and uncertainty about successful delivery is a cause of concern. And the option to drop it off at the post office, while not particularly difficult, does lower convenience to a degree which will likewise lower "turnout" a little.
Also, I have to disagree with some who worried about the reliability factor. In my experience the USPS does not lose a lot of mail. I think they may keep statistics on it (the USPS is always doing test runs of various sorts to measure quality). In any event, if you didn't have a ballot mailed to you, you'd be aware of it. And ballots could be dropped off at central locations -- so that would erase the problem for those ballots.
It is also possible that one could use a variant on the USPS's Delivery Confirmation to confirm delivery. When you get the ballot, it could have a sticker for the outside of your envelope. The mailed-in ballots could be scanned when they arrived, and the tagging number could be displayed on a website. So about a week after you mailed in the ballot you could go to this voting website and just check to see that the envelope had been scanned in at the registrar's office.
I have to disagree with both...if you want to show somebody your ballot, that's your bad judgement...and it certainly would reallocate resources.
Also, I'm much happier with the idea of a system that generates a paper trail. A friend told me to watch "Hacking America" and said that under the current system, the possibilities for fraud are so enormous that she wonders why she even votes. A paper trail allows people to go back and recount no problem, and eliminates so many fraud opportunities it's worth it.
Yes I do my taxes by the internet since I have always distrusted the UPS. I have even sent my taxes before the internet filing by registered mail.If voting by mail was ever inacted, I would probably sent my ballot in by registered mail.
Heck just in this last election, we had a fund raising dinner. The secretary sent out tickets for selling to the membership. Half of those people never got such mail. I had to email the secretary to resend mine. The original mailing never arrived. Maybe I'll get it for next years election.
I trust the opitcal scanners the most, even though I have to rely that the programmer did the proper programing. Which reminds me did you all get this email from Jim Dean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Gordon,
"Paperless electronic voting machines used throughout much of the country cannot be made secure." That is the assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, reported by The Washington Post.
The New York Times also recently ran an editorial entitled "Déjà Vu in Florida" proclaiming "electronic voting without the full array of protections, including a voter-verified paper trail, is unacceptable."
Let's build on this momentum. Last week we circulated a petition calling on Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi to put paper ballots on the agenda in the new Congress' first 100 hours. Can you help us send her an overwhelming message?
Americans are outraged that paperless voting machines cannot be trusted. Here are some of the comments by concerned voters who have already signed the petition:
"Paper ballots are the only reliable way to reproduce election results. As an electrical engineer, I can tell you that the software programming of electronic balloting is just too easy to alter and modify. Please make this a top priority." -- Shabad K.
"Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering. We cannot continue to put Americans' votes at risk." -- Peggy T.
"Trust yet verify!" -- Penny B.
"Let's eliminate the doubts that have cast long shadows over every elected official in a close election since 2000. It is LONG past time. And nothing on the agenda is more important than the will of the people." -- John L.
"Using paper ballots is easy, inexpensive and reliable." -- Donna L.
We need your help. Let's make sure that the new Democratic majority makes paper ballots mandatory in the first 100 hours:
Thanks for making a difference,
Jim Dean
Chair
1) VBM does not increase voter participation amongst eligible voters. The apparent higher turnout numbers are due to the fact that the voter rolls are aggressively purged in Oregon every election.
2) VBM discriminates against irregular voters in that you are purged from the rolls for the next election if you don't get your ballot in on time for the current election (lost in the mail --- too bad). In effect, the registered voter pool amounts to only those who vote in every election.
3) The system is structurally biased against equally easy participation by folks whom move between elections. If you forget to re-register at your new address, and you don't happen to notice you didn't receive a ballot 3 weeks before the election, you must make a trip to the county courthouse in time to try to get back on the rolls to cast a vote in that election. (And that is trickier than it sounds because elsewhere in the law one must be registered a certain number of days before the election to actually be eligible to vote.)
4) The election is no more secure: There is no way to prove the person who signed the outer security envelope is the one who marked the ballot. Develop a medical condition, or have a change in your signature for any reason? IF the system is working correctly, expect to get your ballot returned and have to make a trip in person to the courthouse to try to get it accepted (see the previous point 3)). And not even banks do signature verification anymore before paying on a check UNLESS a dispute actually arises about an item because it is inherently unreliable.
5) The reason for the privacy of the voting booth is to remove the voter from any external influences - unwelcome or welcome - or the need to explain a vote to anyone. Consider for yourself whether you think the situation where folks are invited to bring their ballots to say, a religious institution, to "discuss" how to vote is a good idea for our democracy or not.
To understand the full meaning of this one has to experience this ludicrious side effect of VBM: Those who chose to drop of their ballots at centralized drop-off sites (see point 8)) sees signs for the three weeks before "election day" reminding them it is a crime to politic within 100' of where a voter drops off their ballot. But, amusingly, there is no crime against politicking voters anywhere else, anytime in that same 3 weeks before election day after we receive our ballots. (And the drop-off box I used this last election sat unguarded and unlocked down to a table in the outer alcove of the courthouse separated by a windowless door from the interior of the courthouse.)
6) The system makes campaigning more expensive since candidates must both working on campaigning and GOTV for the entire three weeks before "election day".
7) The vote count is no more secure because the votes are actually tabulated on electronic "black-box" tabulators made by the same companies that make the unreliable voting machines in election headquarters. But there is no possibility of an valid exit poll as an independent audit check as there is in a polling place election. Think exit poll results were valuable in the Webb-Allen Senate race this last election?
8) If your ballot gets lost in the mail you are out-of-luck (and off the roll for the next election) unless you happen to be compulsive and check with the election office until they confirm they received your ballot. This leads to the most amusing fact of VBM: In the supposedly eco-conscious NW you'd be surprised at the number of VBM supporters who support VBM because they don't have to go (which frequently means walk) to their neighborhood polling place, but then drive to one of the centralized ballot drop-off locations because they don't trust the mail or want to vote as near to election day as possible for whatever personal reasons they may have.
These facts alone make VBM a very bad system. Not only do I advise folks in other states against VBM, I hope the Feds will actually deny any financial support for conducting elections to any state, including Oregon, that uses VBM because it is so inimical to the principles of fair, inclusive, and trustable elections. It is a system, however, whose appeal is understandable in a consumer society because it places the emphasis on the convenience of a certain segment of society it serves best, rather than encouraging the widest participation and most trustable vote count.
The better solution is an election day holiday, with day-of-election polling place elections conducted by paper ballot.
Second, as a general matter, your complaints about how Oregon runs its system does not mean that other states have to do the same thing as Oregon. Virginia actually runs its system well -- it just unfortunately relies on totally hackable e-machines. I do not read the op-ed as advocating a copycat of Oregon's system. I think the writer is advocating using mail but leaving each state to do its own thing.
As to purging of voter rolls, each state should decide how often it wants to purge its rolls. It MUST be done occasionally, or you have a huge list of outdated names, including duplicate names. One reason voter rolls are purged is to reduce the possibility of fraud -- if someone is registered at three addresses they might be able to vote at each address. If Oregon does a total purge after every election, that seems too much. I doubt most states would two2 or three elections.
As for having to travel to a courthouse, I'd note that in many states you can easily reregister at convenient locations, such as all public libraries. Some registrars set up in shopping places.
One could also easily establish voting deposit places at other governmental institutions, such as libraries and post offices.
You say the system is no more secure because one cannot prove who signed the ballot. Well, should we ban absentee ballots, which use the same system?
I'd point out that mail delivery is relied upon legally in many situations. Also, up until recently, it was very easy in some states to pose as another voter even in person. In Virginia all I have to do now is have access to someone's photo-less ID card and I can vote in that person's place. Years ago I could just walk in and say "I'm John Doe and I live at xxx," and I'd be allowed to vote. I did not even have to sign my name. (It is rare to find an election judge who knows most of the people in a precinct, especially in heavily populated suburbs.)
As to envelopes getting lost in the mail, this is a very low occurrence (I've been getting mail for 35 years and in all that time I've not received maybe 3 or 4 monthly bills). And this could be solved with a delivery confirmation type system.
As for campaigning expenses -- it doesn't have to make campaigning more expensive -- it just means the campaigns have to reallocate resources, e.g., space television ads more evenly.
In any event, the federal government will, I predict, move to end paperless e-voting soon.
The only thing I miss is the nostalgia of the community showing up at the polls together. But, it is worth it for all the conveniences. The drop off site where I dropped off my ballot was a standard mailbox that was guarded by a poll worker watching in his truck so I felt my vote was secure. Second, it is not just the signature on th ballot, the envelope itself has an audit trail number on the label.
Third, it eliminates voter intimidation, you have time to research the issues. I sit at the table and read the voters pamphlet thoroughly as I vote with a cup of coffee. Try doing that at the polls.
Whereas I used to miss votes in off elections before, I have not missed a single vote since vote by mail. I can assure you representatives of both sides can still ask for proof of the accuracy of the count because if there was any doubt of the scan accuracy the actual paper trail is right there to count! So far, not one vote that I can recall has been contested by anyone.
Vote by mail is the best solution yet.
"VBM discriminates against irregular voters in that you are purged from the rolls for the next election if you don't get your ballot in on time for the current election (lost in the mail --- too bad). In effect, the registered voter pool amounts to only those who vote in every election."
HUH?!! This is absolutely incorrect!
My nephew was originally registered to vote in my county. He failed to change his registration when he moved. He STILL receives a ballot at our address, even though he has not voted in 6 years! NOT my favorite thing, but come on...this statement is so obviously false, that it is hard for me to take anything else stated in this post seriously.
I love vote-by-mail. I can fill part of my ballot out when I receive it, and then research and decide on those issues or candidates I am unsure about at my own pace.
As for all of those negative campaign ads? I mute them all. I DO NOT listen to them. I do my research on the internet and with print media.
DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR BALLOT HAS BEEN RECEIVED? Again, come on. All we have to do is pick up the telephone and call our local election office. Each returned ballot is scanned in by the bar code on the outside of the signed envelope. Call the office and they can immediately tell you if your ballot was received.
In addition, once your ballot has been received, political groups have access to that information and they know to cross you off of their call lists - you have already voted.
Your ballot IS secret. The outside of the envelope requires your signature which is checked against your registration before it goes any further. Once verified, the outside of the envelope is removed, and your ballot is inside of this envelope in a "plain/vanilla/secret" envelope.
PAPER TRAIL? You bet! Just like your old SAT tests, these ballots are marked by filling in an oval which is later read by an optical scanner.
You may find many reasons for the possibility of fraud in any election, but Oregon's vote-by-mail is way ahead of the pack.
You can mail your ballot, drop it off at "drop-boxes," or drop it off at the county clerk office...OR, you can go to the clerk's office and fill your ballot out at the ONLY precinct in your county...in the clerk's office.
Do I worry about "un-guarded" ballot drop boxes? About the postal system getting my ballot in? NO! The day before an election, I call my county clerk's office and verify that my ballot it in their hands and is verified.
If my ballot is not there, what then? I can go in to the office and get a new ballot, fill it out, and have it verified and therefore countable!
So PLEASE! Don't bring into the discussion items that are only meant to instill fear and loathing into the voters of this country. Get real. It may not be perfect in everyone's world, but it sure works for me.
Best thing of vote by mail is the ridiculously obnoxious ballot initiatives you can research and those local races you paid no attention to? No problem, you have 2 weeks to research.
I cannot imagine walking into a voting booth on some ballot initiatives frankly and I'm political active.
Oregonborn repeats several arguments by VBM that similarly have been widely refuted in debates here in Oregon: 1) The contrast between his/her example and mine demonstrates my point that in fact the security of the drop-off location is not taken too seriously here. Plus he/she also illustrates my point about the amusing untold deceit of VBM that even many advocates still expend the time and/or gas to drop off their ballot rather than mail it in for a host of personal reasons so VBM really is just a ballot mailout system. 2) The signature and audit trail number are irrelevant to the main point that there is no link between the outer mailing envelope on which all of ballot info appears and the anonymized inner envelope that contains your marked ballot. In effect, this "security" info is really there to facilitate what the grooming of the voter rolls: To make it even possible for election workers to process so many ballots into "count" and "don't count" piles, your signature appears on the outside of the outer mailing ballot. Another downside: Think about what that can mean for identity theft. 3) As far as the homey vision of everyone sitting around the table with their voter's pamphlet: We got the same voter's pamphlet before VBM, and that pamphlet could easily include have fascimile ballot for people to study if they really need it. This is not a point that supports VBM because it does not even require that one have an actual ballot.
katebegood once again demonstrates that many supporters actually drop of their ballot and explicitly acknowledges that VBM really is just a ballot mailout system. The facts, not opinion open to debate, of the downsides of this system are: 1) decreased security and trustworthiness of the results (don't forget no exit polls so much less chance to uncover a questionable result to even ask for a recount). 2) Increased campaign costs that favors incumbents over challengers. 3) Obstacles to accessing and remaining on the voter rolls for irregular voters whose irregular voting patterns, and likelihood of changing their mailing address (because, for instance, they rent and therefore might move more often), might be correlated with their social status.
The thing folks in Virginia and elsewhere need to remember is that Oregon is a very non-representative, demographically-speaking, state than most East coast states and even Midwest states with one or more large cities. Washington just went to VBM and is only slightly more demographically diverse with all that means when it comes to elections. Folks also need to know that VBM was instituted in Oregon by voter initiative (ie. by the voters who vote most often), the same regressive populist process that works at cross purposes with our elected representative government on so many issues that really matter from taxation, to health care reform and fixing curriculum and funding problems with our education system.
The question I always ask supporters here, and never get an answer to is this: Why do they work so hard and aggressively for VBM when the facts show VBM really comes down to a ballot mailout system which works mainly to enhance the convenience of an already favored demographic group (stable mailing address, frequent voter, with the time to actually think about whether a host of people they regard as their public servants have worked together to hand deliver a ballot to them), which increases the cost and disfavors challengers to incumbents), and which has no demonstrated success in actually increasing participation by those eligible to be voters?
Hmmmm...RECORD rainfall kept us off of the roads! Could I have reached my "old" precinct? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Flooded roads, debris closed access? Do you get it? This was the "2nd 100-year flood" since 1996. I would have risked the flooded roads in the bad-old-days...no more! My vote counts.
We in this part of Oregon were more than thankful for vote-by mail. For those of us who never miss a vote? Thank you Oregon for making sure that all that wish to vote can do so and for allowing us to be sure that our vote counts.
1. Vote By Mail does in fact tend to increase turnout.
The best research of the impact of Vote By Mail on turnout was done in WA in 1997. In that case, the election featured only a single, statewide issue (financing for a new stadium), in which some counties voted entirely by mail and others did not. This allowed for an apples-to-apples comparison of similar counties. The study showed that the counties with all-mail voting had higher turnout than similar counties in which polling places were used. It is significant that the author of that report, County Clerk Sam Reed, is now Washington's Secretary of State and a staunch advocate for Vote By Mail.
2. Vote By Mail - or any system featuring large percentages of mail-in voters (such as in CA, AZ, NM and other states) does in fact change the nature of campaigns.
But while consultants will complain about this, in effect these changes can and should be beneficial to democracy. In Oregon, for example, knowing that voters will have their ballots in hand for over two weeks, there is a far greater emphasis on person-to-person voter contact, voter ID, and voter engagement. To wit; if I know that I will have time to contact you directly and individually during the GOTV period, it behooves me to find out who you are (as an individual, not as a demographic) so that I can reach you with the right message, from the most effective messenger, during the long GOTV period.
Person to person voter contact has been shown to be the most effective way to engage people. Also, direct contacts of this kind are far more likely to be positive in tone, and supportive of participation. Compare this to negative campaign commercials and direct-mail hit pieces, which are as likely (some would say are designed) to deter people from participating.
As to security - let us first remember not to compare any system to a mythical perfect alternative, which does not exist. And that polling place elections have given us long lines, voter harassment and intimidation, "errant" voting machines, dysfuntional polling locations, etc.
Under Vote By Mail, Oregon is able to check each and every voter signature (on the outer security envelope) against that voter's signature on his/her registration card. In additon, unduly influencing even a single ballot (via fraudulent signature, buying votes, intimidating a voter, etc.) is punishable as a CLASS C Felony - five years imprisonment and $125,000 fine. This means that if one were inclined to unduly impact even fifty votes - unlikely to make any real difference in any but the closest of local elections - one would be exposed to 250 years in prison - in essence, multiple life sentences. How badly, exactly, do you want to win that seat on the town council?
It is telling that elections officials themselves have become the most ardent advocates of VBM. These include the past three Secretaries of State of Oregon (two Dems, one Republican) as well as Oregon's County Clerks. In addition, Washington's County Clerks and SoS, Idaho's SoS and Clerks and Recorders, and California's Registrars are all on record as supporting statewide Vote By Mail.
It strains credulity to believe that all of those elections officials - steeped in experience in the administration of elections, and coming from all across the political spectrum, have anything else in mind than the health of our democracy through the conduct of a fair, transparent, reliable and highly participatory electoral process.
The Vote By Mail Project does not advocate that every state immediately switch to an all-mail model, only that access to mail-in voting be expanded. In California, which began allowing permanent voter-choice absentee registration in 2002, nearly 50% of voters this year chose mail-in voting. Both WA and OR began this way before moving to mostly (WA) or all (OR) mail-in voting.
We welcome all who are concerned about our elections to visi out site (still very much a work in progress) and join our mailing list to become part of the movement in their state to expand voters' access to mail-in voting.