USA Mail In Voting

[Lamb]

I see a lot of arguing online (not here) about mail in voting. I don't think anyone is against absentee ballots. What they don't want is the mass mailing of ballots with no checks and balances that go along with it. That's the danger we face in the country today. Some news media have done tests and come to the conclusion that approximately 3% of their mail did not get to where it was going to go. Is that acceptable for a national vote? I mean we shut down our country for less than a 1% virus. Is a 3% loss of mail now okay?

Where I live we don't get all of our bills so we had to resort to doing almost everything we can online. We had gotten turned over to a collections agency for not paying bills...bills we never even received!!! You can imagine my anger. The postal service in some areas is top notch but it's not that way throughout the country and you can't rely on it. There has to be a better way for people to vote than the mass mailing of ballots.

 

[JRT]

I mean we shut down our country for less than a 1% virus. Is a 3% loss of mail now okay?

Are equating a human death to a small annoyance? The comparison is quite unfair.

 

[Lamb]

I mean we shut down our country for less than a 1% virus. Is a 3% loss of mail now okay?

Are equating a human death to a small annoyance? The comparison is quite unfair.

Annoyance?

If we can shut down our country and force people to not work and have their families starve, not be able to afford their medicines, pay their bills, lose their homes, etc... for less than a 1% because that was too high of a number then 3% of a valuable vote should not be by a mail system that can't be guaranteed. Right?

 

[JRT]

I did not realize that the USA had fallen so low because none of that is happening in Canada. There are a number of good reasons for that none of which reflect positively on the USA response to this crisis.

 

[Lamb]

I did not realize that the USA had fallen so low because none of that is happening in Canada. There are a number of good reasons for that none of which reflect positively on the USA response to this crisis.

I don't understand what you mean by "fallen so low?"

Do you mean the shut downs of the businesses? My daughter works at an Arboretum and that's an outside business that was FORCED to shut down. Why? She's now at 50% paycut and the governor is threatening to shut everything back down again. The death rate hasn't risen so it doesn't make sense. So it's little more than "annoyance" really. Other lives are being threatened than by the virus.

 

[tango]

I mean we shut down our country for less than a 1% virus. Is a 3% loss of mail now okay?

Are equating a human death to a small annoyance? The comparison is quite unfair.

I think enough distortion in the vote to change the outcome of a national election is more than "a small annoyance".

I read an article about a New Jersey primary where something like 20% of the mail-in votes were rejected because of an irregularity. When an entire state can hinge on a majority of a few hundred, that's a big deal. 20% of the population of a sleepy little small town like mine is enough to change the outcome of the election, given that during the Bush/Gore election some states were carried with majorities of less than 500.

Honestly, if it's so dangerous out there that we have to shut down businesses (except Wal-mart, that's obviously safe) then it's too dangerous to hold an election. On the other hand if we can stand in line at Wally World we can stand in line to cast a vote.

 

[tango]

Annoyance?

If we can shut down our country and force people to not work and have their families starve, not be able to afford their medicines, pay their bills, lose their homes, etc... for less than a 1% because that was too high of a number then 3% of a valuable vote should not be by a mail system that can't be guaranteed. Right?

You should listen to the PA State Fuhrer. Apparently it's "selfish" and "cowardly" to want to do things like pay your bills, put food on your table and stop your family from freezing. And he should know, given how he ignored his own orders to march with Black Lives Matter because that is "an important cause". Because feeding your family and paying your bills is unimportant, apparently.

 

[Josiah]

I've never voted at some polling place, I've ALWAYS voted by mail. No waiting.... no crowds.... no process.... all the time I need.

As I understand it, nearly 100% of the 'problems" are because of 3 issues:
1) No stamp put on the envelope and it's return to sender too late to resend
2) Sent in too late; it must be RECEIVED at the office by the end of the election day (many come in after that and don't get counted)
3) They didn't sign it (and thus must be thrown away)

Now, I AM opposed to sending the ballot to EVERYONE (as some Democrats have suggested) but I'm okay with it being sent to all actively registered voters.

I doubt ANY process is 100 reliable and valid. And when an election is very close - say within 1% (which isn't that uncommon) the errors can impact the outcome. But I'm not sure this is much better with "polling place" voting than with mail in voting. It's just those who mail in need to remember to mail it several days BEFORE election day, put a stamp on it, and sign the _______ thing.




.

 

[tango]

I was intrigued to see how younger generations struggle with mail-in voting. Apparently millennials don't know where to buy stamps, and "people of color" struggle even more. Because, you know, the places with signs that say "we sell stamps" don't make it obvious enough and apparently only whitey can figure out how to ask someone where to get stamps if he really doesn't already know.

One obvious question about mail-in voting is whether the ballot needs to arrive by the due date or be post-marked by the due date. That in turn creates issues - if it's based on the date it's received and you post it a week beforehand but USPS does a poor job of delivering it your vote doesn't count. If it's based on the post-mark the hanging chad issue of 2000 turns into the smudged postmark issue of 2020 and, if envelopes have prepaid voting (I can only imagine the howling about racism if people have to find a whopping fifty cents or so of their own money every four years to vote) they often aren't postmarked anyway.

Then there's the question of how long to wait before considering the election closed. There's lots of howling at the moment about cutting off the census count a mere five months after the deadline to respond because apparently some people, despite being told countless times to respond, still haven't figured out they can fill in the paper form or go online. Apparently undocumented immigrants are among the people most difficult to count - I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure they are called "undocumented" for a good reason and they aren't likely to volunteer their presence on a census form however many times they are reminded.

It seems to me that widespread mail-in voting is too vulnerable to tampering. If you're involved in gathering up mail-in ballots, your political leanings are the opposite of the prevailing view in your area, and you're minded to take the chance, you can always take a good handful of ballots and toss them in the trash. If you're in an urban area and take a good handful of ballots the chances are many of them will be for the Democrat; in a rural area the chances are many of them will be for the Republican. In an area like California it might not make much difference but in a swing state it could potentially affect the entire outcome. There are also potential issues with places like nursing homes and the potential for carers to "encourage" residents to vote a certain way. I recall some years ago there was a problem in a nursing home in the UK where it turned out one of the carers wasn't even bothering to let the residents vote - they just cast votes for their preferred candidate on behalf of all the residents.

 

[tango]

One thing I'd really like to see, if it were technically feasible (and it probably isn't, given the need to make voting accessible to remote areas and densely populated inner cities) would be some kind of computer-based system that allowed you to choose a candidate, then present a short list of major policy initiatives and require you to select the ones your chosen candidate stood for. If you got less than a certain percentage right your vote would be discarded.

When I think of the 2008 election and people voting because "it's about time we had a black president" or "I don't want no (expletive) (racial slur) in the White House", when people in 2016 claimed the only reason not to vote for Clinton was sexism, and when people vote a certain way because that's just what they do, it doesn't seem right that their votes count just as much as the people who have actually taken some time to consider what the candidates stand for and their vision for the country.

 

[hedrick]

I've never voted at some polling place, I've ALWAYS voted by mail. No waiting.... no crowds.... no process.... all the time I need.

As I understand it, nearly 100% of the 'problems" are because of 3 issues:
1) No stamp put on the envelope and it's return to sender too late to resend
2) Sent in too late; it must be RECEIVED at the office by the end of the election day (many come in after that and don't get counted)
3) They didn't sign it (and thus must be thrown away)

Now, I AM opposed to sending the ballot to EVERYONE (as some Democrats have suggested) but I'm okay with it being sent to all actively registered voters.

I doubt ANY process is 100 reliable and valid. And when an election is very close - say within 1% (which isn't that uncommon) the errors can impact the outcome. But I'm not sure this is much better with "polling place" voting than with mail in voting. It's just those who mail in need to remember to mail it several days BEFORE election day, put a stamp on it, and sign the _______ thing.




.

I believe a substantial number are due to mismatch of signature. I doubt that they're using handwriting experts, so I'd bet anyone whose signature has changed is at risk.

In NJ for the primary, 10% of the mail-in ballots weren't counted. They were probably not fraudulent (except in Patterson), but either people who didn't follow the instructions or signature mismatch. That's a high enough fraction to worry me.

It will be interesting to see what we do for the fall. The governor has at least considered having in person voting over a longer time period. If you had it open for a week, you might have no more density than in a grocery store. That could be a good compromise.

 

[tango]

I believe a substantial number are due to mismatch of signature. I doubt that they're using handwriting experts, so I'd bet anyone whose signature has changed is at risk.

This is a good point - without doing a detailed graphological analysis of each and every signature it's hard to know how much variation should be considered acceptable before rejecting it as a mismatch.

In NJ for the primary, 10% of the mail-in ballots weren't counted. They were probably not fraudulent (except in Patterson), but either people who didn't follow the instructions or signature mismatch. That's a high enough fraction to worry me.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of regular ballots aren't counted because people didn't follow the instructions. If 10% of the ballots are rejected it seems that either the instructions aren't clear (which seems unlikely) or there's something else going on that may or may not be untoward.

It will be interesting to see what we do for the fall. The governor has at least considered having in person voting over a longer time period. If you had it open for a week, you might have no more density than in a grocery store. That could be a good compromise.

In person voting over a longer period would make a lot of sense. It could also help address complaints of long lines and people standing in line for hours only to find they didn't get to the building before the polls closed so they didn't get to vote.

 

[psalms 91]

Bottom line is that Trump is afraid of the outcome and is trying to supress the vote

 

[hedrick]

Here’s a list of why votes were rejected in one NJ election. https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/06...jected-in-last-months-vote-by-mail-elections/

The state has asked for a detailed analysis, and will try to fix things for November. I’m not opposed to mail ballots. For people who wouldnt come in person it’s better than nothing. In many states rejection rates are low. For them 100% mail seems fine. The 10% in NJ sticks out. If we can’t fix it, we should do everything possible to make in person voting safe, while still offering mail in.

 

[Lamb]

We should have been fixing the voting issue since the last election. If the impeachment the past 4 years hadn't taken up so much energy more things would have gotten done in this country.

We need a good system to verify actual registered users; not dead ones, not people who have moved away, not illegals in the country who aren't even citizens. If I lived back in the town where I grew up I never would have balked about the postal system because it was so much better there! But after my experiences where I live now, I just can't support putting all that extra strain on a system that can't even deliver my mail to my house. So if I don't get mail, would everyone get their ballots in time? And would their ballots be delivered in return time to count? So many what ifs that can't be answered or repaired at this late in the game.

It would be nice if we could all vote electronically. But even that system gets hacked. Then what?

 

[tango]

Here’s a list of why votes were rejected in one NJ election. https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/06...jected-in-last-months-vote-by-mail-elections/

The state has asked for a detailed analysis, and will try to fix things for November. I’m not opposed to mail ballots. For people who wouldnt come in person it’s better than nothing. In many states rejection rates are low. For them 100% mail seems fine. The 10% in NJ sticks out. If we can’t fix it, we should do everything possible to make in person voting safe, while still offering mail in.

Looking at your link it's remarkable that 44% of the rejected ballots were for "received too late" or "other". Even the "other" section represents 25% of rejected votes, which still means 1 vote in 40 mailed in was rejected for some unspecified reason. If "received too late" meant the voter didn't mail it in time that's one thing but if it means USPS failed to deliver it in a timely fashion thats potentially another 1 vote in 50 mailed in rejected even though the voter did nothing wrong.

When recent memory indicates some states can be carried by a majority of a few hundred this still seems unacceptably high. I'm not sure that I'd have much confidence in "the state will try to fix it" - I'd be much more confident in an approach that considered what would need to happen to allow more widespread mail-in voting (and maybe online voting, phone-in voting, etc) with a view to figuring potential problems ahead of time, making sure they were addressed, and having a specific future election (maybe even 2024 - it still gives people four years to work it all out) rather than fumbling through an election with inadequate infrastructure and the inevitable legal fights, as governments (who aren't known for doing anything efficiently or quickly) try and change all the rules with a few months notice.

Since some are concerned that Trump will use emergency powers to stay in the White House even if he loses the election it would seem that even from the perspective of the Democrats they would want to make sure the election is unambiguous so that if they win there will be as few grounds as possible for Trump to attempt to challenge the results. That said some people also expressed concern that George W Bush and Barack Obama would find some way to install themselves as permanent rulers and neither of them actually did.

It is concerning that Trump appears to be fighting so hard to stop mail-in voting rather than making sure it works reliably but at the same time when the Democrats are pushing so hard for it to become universal it does raise the questions of whether both sides have some other agenda at play. Democrat voters tend to be concentrated in more urban areas while Republican voters tend to be in more rural and remote areas, where postal service is likely to be inferior.

 

[tango]

We should have been fixing the voting issue since the last election. If the impeachment the past 4 years hadn't taken up so much energy more things would have gotten done in this country.

We need a good system to verify actual registered users; not dead ones, not people who have moved away, not illegals in the country who aren't even citizens. If I lived back in the town where I grew up I never would have balked about the postal system because it was so much better there! But after my experiences where I live now, I just can't support putting all that extra strain on a system that can't even deliver my mail to my house. So if I don't get mail, would everyone get their ballots in time? And would their ballots be delivered in return time to count? So many what ifs that can't be answered or repaired at this late in the game.

It would be nice if we could all vote electronically. But even that system gets hacked. Then what?

Verifying that only people who are eligible to vote actually get a vote should be the first requirement of any voting system. Sadly it seems even that is too much to ask, as voter ID rules are apparently racist. If non-white people really have such a hard time getting photo ID perhaps it would make sense to set up a program to provide photo ID to anyone who doesn't already have a driving license. Since driving licenses can already be marked with an "organ donor" designation it doesn't seem like it would be a huge adaptation to also mark them with some other tags to indicate eligibility to vote in local, state or federal elections. If your circumstances changed you could use some other proof to indicate eligiblity - e.g. if you went from green card holder to naturalised citizen you could use your driver's license as ID and your certification of naturalisation to prove your new citizenship and therefore your eligibility to vote in federal elections, or even offer a provision for such people to update their driver's license at minimal cost.

I really struggle to understand the claim that voter ID laws are racist. If it's really difficult for people to get photo ID, set up centers so people without photo ID can prove who they are, prove their citizenship or other lawful residency, and get photo ID produced right there and then. If anything it should be easier for Democrat voters to access such centers, given they tend to live in urban areas. It would be more difficult for Republicans to reach all their voters, given how they tend to be scattered across remote rural areas. It makes me wonder why the Democrats would be so opposed to it.

 

[Josiah]

We should have been fixing the voting issue since the last election. If the impeachment the past 4 years hadn't taken up so much energy more things would have gotten done in this country.

We need a good system to verify actual registered users; not dead ones, not people who have moved away, not illegals in the country who aren't even citizens. If I lived back in the town where I grew up I never would have balked about the postal system because it was so much better there! But after my experiences where I live now, I just can't support putting all that extra strain on a system that can't even deliver my mail to my house. So if I don't get mail, would everyone get their ballots in time? And would their ballots be delivered in return time to count? So many what ifs that can't be answered or repaired at this late in the game.

It would be nice if we could all vote electronically. But even that system gets hacked. Then what?

I agree. While mail-in voting is not without problems, I think the FAR bigger problem is registration.

Here in the People's Republic of California, we have "motor-voter" which means when someone applies for a driver's license, they can check to ALSO register to vote. Now, they DO need to check the box that they are a citizen of the USA but that's purely on the "honor system." LOTS check the "yeah, also register me to vote" box. No one is capable of knowing how many registered to vote people in California are actually not citizens and therefore disqualified. This could easily impact close elections. Democrats believe they get nearly all the Hispanic vote and therefore are good with this.

And of course, there are cases of dead people being registered to vote (there is no notification of death given to the registrar of voters) and so a ballot is sent to them, and yes, sometimes someone votes for them forging the signature (and since few signatures are checked, get away with it). And other problems, too. But I suspect the greatest problem is non-citizens voting.... Mexicans interferring in our election.




.

 

[tango]

I agree. While mail-in voting is not without problems, I think the FAR bigger problem is registration.

Here in the People's Republic of California, we have "motor-voter" which means when someone applies for a driver's license, they can check to ALSO register to vote. Now, they DO need to check the box that they are a citizen of the USA but that's purely on the "honor system." LOTS check the "yeah, also register me to vote" box. No one is capable of knowing how many registered to vote people in California are actually not citizens and therefore disqualified. This could easily impact close elections. Democrats believe they get nearly all the Hispanic vote and therefore are good with this.

And of course, there are cases of dead people being registered to vote (there is no notification of death given to the registrar of voters) and so a ballot is sent to them, and yes, sometimes someone votes for them forging the signature (and since few signatures are checked, get away with it). And other problems, too. But I suspect the greatest problem is non-citizens voting.... Mexicans interferring in our election.




.

The issue with non-citizens voting is interesting. A legal permanent resident is not allowed to vote in federal elections and faces possible deportation if they vote or attempt to vote. An illegal resident is not allowed to vote in federal elections either but the sanction of possible deportation isn't much of a deterrent to an illegal immigrant because they face potential deportation even if they don't vote. So the system discourages those with at least some interest in the country while doing very little to discourage those who aren't even allowed to be in the country.

 

[hedrick]

Doesn't CA comply with Real ID? If so, there's a lot more checking going on than depending upon the applicant to check the right box.