December 20, 2005
What Postman Doesn't Know

This morning I was listening, briefly, to Seattle Times reporter David Postman on KIRO 710.  Since the announcement that that King County would move to all mail elections had just come out, he and the host, John Procaccino, were discussing it.  Neither seemed to see any objection to the change.

Which tells me that Postman must not read Sound Politics or my site regularly.  If he did, he would know that when fraudulent votes are detected in American elections, the fraud is nearly always committed with mail ballots.  There is no mystery about this; fraud is much easier to commit with mailed ballots,  And mailed ballots make also bribery and intimidation much easier.   There are places in the United States where "brokers" regularly collect votes in return for money or favors from the candidates.  These brokers nearly always use mailed ballots, for reasons that should be obvious.

The problem is not limited to the United States; when Britain adopted mailed ballots recently, there was an immediate explosion of vote fraud and intimidation.  Several Labour MPs reported that women in some Muslim households were ordered to give their blank ballots to their husbands or brothers.  (The Labour party responded to the fraud by promising more controls — and extending the use of mailed ballots.)

Some argue that using mailed ballots encourages participation.  It may in the short run, though the evidence that it has a large effect is lacking.  But I believe that, by making vote fraud easier and more common, mailed ballots will eventually discourage voting.  It is simply a fact that, where vote fraud is pervasive, participation is usually low.  if people begin to believe that the system is rigged, they will tend to withdraw from voting, and from other forms of participation.

Is it possible to reduce fraudulent votes by mail to a very low level?  In my opinion, it is possible, but not practical — unless you are willing to give up ballot secrecy.  Truly verifying signatures in a large electorate requires specialized skills and considerable resources.

But, even if you cut vote fraud with mailed ballots to a very low level, you would still be faced with other problems, such as the insecurity of our mail.  A single mail clerk in Seattle could have tipped the election to either Rossi or Gregoire last year.  (And may have, for all we know.)  And since mailed ballots trickle in over weeks (months in some jurisdictions!), many voters miss the last parts of the campaign.

Who benefits from vote fraud by mailed ballots?  In general elections, Democrats in most cases.  When vote fraud is detected, the perpetrators are nearly always Democrats.   Unless we assume that Democrats are less intelligent than Republicans, we have to conclude that the majority of cheaters are found in the Democratic party.  (Though I hasten to add that most Democrats are honest, and many even disapprove of vote fraud committed by Democrats.)  In primary elections, factions within the Democratic party benefit from vote fraud.  And since vote participation is almost always lower in primaries, it is entirely possible that more Democratic candidates lose elections because of vote fraud than Republican candidates.

Moving to all mail ballots means that more elections will be decided by fraudulent votes.   It means that every close win by a Democrat in a primary or a general election will look suspicious to the loser.  A regular reader of Sound Politics would know these things.  So, why doesn't David Postman?

(The Volokh site has a long and sensible directive to commenters, which begins with this paragraph:

We're trying something new here, perhaps quixotic but I hope useful.  We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible.  So please, also avoid rants, invective, and substantial and repeated exaggeration.  Sticking with substance will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

The comments there are, in my opinion, both more civil and more substantive that those at most sites.  So their directive appears to have had a good effect.  To read the rest of it, go to almost any of their posts, such as this one, and scroll down to the bottom.   They have especially good advice for those who are certain they are right.)

Posted by Jim Miller at December 20, 2005 03:20 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Amen to all of this! Thanks for telling the truth about mail ballot voting and pointing out the horrendous opportunities for fraud that too easily can sway elections to the Democrats.

Posted by: Misty on December 20, 2005 03:31 PM
2. ..and it is absolutely true that all the big vote fraud scandals throughout the country, some even being dealt with right now, always occur in heavily democrat counties/cities.

Posted by: Misty on December 20, 2005 03:32 PM
3. And the other side uses the Diebold machine as being favorable to Republicans. I don't get that one though.

I still think we need to work at voting. I think you should have to make the effort to get dressed and go to the polls. So what if not many would vote then? Voting my mail allows the lazies to vote without knowing the issues.

Posted by: swatter on December 20, 2005 03:39 PM
4. I would generally favor all mail in ballots, because as with most systems of production, the more you can make everything the same, the more efficiencies you can gain.

However, the simple fact that your buddy Ronnie wants all mail in ballots leave me very suspicious. He would not want a system that he could not manipulate in order to guarantee that he and his cronies win elections.

Posted by: BananaLand on December 20, 2005 03:47 PM
5. Of course, following the first election by all mail voting in KC, Postman and his like will be complaining that the results are coming in too slowly and that the system needs to be "fixed."

Posted by: NWconservative on December 20, 2005 03:51 PM
6. Just like KC to want voter fraud. IT can happen in two ways without fraud votes.
1. Make standards in KC Precincts that lean Republican to be 20 points for Signature Verification and the Democratic Precincts 1 Point of matching. THat seems fair right.
2. Unions can meet in the back rooms and fill out the ballots. Then when they are verified these members will then select those who have not voted on the rolls and insert the ballots. Watch the envelop count will be less than the ballot count. Who is to say with all those verifications tables that you can not slip in a dozen ballots or so an hour. Verify a stack of ballots and as you move them to the next step of counting them slip in a few more.
I can think of about 30 billion reasons for this move. TO ensure that the tax increase that KC wants to pass to get the tunnel will pass. KC will ensure that it passes at any cost because the leadership want it to be so. Plus now it makes it impossible for a republican to be elected as Senator. All KC has to do is keep finding more votes. I guess we will have the Queen for the next 20 years under this system.
Well anything to keep the power. Who cares about the people not the democrats.
It is true that fraud happens by both parties depending on the state. But Now KC can become of the king of Frauds. I guess on the next close election for a president. Dean Logan will be the man to save the Democrats butt. Since CHicago could not pull it off in 2000.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on December 20, 2005 04:09 PM
7. See Article VI Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution.

In response to who goes with what ballot.

Posted by: KPR on December 20, 2005 04:21 PM
8. that's John Prococcino, Jim, not Greg. Mail ballots will be a sign of which states are red and which are green. BTW, did anyone read blatherwatch today and see that the evil leftwing idiot Mike Webb who does KIRO late at night was arrested today for fraud? http://blatherwatch.blogs.com

Posted by: Lon Schmenge on December 20, 2005 05:13 PM
9. Lon - Thanks for catching my mistake. I've corrected it above.

Posted by: Jim Miller on December 20, 2005 05:34 PM
10. David Postman is the most informed journalist on election issues in Washington State. Reliable information is his middle name! Just because you don't agree with his assessment of the situation doesn't mean he's flawed...

Perhaps David knows something you don't know..that the election 'crisis' is a figment of the wildest imaginations on this board.

Posted by: rossi too on December 20, 2005 07:08 PM
11. If mail in ballots favor democrats, then how does Gordon Smith continue getting elected in Oregon? How come the state house in Oregon has a republican majority? Is Greg Walden in danger of losing his house seat because his constituents use mail in ballots? The mechanics of the voting process holds very little explanatory power for who wins elections and why. The dynamics of elections are fascinating, but reducing that to a discussion of Diebold, or mail in, or whatever is boring.

Posted by: Alan Scott on December 20, 2005 07:11 PM
12. As I mentioned in a post on another topic, there was not one instance of voter fraud or any other problem reported in the 2005 elections in the 32 counties that voted by mail-in ballot only.

Perhaps fraud is the norm in other states, but here in Washington, it hasn't been a problem.

Posted by: rossi too on December 20, 2005 07:13 PM
13. In 1998 Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure directing elections be conducted by mail, commonly called Vote-by-Mail.
This replaces traditional polling place elections.


What is Vote-by-Mail?

Vote by mail is a method of distributing ballots for an election. Instead of using traditional polling places where voters go to cast ballots on election day, a ballot is mailed to each registered voter. The ballot is then voted and returned to the county election office to be counted.

If you need a private, secure place to mark your ballot, contact your county election office. Every county provides privacy booths where you can mark your ballot. Usually, you can drop off your completed ballot at the same location.

Why are elections conducted by mail?

The major reasons to conduct an election by mail include:

Increases voter participation
Removes barriers that can keep people from getting to the polls
Allows more time for people to study issues and candidates before marking the ballot
Has built-in safeguards that increase the integrity of the elections process
Saves taxpayer dollars
As a registered voter, what do I have to do?
If your registration is current, your ballot packet will automatically be mailed to you. Inside the packet you will find the ballot, a secrecy envelope and a return envelope. Once you vote the ballot, place it in the secrecy envelope and seal it in the pre-addressed return envelope. Be sure to sign the return envelope on the appropriate line. After verifying that the return envelope has your name and current address, simply return the ballot either by mail or at a designated drop site.

When are the ballots mailed to the voters?

In Oregon, ballots will be mailed any time between the 14th and 18th days before an election.

I will be out of town when ballots are mailed. How do I get a ballot?

Absentee ballots are available 45 days before the election. You may request an early absentee ballot from your county election official either in person, by mail, or by fax. You will need to include your name, residence address and, if different, your mailing address.

What if my ballot doesn't come?

If you have not received your ballot within a week after they are mailed, call your county election office. They will check that your voter registration is current. If it is, they will mail you a replacement ballot.

What if I have moved and have not updated my registration?

If you are registered to vote by the 21st day before the election but now have a different address, you may contact the county election office. They will instruct you as to available options.

How do I get information about the candidates and issues?

You will receive a voters' pamphlet from the Secretary of State for all statewide elections. Many counties also produce a local voters' pamphlet which is either included with the state pamphlet or mailed separately. In special elections, the county may include the pamphlet with the ballot.

What if I make a mistake?

If you make a mistake, you may call your county election office and request a replacement ballot. One will be mailed to you provided the request is received with sufficient time for mailing. Otherwise, you may pick up a replacement ballot in person at your county election office.

Your ballot has been cast as soon as you deposit it in the mailbox or at a drop site. After that, you cannot receive a new ballot to re-vote.

Do I have to return my ballot by mail?

You have the choice of mailing your ballot or returning it to any county election office or any designated drop site in the state. The times and locations of drop sites are published by and available from your county election official.

How much postage is required to mail my ballot back?

Your voted ballot can usually be returned without extra postage. In those instances where additional postage is necessary, it will be clearly indicated on the ballot materials.

When must the voted ballot be returned?

The voted ballot must be received in any county election office or designated drop site by 8:00 p.m. on election night. Postmarks do not count.

How do I know if my ballot is received?

You may call your county election office and ask if they received your ballot. A record is kept showing each voter whose ballot has been returned.

Can anyone find out how I've voted once I mail my ballot?

No. All ballots are separated from the return envelope before the ballots are inspected. This process ensures confidentiality.

Will my vote still count if I forget to put my ballot into the secrecy envelope?

Yes, the ballot will still be counted.

Can the public watch the election process?

All steps of the process are open to observation by the public. The major steps include:

Preparation for mailing (about one month before the election).
Ballot reception and signature verification (during the two weeks before the election).
Opening envelopes and preparing ballots to be counted (usually starts 5 days before the election date).
Counting ballots (election day).
When will election results be known?
Ballot counting cannot begin until election day. Initial results are released at 8:00 p.m. election night and will continue to be updated through the evening until all ballots have been counted.

What if I have more questions?

Call your county elections official. Each office will be more than happy to assist you.

Posted by: OR voter on December 20, 2005 07:18 PM
14. OR Voter shows the upside to all-mail voting. I am originally from there, so am always interested in politics down there, which makes more sense than up here.

With that said, it seems like this will mask the corruption and flaws as King County rampantly displays (it wasn't rated the 3rd most corrupt county for the 2004 election for nothing). The Federal Government really needs to get their act together and audit King County and places like Oregon that are or will resort to all-mail voting in the future. The US Attorney - McKay is obviously out to lunch and ineffectual.

The other option for those like myself who don't wish to be trapped in a sewer of corruption - to secede and form Cascade County - for further information contact; cascade@cascadecounty.kendra.com.
I would even go as far to say that the future of the WA State Republican Party depends on this !

Posted by: KS on December 20, 2005 08:08 PM
15. According to the Christian Science Monitor, when Oregon went to all mail in voting they editorialized that it would be a "fruitful vineyard for fraud." Historically, absentee and mail in voting was the exception, not the rule. An exception for those who could not make it to the tradtional voting booth (e.g. military and infirm). As Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson document in their book: Dirty Little Secrets - The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics", all absentee or mail in voting opens the door to such schemes as "ballot farming" where operatives "harvest" ballots from individuals for a fee, hold ballot parties, etc. The fact the MSM may like all mail in voting is representative of their desire to have finality to elections, the earlier the better. All mail in balloting spreads out the work. However, it also spreads out the opportunities for fraud and manipulation. Recall how many absentee ballots in King County alone were "enhanced" or remade without the voters consent. It is illogical that auditors will call voters who fail to sign his or her absentee ballot but remake (i.e. take a blank ballot, mark it and replace it for the voter's ballot) without contacting the voter. I understand the motives behind all mail in ballots, but I oppose allowing election workers to enhance or create new ballots to represent voter intent ... if there is a question, the voter should be contacted and it is the voter who should make the correction.

Posted by: Newman on December 20, 2005 08:19 PM
16. OR Voter: Please explain how the process described in the "Voting Booth at the Kitchen Table" is any better (or even different) than what has always been available to the voter: namely, to sit down in the weeks prior to the elctions, spread the information out on the table, study the issues, and mark the SAMPLE ballot provided - then take the SAMPLE ballot to the polling place and refer to it while voting?

Every time I hear someone claim that vote-by-mail somehow gives voters "more time" to "study the issues" and "deliberate," I want to scream! You'd think that prior to vote-by-mail the issues and candidates were kept secret until voting day, and we had to wait until we got into the voting booth before we could decide how to vote...

What IS different is that there is no reliable way to verify that a ballot was filled out by the actual voter, or that there was no undue influence exercised. There is nothing to prevent people voting for dead relatives whose names are still on the rolls (which we know happened in 2004). And - with the proposal on the table to allow online registration - there will definitely be no way to ensure that only properly registered voters receive and cast ballots.

And the best argument for throwing away the few safeguards we have left is that vote-by-mail somehow gives voters "more time to study the issues" than before? It doesn't wash.

Posted by: Patrick on December 20, 2005 10:14 PM
17. Your logic is defective. If we assume that mail voting provides more opportunities for fraud than in-person voting, then it follows that we should eliminate or greatly restrict mail voting so that people intent on fraud cannot vote by mail. But if we allow anyone to vote by mail if they wish (and the voters have made it clear they want this choice), anyone who wants to commit vote fraud by mail already has an opportunity. There is no further downside to requiring voting by mail, just an upside.

Posted by: Bruce on December 21, 2005 12:04 AM
18. Hey swatter, are you still listening to Jesse Jackson about those diebold machines? You ought to listen to Ken Blackwell. The counties accused didn't use those machines. Must have been the imitation of Elmer Fudd that Kerry used when he wanted to "....uuhh, git me a huntin license" in Ohio.

Posted by: PC on December 21, 2005 01:25 AM
19. I had to remove two comments because they included the complete text of copyrighted pieces. I hope OR Voter will paraphrase those pieces and provide links to them, as copyright law allows.

Alan Scott - Estimating the proportion of fraudulent ballots is extremely difficult because they are seldom detected. (And when detected, seldom publicized. And when publicized, seldom prosecuted.) From decades of following elections, I am certain that at least 1 in 1000 ballots in Washington state are fraudulent and suspect that 1 in 100 or even more may have been in recent elections. That is enough to make the difference in some very close elections, including the governor's race and one of the monorail votes.

rossi too - You seem to believe that in those 32 counties no ballots were rejected because the signatures did not match. A little bit of thought will show you how implausible that idea is. (And a quick search should give you some numbers on rejected ballots in those counties.) A little more thought will show you that the clerks must have approved some signatures they should not have. So there were certainly fraudulent votes in those counties; some of those votes were detected, and some were not.

Bruce - You must not have read my earlier posts on this subject, either here or at my own site. I do, in fact, favor getting rid of mail ballots except where they are absolutely necessary.

Posted by: Jim Miller on December 21, 2005 07:33 AM
20. by the way, Postman is a well know liberal...

so was this reporting, or opinion

Posted by: righton on December 21, 2005 08:06 AM
21. Jim Miller...as paranoid as Stefan!

"A little more thought will show you that the clerks must have approved some signatures they should not have. So there were certainly fraudulent votes in those counties; some of those votes were detected, and some were not."

Yes, Jim, they're all out to get you.

Posted by: rossi too on December 21, 2005 09:00 AM
22. I have a question. When the state goes to all absentee voting, when do the polls close? The votes can't be counted till the polls close you know.

Posted by: Bruce Welder on December 21, 2005 09:57 AM
23. I follow this blog daily but I still don't get your absolute rejection of mail-in voting. Fraud can be committed under either system and many of the problems stem from having two separate systems. Mail-in voting is here to stay so concentrate on fixing it. Many of the issues you raise are real but can be addressed.

Posted by: KarlC on December 21, 2005 10:19 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?