Vote-by-mail works!

Vote by mail is good? (0.00 / 0)

I would challenge that idea... Simply having the mail ballots sent in with a check mark does NOT equal a better election for a plethera of reasons -

1) Who's to say that the person the ballot is addressed to actually checked those boxes
2) If you haven't bothered to actually learn anything about the candidates, it becomes real easy to just check a box (maybe you sort of recognise a name...). Mail in ballots make this situation a LOT easier. If you are going to trouble yourself to go to the voting booth, you usually have at least taken the time to learn a little.
3) At the polling place, the only person who touches your ballot is YOU until the ballot box is opened. The same cannot be said of a mail in ballot.

I could go on but these are enough to start.

Don't get me wrong, I do see some of the advantages to mail in ballots - especially for the home bound and elderly. What I also see is that the idea of mail in ballots will change our governmental system - subtly and not necessarily in the right direction

The idea of "the great experiment" is predicated on citizen (voter) involvement. By using mail in ballots, you reduce the amount of actual involvement necessary and promote the already existing apathy. Further, the mail in ballot system  - by it's very nature - is more susceptable to inaccuracy.

One last comment - how is Missoula dealing with same day registration and a mail in ballot? Here, same day registration was not allowed....

---

by: moorcat @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 16:44:23 PM UTC

State law requires that same day registration be allowed (0.00 / 0)

So that's a no-no.

In Missoula, they're actually eager that the two will work together smoothly. No polling places on Election Day means the bulk of the county clerk's staff can focus on making sure same day registrants are handled smoothly.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 16:54:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're repeating the myths! (0.00 / 0)

The Washington Post ran a report on Oregon's use of vote by mail for the presidential elections. Turnout was high, episodes of fraud low. And, best yet, the ballot sitting on the kitchen table provided incentive for folks to educate themselves on the candidates:

Vote-by-mail is voter-friendly, and high turnout in every vote-by-mail election shows that voters like the convenience. Oregonians receive ballots in the mail two weeks before Election Day, allowing ample time to research issues, review and mark the ballot, and eliminating the need to stand in long lines waiting for a polling booth.

Higher turnout, more interest in elections, little or no evidence of voter fraud: those are the realities, Moorcat. Don't buy the rightwing hype on fraud; it's just a way to keep folks from voting.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 04:50:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay, sir... (0.00 / 0)

You have all the bases covered here: "Higher turnout, more interest in elections, little or no evidence of voter fraud: those are the realities." Who is afraid of higher turnout? (Is that the title of an Edward Albee play? Oh, but you are being absurd, Bob!)

---

by: Bob @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:04:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who is afraid of higher turnout? (0.00 / 0)

I think, dear Sir Bob, if you have read this blog, you know who likes to trim down voter participation.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:04:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mail in (0.00 / 0)

Hell they don't count absentee ballots, so why would you ever believe that they'd count mail-in ones?  Unless of course they were from illegals, terrorists, felons, dead, you get the picture.

---

by: beherdb4 @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 01:14:35 AM UTC

usually... (0.00 / 0)

I treat commenters here with some respect. For you, I'll make an exception: you are an idiot.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 04:51:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]