|
|
VOTING
BY MAIL This report is essentially an edited version of the “THE ADVISABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ADOPTING VOTE-BY-MAIL (VBM) IN WHATCOM COUNTY” produced by the Whatcom Fair Voting, a grassroots group of citizens working to promote the integrity of elections in Washington state. PRO VBM & ABSENTEE VOTING: 1. Save taxpayer dollars. The Elections Office could simplify management systems, hire fewer poll-site workers, and purchase fewer voting machines designed for use by voters with disabilities (since polling sites for the latter could be consolidated). Oregon has found the cost of conducting all-mail elections is 1/3 to 1/2 of the amount required for polling place elections. 2. All-mail voting results in an all-paper ballot system, contributing significantly to election integrity. 3. In Oregon, many voters believe VBM has increased their participation. It does not appear to affect registration. 4. Complete and mail the ballot on her/his own schedule eliminating election-day conflicts with jobs, school, emergencies, meetings, child care, etc. 5. Avoid polling place inconveniences such as hours, lines, transportation, traffic, parking, weather, personal night time security. 6. Facilitate thoughtful study of the issues, particularly when there are numerous and complex initiatives and tax levies. 7. An opportunity for discussion and involvement of the entire family, including children. 8. Caregivers, family, dwelling residents can provide assistance if requested. 9. Avoid potential polling place issues such as unfamiliar machines, uneven levels of staff training and competence, incorrect instructions, discrimination or intimidation.
CON VBM & ABSENTEE VOTING: 1. Mail-in voting offers opportunities for fraud; it is difficult to establish and monitor a rigorous trail-of-custody system for mail-in ballots and to verify signatures. 2. Mail-in ballots can compromise traditional ballot secrecy allowing for possible undue voter influence/coercion by others in domestic and group settings, and even vote-buying or selling of individual ballots. 3. Optical scan machines that “read” mail-in ballots can be subject to error and fraud. 4. Some voters fear ballots may be delayed, lost, diverted, mishandled, held, or stolen in transit. Voters may be uncertain that their ballots will actually be received and counted. 5. Caregivers, family, dwelling residents, or apartment managers can steal, destroy, forge, or expropriate ballots. 6. Out-sourcing of ballot handling to non-employees of the Elections Office may reduce public accountability. 7. A voter who spoils a mail-in ballot may have difficulty in obtaining another in time for the election; an error not noticed by the voter may invalidate the ballot. 8. Last-minute mail voting and/or postal delays can slow election returns. 9. May be difficult to send out mail-in ballots in a timely manner. 10. Voters may cast ballots without the benefit of new information close to Election Day. 11. The community civic participation aspect of poll voting would be eliminated. 12. Voters who like going to the polls and don't want to use a mail-in ballot would be forced to do so in a VBM system, which may affect their participation. 13. Some voters with disabilities who are unable to use a mail-in ballot unassisted may have to travel farther to find a polling site designated for their use. 14. Cost savings are partially offset by additional postage and hiringG workers to process mail ballots and verify signatures. 15. Some voters may consider having to pay ballot postage unfair. 16. Voters unfamiliar with mail-in voting may mistakenly throw away the ballot. 17. Students who are registered elsewhere may have difficulty obtaining County mail-in ballots. 18. The creation of many additional precincts would require substantial initial changes for the county.
Congresswoman
Susan Davis (D-CA) has introduced a bill (HR 281) that will make
voting by mail available in all states. Read the bill here:
COMMENTS FROM MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA ELECTION PROTECTION A Quick Overview of Some Key Problems With Voting By Mail: 1. Early voting, inclusive of absentee voting, is NOT included in the 1% mandatory audit, because the EC 15360 says it shall be inclusive all “precincts” of the official canvass, and the majority of other election officials have decided that early voting is “precinct-less”. 2. Absentee ballots are not only scanned and tabulated by the computers with the same vulnerabilities as all computer voting systems, but also they are scanned and tabulated on computers that are even worse then average. 3. Much of absentee signatures are read with automated signature-reading machines, such as “Vote Remote.” The problem with “Vote Remote” type equipment is that is can be calibrated up or down on how close of a match an election official desires. Also, to date, there is no regulation on this. So it obviously can be used as a vote spoilage device. 4. The term “vote by mail” or “absentee voting” is used very loosely with no set of standards. a. Georgia does not protect the privacy of the ballot. b. We hear of selling absentee ballots are an issue in Southern Florida. c. Oregon has the “Gold Standard”, but even there it isn’t appropriate for areas with corruption or “Jim Crow” issues. d. No one really even knows how well it has been used in Oregon, and that is why the election integrity advocates are hurrying to get an audit protocol in place. e. Absentee voting is inherently reliant on the U.S. Post Office, which subcontracts out much of its storage and courier servicing of ballots in manner that is NOT secure. f. A centralized paradigm that can easily shut the purview (and safety) inherent in having precinct level oversight. When there is a corrupt government which does not acknowledge the checks and balances on the books. g. There is an open issue in most states as to what happens if a voter fails to add a stamp, or adds a single stamp but the oversized ballot requires extra postage. -------------------------------------------- OTHER COMMENTS Achieve accuracy first, before adding features This “vote by mail” term is used loosely to mean almost anything and it should be a well conceived plan that is not another hole in the election system plumbing. In other words, we can no longer demand or legislate new voting procedures before FIRST planning on how they will be implemented with transparency. But again note that their SOS is concerned that if a political operative were to get his position that the system is vulnerable to misuse. I agree that it is ultimately a LESS secure system than we now have.
|
