2020 Elections

[Puget]

I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.

Each ballot goes by US mail to a registered voter, who has been vetted by the usual process. Registration is encouraged by programs like driver license registration, so people are encouraged to vote.

If a ballot is lost or damaged it can be replaced, and there are records of one voter - one ballot.

They are returned by US mail to a centralized place. No need to take time off, find one's polling place, worry about the registrar getting rid of all the polling places in your area, etc.

Pretty much impossible to cheat.

Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.

Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

[marshwiggle]

Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.

Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

The vector for fraud that seems most possible this way is someone basically stealing the vote from a neighbour or relative, such as someone with dementia. As far as I know, you couldn't accompany an elderly relative into a voting booth, but it seems you could vote "for them" this way and go completely undetected.

[Puget]

Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.

Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

The vector for fraud that seems most possible this way is someone basically stealing the vote from a neighbour or relative, such as someone with dementia. As far as I know, you couldn't accompany an elderly relative into a voting booth, but it seems you could vote "for them" this way and go completely undetected.

You can actually, at least in many states-- anyone is allowed to have someone help them vote if they need assistance. So for example someone with visual or motor impairments can ask a poll worker for help, but they can also elect to have a friend or relative help them. As long as coercion isn't suspected it is OK.

Also, I don't see how this would be more likely with mail-in ballots-- the voter still has to sign and have their signature matched to the voting roles. If they can't physically sign due to a disability there is a whole procedure for getting that documented and alternative forms of verification.

At any rate, voter fraud has been repeatedly demonstrated be a non-issue-- there are vanishingly few non-eligible voters attempting to vote, in fact almost no documented cases. The problem is too little participation, not too much.

[magnemite]

Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.

Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

The vector for fraud that seems most possible this way is someone basically stealing the vote from a neighbour or relative, such as someone with dementia. As far as I know, you couldn't accompany an elderly relative into a voting booth, but it seems you could vote "for them" this way and go completely undetected.

Yes, it is possible that anyone with access to the person's mail could fill out the ballot. There still needs to be a signature, and that will be manually checked, and this is a serious, bona-fide check (as I discovered when I was too hasty in scrawling my signature). You can also, but are not required to, supply an email or phone number for the county auditor to call/contact you if there is a question. Finally, you can look up your name on the county web site to verify that you have voted, which also indicates if your ballot was accepted or not. This way, if you send in your ballot a few days early, you can see if there has been an issue, and ask to have that looked at.

Vote by mail is certainly not perfect, but it is less expensive (no need to have voting devices all over, to have polling places and workers), can be more easily secured (the vote counting machines can be (and are, in Pokemon State) air-gapped (sorry, Russians!), have a paper ballot as record, and eliminate nearly all of the voting access/restriction shenanigans that nefarious political parties favor to discourage folks from voting. The way our state runs these, you get your ballot two-three weeks before the election, and all you need to do is either get it in the mail, or drop it in an official drop box, by the end of the election day.

Two downsides to point out. The most serious is you need a mailing address, and I would be very interested to know to what extent that requirement is, or is not, a barrier to voting. The other is a media/cultural issue- you do not often have the final result for a week or so after the election (if the vote is close), because the mail-related deadline is a post-mark on election day (not receipt of the ballot by election day). This is an important point for citizens serving overseas, college students who go to college out of state (and do not register there)- it is important to make sure their vote counts, so the election-day post-mark deadline is by far the fairest. But, every election, there is a bit of whining about not having the result NOW!. To which I say, chill.

So, vote by mail should be the thing, nationwide.

[spork]

[. . .]

I predict Biden's campaign will continue its downward spiral and that he will get crushed in South Carolina if his campaign lasts that long.

I am going to continue with this prediction.

[mamselle]

Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

[writingprof]

Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

No. She thinks that Democrats who don't wish to dismember babies might have a place in the party.

[magnemite]

Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

Yes!

Biden looks to continue the downward spiral, and I think Bernie is not ideal for several reasons (and being 78 is one of them). Not sure we're ready to believe Mayor Pete is really ready, so that means Elizabeth, or Amy, and I'm going to start rooting for Amy.

[Parasaurolophus]

Klobuchar is at least honest about not wanting people to have things like health care. I can accept her as the "moderate" candidate in a way that I could never accept Biden or Buttigieg, although I also think it would be a pretty disastrous nomination (because I think a win would be extremely difficult for her, but also because I think she'd effectively squander a win and set big, structural changes back another decade or more).

The real question for Klobuchar is whether she can start picking up donors and volunteers in NV and SC, while it looks like she has momentum. I'm not sure about that, but we'll see.

My guess is that Bloomberg chokes out whatever's left of the moderate field on Super Tuesday. Although why everybody seems to want to keep playing moderate-candidate-roulette is beyond me. Frankly, I'd vastly prefer Klobuchar and her nobody-gets-anything-nice policies to him, his vicious policies, and his anti-democratic attempts to buy the nomination.

[Anselm]

Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

I told friends of mine last summer that she was the dark horse to watch out for.  She is the one saying that she can't promise everyone the Moon.  Whether or not she is correct, that makes her more likable to the wealthy party donors.

[writingprof]

The Mayor Pete Platitude Generator . . .

http://www.mayopete.io/

. . . my god. 

"The shape of our Federal income tax is the Medicare for all who want it that affects every other Medicare for all who want it."

Et cetera. Forever. I could play all day.

[secundem_artem]

Walking to my car this afternoon, a full-sized pickup truck drove by.  It was flying 2 huge MAGA/Trump 2020 banners and the occupants were yelling pro-Trumpy things out the window.

Somebody upthread (I think it was this thread) noted that an acquaintance on the Democratic side was a confirmed Bernie Bro-ette and claimed she could never vote for "Killary" or whatever pejorative she used to describe Mayor Pete.

Lord help us all.  The idiots in both parties have captured the democratic process and anybody who is willing to at least consider that the other side is not made up entirely of homicidal lunatics bent on destroying the country has become the enemy.

[mamselle]

It was a lot like that in the 60s-70s, though, too.

Some of my sang-froid comes from the actual "been there, seen that" experiences, I guess.

It's interesting being on the other side this time around.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Lord help us all.  The idiots in both parties have captured the democratic process and anybody who is willing to at least consider that the other side is not made up entirely of homicidal lunatics bent on destroying the country has become the enemy.

Preach it! And the consequence of that is that any moderate, rational policy ideas that actually resonate with a lot of mainstream voters will get shot down in flames by the zealots on both ends. (And in the media pandering to each side as well.)


Interesting side note from a CBC article:

A Gallup poll released Tuesday shows that of a range of possible presidential characteristics — race, religion, age — only socialism is a turn-off for a majority of Americans. Just 45 per cent say they could support a socialist for president. Even atheists do better at 60 per cent.

(emphasis added)

[Parasaurolophus]

Trump won 2016 with 46% of the vote; Clinton had 48%. 45% can absolutely carry you over the finish line, especially when your party is whipping up support and drumming out turnout. Hell, you're Canadian: 30-33% is all it takes here!

Besides which, I'm not sure how much we should read into poll anyway. It's asking an abstract question, rather than the concrete question you're using it to inform. And the question it's asking is about supporting someone who's your party's nominee and ticks the relevant box, so there's no surprise that Republicans wouldn't want a socialist nominee (17%); Democrats, by contrast, are pretty OK with it (76%). Independents are pretty evenly split (45%). Here's the thing, though: while we know Americans don't trust the 'socialist' label, we also know they overwhelmingly favour socialist policies when they're presented to them independently.