Oregon’s secretary of state Bill Bradbury wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post which was reprinted in today’s Virginian-Pilot. Last year, a similar piece by the same author appeared. In both pieces, Bradbury extolls the virtues of voting by mail, which Oregon adopted in 1998. The results of this process cannot be denied.
Fraud-free voting
Oregon is one of only two states in the nation to verify every single voter signature against the signature on that voter’s registration card. Our process is transparent and open to observation. Finally, the returned paper ballots, which are the official record of the election, can be recounted by hand.
High voter turnout
With voting by mail, Oregon’s turnout is consistently among the highest of any state without same-day voter registration.
Up-to-date voter registration lists
Under Oregon law, mailed ballots are not forwarded if a voter has moved, and those returned ballots have allowed us to maintain one of the cleanest and most up-to-date registration lists in the country.
Cost-effective
Voting by mail is also a cost-effective way to run elections, costing taxpayers about 30 percent less than polling-place elections.
A lot of people think poll workers are a waste of resources. I disagree, mainly because so many people (the CNN exit poll pegged it at 6%) decide who to vote for on the day of the election. However, with voting by mail, there would be no need for poll workers and these resources could be used elsewhere.
At this point, I can’t see any downsides to voting by mail. So why haven’t all of the states adopted this? The only arguments I’ve seen in my admittedly brief research is that it is a change from the tradition of voting in polling places. That argument seems weak to me. Just because we’ve always done something a certain way doesn’t mean that is the best way to do it. We used to all do our taxes by hand, too, but almost no one does these days.
Voting by mail solves a lot of the problems with our current system while creating none. If integrity in the voting process is something that we all desire, if increased participation is something that we all desire, then adopting a vote by mail process just makes sense.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
As you know from a previous thread, I’m down with this. I know people love their polling places but tradition should not stand in the way of a better democracy.
The two arguments against this that I’ve consistently seen are:
1) it weakens the mechanisms of a secret ballot, and thus makes the voter more susceptible to outside influence (e.g., “Let me see your ballot before you mail it.”).
2) people vote before they have all of the information they can get, if they vote before election day.
Both strike me as fairly weak arguments, but the second is esp. self serving for the candidates. As I think has been discussed here before – how does a candidate decide to allocate “final push” resources, when she doesn’t know when the voters will be voting? What if it’s all spent at the beginning of the voting period, and then the other side throws up new attacks two weeks later, but still prior to election day? Etc. A tough problem for a campaign manager, to be sure, but I’m not sure that it would really be a public problem.
I honestly have only one objection to it. If you change your mind between mailing your ballot and Election Day, you’re stuck.
Campaigns ebb and flow, and things come up that change peoples minds before Election Day. Remember the Drake and Kellam polls? If people could’ve voted by mail before Kellam cancelled debates and lost the Pilot’s endorsement, the outcome might have been different, and people who voted early would be pretty mad.
That timing issue is the only thing that bothers me.
I strongly favor vote my mail also…and have been studying Oregon’s laws on this. I also like the idea of including instant run off elections show folks can vote for a third party….this will increase the growth of additional voices without endangering the voters to having settle for the worst candidate….
Now…does anyone have a plan for getting the vote by mail adopted in VA?
I have also been pondering Insider’s point of contention. One can always wait until “later” to vote if they are “unsure” and late events may sway their decision.
Buzz…Buzz….
Seems to me that waiting to vote would be prudent, like Mosquito said.
Vivian,
This is a terrible idea. I would suggest you read Sabato’s book “Dirty Little Secrets”. One of the chapters is about the rampant voter fraud in Oregon by political parties who send operatives door to door to sign people up to vote absenteee and then return to “assist” voters when the ballots come to the homes. The operatives have often told the voters they will be glad to take their ballots to the post office for them so they will get there with no delay and have hem taken them by the local campaign offices first.
Having someone come to people’s homes to assist is just an prescription for buying votes and voter intimidation.
Bad idea when one thinks about how different it is than someone having the privacy of the voting booth.
Go read the book and you won’t ever like this idea again
Tucker – I’ll take a look at the book. As I said, I quickly looked at the arguments surrounding it and while MB alludes to it in his comments, I did not see anything about that.
I have to admit that I wondered what flaws in the system I was missing. After all, if it is such a great idea, how come only two states have implemented it? Tradition alone cannot completely account for that.
“Fraud-free voting”. . .whatever. Mailed in ballots are more suspectible to multiple types of fraud than regular polling places. The only reason problems have not been nationally debated is because Oregon is not a swing state and there is not much attention given to any “voting problems.”
Let the next President be decided in a swing state that is voting by mail, and I guarantee problems will be found, real or imagined.
There is nothing wrong with exploring new alternatives. I just want all of the facts out in the open. I don’t think voting by mail is anywhere near the benefits that advocates say it is.
One other point, about the cost feature. States have been spending millions trying to have the best voting systems possible with the argument that money is no object when it comes to our elections. I doubt the lower cost will change people’s minds about any voting system, esp. if problems are found with it.
One last point, and I mean this sincerely, although it will sound partisan. Oregon is a bright blue paradise. Voting problems don’t seem to come up much in blue states because Republicans don’t make a big deal about them, like Democrats did in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I don’t know which is the other state that has adopted mail in voting, but I am sure there are a lot more problems than people realize.
Someone will cry that the post man is being intimated or that maybe a Republican Cliff Claven is intimidating voters… That is of course if a Democrat is losing. If a Democrat is winning then it works, right?
As for mosquito’s point, that is a load… People, such as you, tried to sway voters up to Election Day. Hell, a lot of people work the polls handing out papers to convince people to change their votes 2 minutes before they vote.
If you took working the polls away from some people, they would die. They live for it. It makes them feel special and a part of the process.
What if new info comes out about a candidate the day before mailed ballots are due. Unlike us bloggers, there are actually a lot of people who do not vote straight ticket and actually wait to hear EVERYTHING before deciding. I know it sounds crazy to some of you lemmings, but it is true 🙂
Squeak, Squeak
Intimated = intimidated
Man, I really do stink at spelling!
Forget the actual debate, look at your first line…
“wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post which was reprinted in today’s Virginian-Pilot”
The MSM whines about bloggers and their lack of originality…”Pot this is Kettle”.
I’ve never agreed with voting ahead of time (except for members of the military). Seems kind of wrong to me to vote before a campaign is even over. Anyway, I didn’t read the whole article, but do voters get any kind of “receipt” returned to them in the mail??? If so, paying for votes WILL be a problem.
Terry – neither article mentioned a receipt.
I still have concerns about the reliability of USPS. If tax bills and tax payments get lost in the mail regularly, why should I trust that my completed ballot would reach its destination?
I agree with Ingrid. I wouldn’t trust them with my tax info, and I wouldn’t trust voting by mail either.