One of the canards frequently repeated by mail-ballot fetishists is that vote-by-mail "increases participation". As I noted the other day, the evidence to support that is underwhelming and unconvincing. Now how is mail-only voting working in Oregon? Oh, wait. today's headline about the state's primary: "Voter turnout low in Oregon"
a few rural counties, including Gilliam and Sherman, were posting turnout numbers that almost hit 50 percent as of Monday, numbers were much lower in the state's densely populated metro area — hitting just 19.3 percent in Clackamas County and 24.9 percent in Washington County.I suspect the real reason election participation in Oregon and elsewhere is low is not because the act of voting is not trivially easy, but because voters are disengaged from the political process.In voter-rich Multnomah County, turnout was only at 21 percent on Monday morning.
"I follow politics absolutely nil," said Shawn Mehess, 22, a St. Helens resident. "I thought it was just a local election, so I threw [my ballot] out. I'll vote in November."It's hard to believe that railroading people into an inaccurate and insecure voting mechanism will make people feel that voting is any more worthwhile than it is today. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 16, 2006 09:26 AM | Email This
Don't think so? Read this: http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/05162006news28584.cfm
There... see?
Posted by: Hinton on May 16, 2006 09:40 AMHow easy would it be for someone else to vote Shawn's ballot after she's chucked it in the garbage?
Yikes.
Posted by: Chris on May 16, 2006 09:51 AMHow easy would it be for someone else to vote Shawn's ballot after she's chucked it in the garbage?
Yikes.
Posted by: Chris on May 16, 2006 09:52 AM"Ballots can be dropped off until 8 tonight at the following locations:"
I always enjoyed "dropping off" my ballot at the convinient polling place.
What are the "average" return rates on absentee ballots? For example, are 60% of the ballots returned earlier than 3 or 4 days before election "day"?
I wonder how all-mail will change news coverage? Will last minute scandals need to come out a couple of weeks sooner?
Voter interest, or apathy, will have more to do with increasing voter participation than the form of casting a ballot.
For ballot security, I still prefer the polling place. I go in, sign the poll book, get my ballot, mark the ballot and put the ballot in the ballot box. No one else touches it in that process.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 16, 2006 10:12 AMIt helps felons, residents of other states, even foriegners, vote in Washington State! It even helps those that are so interested in the democratic process that they vote more than once.
Look, when only 20% or so of actual resident citizens participate in an election, you've gotta get those vote numbers up somehow.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 16, 2006 10:14 AMMail ballots give those who KCE erroneously sends 2 ballots to a chance to vote twice. Many have done exactly that.
The forged Birnbaum ballot mentioned in your previous post was an example.
So Voila--there you have it: Increased participation!
Hey if it walks like a duck and votes like a duck...it must be an Oregon voter.
Posted by: Smokie on May 16, 2006 02:32 PMThere's something terribly convenient about being able to vote on my schedule, not the polls' schedule - not having to stand in line - being able to sit at home with my ballot, a cup of coffee, several newspapers and the internet while I research the issues, the candidates and make my choices.
For me, personally, voting by mail is a clear winner.
Posted by: browse on May 16, 2006 04:27 PMYou fail to note that the "lower" turnout noted in that article in Oregon is compared with Oregon's normally very high participation rates during primaries and other off-year and local elections. Even so, turnout in this year's Oregon primaries will be among the highest in the nation.
As to people voting others' ballots, in Oregon, every signature (on the outside envelope in which ballots are returned) is checked against the sig on your registration card... something that is impossible to do in a polling place election. And even if It becomes possible to check polling book sigs later, there's no way to disqualify the fraudulent ballot at that point once you leave the booth.
Is it possible that a very few "wrong" sigs get through this system? Yes. However signing someone else's ballot is a class C felony, and is by its nature a one-vote at a time - and thus very very inefficient and risky - way of trying to influence an election. This as opposed to hacking - or even simple error - affecting a single voting machine which can change hundreds or thousands of votes.
Polling place elections are also easily subject to ugly manifestations of voter suppression - often prepetrated in poorer and less-white districts. Things such as armies of "volunteers" showing up to challenge as many voters as possible, slowing the process and lengthening waits for working folks trying to vote, and making the process a demeaning and unpleasant experience. Or else mysterious "shortages" of voting machines in certain (again, often poor and minority) districts. See Ohio, '04 for a lovely example of that.
It is naive and unrealistic to compare VBM to a mythical "perfect system" which doesn't exist. Also, the fact is that voters overwhelmingly prefer VBM. In Oregon and Washington, voters who were allowed to register as permanent no-excuse absentee voters did so in droves. It was only when large majorities of voters in those states had already chosen this method that the polling place - with its attendant costs and issues - was abandoned. In California, which recently began allowing permanent no-excuse absentee registration, it is likely that nearly 50% of all ballots cast this November will be mail-in ballots.
The fact is that for working families, for families with children who have trouble finding child care, for folks who travel long distances to and from work, for average people who would like to take a bit more time, ballot in hand, to research lower-ticket races... for all of those people, Vote By Mail makes it more likely that they will vote, and vote thoughtfully. AND THEY PREFER IT OVERWHELMINGLY. A 2003 study found that 80.9% of voters preferred VBM five years after the state made the switch. (Southwell, U. of Oregon.)
Finally, it is no coincidence that the folks who run elections - county clerks and their equivalent - of all political persuasions - who have experience with both systems overwhelmingly prefer to run elections by mail, claiming better and more efficient administration and more reliable security. In Oregon, the counting process is open to the public and all re-counts are conducted by hand. Also, anyone can check with their county or Secretary of State after an election to find out if their ballot was received. Are we saying that virtually ALL county clerks AND election officials AND Secretaries of State (Oregon's is a Dem, Sam Reed of WA is a Republican) are in on some massive and intricately complex common conspiracy?
Will VBM turn non-voters into voters? No. High levels of disengagement are not borne of this or that modality for casting a ballot and will not be solved by making that modality more convenient. But it certainly does make it more likely that sporadic voters will vote somewhat more often, and it is a secure, transparent, convenient and popular way to run an election.
Posted by: publius on May 17, 2006 09:57 AMYou are full of crap and lies.
You have no basis upon which to claim that "turnout in this year's Oregon primaries will be among the highest in the nation." Saying it don't make it so.
You have no basis upon which to claim that "Every signature (on the outside envelope in which ballots are returned) is checked against the sig on your registration card." Even if you did, you don't know by who when or where. This means nothing re potential fraud.
"signing someone else's ballot is a class C felony[?]" Wow, that'll slow em down.
Some problems with voter suppression have existed, not in Oregon, and they are very limited and very rare. There is no evidence that such "voter suppression," has existed to any meaningful extent. At a polling place no one knows how you will vote unless you are stupid enough to tell them. This is bogus bull$hit.
"ugly manifestations of voter suppression," will be far far easier to create on a quieter and broader scale when the process is diffused into neighborhoods where no deterrent effect of public scrutiny whatsoever exists. Voting by mail is an open invitation to voter suppression of the most insidious kind. You are full of nonsense.
You say that "It is naive and unrealistic to compare VBM to a mythical "perfect system" which doesn't exist." It is far more naive to buy the claim that because no "perfect system" can exist, a bad substitute for one is better than a middling one. Voting by mail is a bad idea. Polling places are better.
What 2003 study? 80.9% of what block of voters? Making voting easier for people is not a reasonable substitute for making voting reliable and less prone to fraud. Further, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT MAKING VOTING EASIER INCREASES TURNOUTS. Either way, I would far rather that people who are not serious enough about their elective franchise to make the effort to vote, don't vote. If you care more about Democracy than expediancy, you will not argue with this.
You say, "folks who run elections - county clerks and their equivalent - of all political persuasions - who have experience with both systems overwhelmingly prefer to run elections by mail." THIS IS A LIE. and you cannot back it up with any substantive evidence. If you cannot tell the truth, don't expect your claims to be believed.
"Will VBM turn non-voters into voters? No. . . . [B]ut it certainly does make it more likely that sporadic voters will vote somewhat more often"
WHY? . . . BECAUSE YOU SAY SO?
Publius, you are just as full of crap as you were the last time we talked.
Get over your lies or be embarrassed.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 17, 2006 10:01 PMFact based on what?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 17, 2006 11:00 PMWow, what a perfect opportunity to give proof and cites for everthing I wrote above.
Thanks, man.
So here - in no particular order - really in whichever order I find the cites - hope this doesn't confuse you. Here goes:
1. Every signature on the outside envelope of every ballot cast in Oregon is checked by a county worker who has had training from a handwriting expert. Questionable sigs are not tossed, they are re-checked and then the voter is personally contacted. Here's the link to the Oregon VBM procedures.
VBM Procedures
Also, the sig-checking, IS OPEN TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO OBSERVE - and people do. This is true of every other aspect of the administration of the election as well. Call any county elections' office in the state and ask.
2. The 2003 study, by Priscilla Southwell, of the University of Oregon, "Five years later - a re-assessment of Oregon's VBM electoral process" can be found here
Sorry if you don't trust the Oregon SoS web site's version of the study, perhaps you think they changed it before posting. I'm sure it's on the U of O system somewhere.)
80.9% of a randomly selected survey of over 1,000 Oregonians preferred VBM. Have fun reading the cross-tabs.
3. According to the SacBee, California's County Clerks have called for all-mail voting.
Also, the Oregon County Clerk's association are huge supporters, and the WA county clerks as well. Call them if you still think I'm lying.
4. Here are turnout numbers for the primaries this year prior to this week. I think oregon was at 38% in theirs. Check out that great state of Texas.
Nebraska: 35%
Illinois: 25%
Ohio: 24%
Indiana: 22%
North Carolina: 13%
Texas: 9.4%
5. As to vote suppression, too many stories to cite. Ohio '04 got lots of attention, but large numbers of "volunteers" challenging voters' eligibility in minority neighborhoods all over the country. Old or inoperable machines in poor neighborhoods. Go read the papers. It's hard to make voting intimidating or inconvenient for folks when they're doing it in the privacy and security of their own home, on their own time.
6. As to turning occasional voters into more regular voters - that was the conclusion of the 2005 Carter-Baker commission study. Also on the Oregon SoS site (link above) but you can find it all over the net. Try Googling James Baker and Jimmy Carter and election reform.
7. As to the Class C Felonly for forging a sig... well, let's just say that to influence so much as a state house race in this way, you'd have to rack up several hundred class c felonies. And given the chances of getting that many forged sigs through the system, and the fact that every voter you signed for is easily trackable (so we can ask them whether the vote they sent was really theres) you'd have to really, really like your state legislator to risk decades of jail time. But hey, that's just me.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear all of this up in a reasoned discussion about facts.
Posted by: publius on May 18, 2006 01:59 PMYou are entirely welcome, and I thank you for the cogent (though unpersuasive) response.
1. You are not really naive enough to actually believe that humans can accurately cross-check the signatures of several million voters in each election contest? It simply doesn't work that way. Be serious about this and consider the realities involved. I worked at King County Elections during the last two recounts, and the counting staff numbering more than seventy strong was lucky to sort less than a million ballots in just over a week. If they had been required to compare signatures, it would have been pro-forma at best. Subjective factors alone make accurate verification a practical impossibility -- even given a wide a statistical deviation for error.
This is a catchy thing for you to say, but it is false, and it most importantly – it means nothing about the potential wide scale fraud involved.
2. I’m sure Southwell made a good presentation with her study, and thanks for the link, but when I try to load it, it freezes my system. The details of this study really don’t matter anyway because the important points of dispute cannot be fairly answered by a study. There are two main points of contention. Does a popular preference for VBM exist, and if so, does that mean it is a good idea?
I accept the statement arguendo that “80.9% of a randomly selected survey of over 1,000 Oregonians preferred VBM.” While the figures represented here came from a source that has a vested interest in the outcome, the numbers may or may not be accurate. The important thing is, is VBM a good idea for our society. If I were to conduct a poll asking if we should divide all of the money in the U.S. Treasury according to population, and distribute it to the American people at large, I bet that it would easily top 80.9% of a randomly selected survey of over 1,000 Oregonians. That makes neither VBA nor economic insanity reasonable or acceptable, and the numbers of those same polled people would decrease dramatically if they carefully considered the true consequences of either or both ideas.
Making voting easier for people is no positive substitution for making voting reliable and less prone to fraud. In fact, voting by mail will be less reliable and more prone to fraud. Anyone who truly cares about procedural democracy would far rather that people who are not serious enough about their elective franchise to make the effort to vote, don't vote. I repeat, if you care more about popular expediency than democracy, favor Voting by Mail.
3. Your assertion that "liberals like it" is hardly proof that VBA is a good idea.
You say that ”According to the SacBee, California's County Clerks have called for all-mail voting. The title to this article is misleading, California's County Clerks have not called for all-mail voting, ”the Alameda County Board of Supervisors last week opted to pursue state legislation to conduct its entire June election by mail,” there’s a difference. This is silly, and it doesn’t even begin to establish your statement that "folks who run elections - county clerks and their equivalent - of all political persuasions - who have experience with both systems overwhelmingly prefer to run elections by mail." Far from it. Besides, California has become famous for doing things that are bad for California – what’s your point? Washington State liberals love to opine that “if it didn’t work in California – bring it here.”
4. "As of 7 p.m. Tuesday, the Oregon Secretary of State's office reported that 32 percent of Oregon ballots had been returned. The lowest historical turnout was 34.9 percent in 1998 and 38 percent in 1994 and 1996." I’m not sure what that means but it doesn’t sound too good. It certainly doesn’t support your point about turn out. No real correlation between voter turn out and VBM can be made, but if it could, it wouldn't matter. Bad ideas don't improve with greater numbers.
5. As to vote suppression, you say ”too many stories to cite.” Stories are stories, and lots of stories don’t prove a point especially if you simply say they exist, but vote suppression at polling places in the last two elections was not a large problem. Old or inoperable machines in poor neighborhoods can be replaced. Further, evidence shows that the sheer number of incidents of intimidation will increase exponentially with VBM.
You say, ”It's hard to make voting intimidating or inconvenient for folks when they're doing it in the privacy and security of their own home, on their own time. And yet, domestic situations have the most prevalent incidence of violence, dispute, and intimidation in our society.
Every police department in America knows that domestic violence calls are among the most dangerous calls they make. In fact, domestic violence calls are one of the biggest cop-killers in the nation!” I don’t pretend that this article proves that voters will be intimidated everywhere, but it is a clear indicator that more voter intimidation will occur with VBM. The easiest possible and most effective way to make voting intimidating or inconvenient for folks is to force it into the privacy of their own homes, on their own time.
6. While an opinion by Jimmy Carter that VBM may increase voter participation constitutes a “conclusion” for you, it is still just the opinion of a liberal democrat with a vested interest. There is more substantial evidence available to establish the position that mail voting does not increase participation.
7. As to the Class C Felony for forging a sig: You ignore the fact that Class C Felony offenses have been widely perpetrated recently in Washington State, and only very rarely have they been enforced for political reasons. Imposition of a Class C Felony was no deterrence to thousands of voters in the last two elections, why would it become one now? This is a joke, and you are being very naive.
Voting by mail is a bad idea, prone to fraud and abuse, vulnerable to numerous aspects of intimidation and misconduct, easily manipulated statistically, that will erode voter confidence and radically cheapen the elective system into one even more rife with liberal corruption.
Nice try but your arguments are not persuasive. The fact that they are popular no doubt provides you with comfort, but it is a badly misplaced confidence based on prejudice absent common sense and facts.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 20, 2006 03:44 PMPublius made an exhaustive case for it, but his case failed like all liberal cases because it was based on
presumptions, baseless statements of false facts, and mere opinions.
Voting by Mail will create an atmosphere where fraud will continue to rule our collective elective franchise.
Liberals will pretend that it will increase voter turn out under the idiotic pretense that the number of ballots filled out
somehow establishes the system's merit. Forget the fact that more than ever, the system won't count votes but ballots.
Popularity rules -- popular democracy in derogation of the rule of law will break our system.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 23, 2006 01:43 PM