County Clerks Want All-Mail Elections in '08

All systems have problems

And as an old fart (age 52) I wish we all still voted on election day - the kids at the elementary school loved giving directions in the hallway and we could all stand in line together bitching about how slow it was going.

But times change. And all approaches have advantages & disadvantages. Yes there is room for fraud and influencing another's vote with mail in ballots.

But the present system has the problems of your vote being counted wrong and a lower turnout.

So I don't tlike it but my preference is all mail-in.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 14:31:38 PM CST

Not a big problem for Coffman

Only a liberal blogger would say Coffman's credibility is shot. The real culprits are the voting machine companies and the lobbyists who betrayed Coffman.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 18:03:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If his credibility isn't shot...

...it's a serious flesh wound.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 20:33:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

another laughable comment

You kiss two asses very hard on this blog - Tancredo's and Coffman's. Which is fine but any comment you make about either should be taken with a pound of salt.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 22:18:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Check out this previous thread

Phoenix Rising, Dan Willis and I had a pretty interesting discussion about electronic voting machines in this thread:

http://coloradopols.com/showDi...

I also posted some links to more info.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 21:17:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Search ColPols for "electronic"

To see previous discussions.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 21:17:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Search web for 'mail ballot fraud'; the case against mail ballots

An Ohio State scholar blogs on Election Law @ Moritz

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/elect...

Lede graphs in a Feb. 2007 post:

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner recently recommended that Ohio should begin experimenting with "all vote by mail" (AVBM) elections, in which the traditional polling place is replaced by what is essentially mandatory absentee voting for everyone. However, rather than moving to AVBM for all elections, Secretary Brunner proposes we use the system only for those elections in which there are no candidates, just ballot issues. In other words, where officials in many other states are considering an immediate transition to full AVBM, the Secretary proposes to study the issue and get some practical experience with it before making any big moves. Our legislature should support her proposal.

It should support it because there are a lot of issues with AVBM that need to be worked out before a full AVBM program could be responsibly implemented in Ohio. Specifically, while AVBM is relatively new and therefore difficult to judge, there is some reason to think it exposes ballots to a greater risk of fraud than traditional in-precinct or "hybrid" absentee/in-precinct voting systems. While this should not preclude experimentation, it weighs heavily against widespread use until we learn more about how it works. In the meantime, here is what Ohio might encounter if experimentation goes forward.

The main issue with AVBM is that it requires that all ballots be cast outside the polling place, whereas last November only about fifteen percent of Ohio ballots were cast in this way. The increase presents additional risks because, historically, ballots cast outside the polling place have proven to be convenient vehicles of fraud. Outside the scrutiny of the polling place, voters may be subject to unwanted influence from overzealous campaign workers or party officials. They may also be subject to types of influence that, sadly, are not necessarily unwanted, such as offers to buy votes. Mail ballots are also more likely to lead to multiple voting if corrupt players find ways to get their hands on extra ballots. Finally, mail ballots are sometimes intercepted and tampered with after casting. In one scheme, a friendly worker offers to "save the voter a stamp" by delivering the completed ballot on his or her behalf. Of course, no one can say whether the ballot arrives in its original condition, or at all. Also, AVBM systems might allow a postal worker or other insider to target and destroy ballots returned from a particular neighborhood he or she seeks to disenfranchise. In fact, according to a report by Paul Gronke, a prominent political scientist, Oregon officials would have "no way of knowing" whether ballots were intercepted and destroyed in this way (see page 4).

While our current no fault absentee voting system also presents these risks, it at least limits the number of mail ballots in proportion to the number of voters who want to vote absentee. In contrast, an AVBM system forces everyone to cast a mail ballot whether they want to or not. The result is that, if fraud is ever accomplished, it is likely to be more widespread under an AVBM system.

Despite these concerns, some legislators claim that all-mail elections will actually help reduce the risk of fraud. However, at least some of these statements seem to be referring to the risk of fraud accomplished by hacking DRE voting machines. While DRE hacking may be a potential issue, the number of people capable of understanding how it works seems fairly limited. In contrast, mail ballot fraud seems much more straightforward and likely to occur.

According to Gronke's report, Oregon claims its system is more fraud-proof than other systems because of the rigor with which its officials verify signatures submitted on AVBM ballots against those contained on registration applications. Because AVBM spreads election activity over the entire ballot-submission period rather than trying to cram it all into one climactic day, the argument goes, administrators actually have the time to sit down and make sure the signatures match. Furthermore, they are required to have some training in signature verification, increasing the likelihood of preventing fraud. If all of this is true, then Oregon probably does have a better chance of catching forgeries than some other states, but that still does nothing to prevent those types of fraud that do not involve forgery. Furthermore, given the mind-numbing process that signature comparison must be, it is likely that some forgeries could slip through the cracks despite workers' best efforts to focus their attention.

Then why would anybody want to move to an AVBM system? Part of the original justification was that it would increase voter turnout, but for whatever reason that hasn't happened in Oregon (see page 2 of Gronke's report). However, that doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't increase turnout here in Ohio, which has different demographics. Of course, those very same demographics may expose new AVBM problems that Oregon hasn't experienced. The Secretary's incremental plan will help us get to the bottom of these interstate variations.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 21:28:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Quite a few "may be" in there....

And, "Oregon probably does have a better chance at catching forgeries."

As I said elsewhere on this thread, lot's of conjecture. As I also said, I'm very willing to learn more about failures of the Oregon system, but enough already with the "may be's."  It seems that the anti-mail ballot folks are also trying to compare the mail ballot to some hypothetical perfect system, which of course, does not exist.

And not to forget, this is Ohio talking about fraud or irregularities?  I guess they should know.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:21:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A bit more, if I may....

From the Wiki story on mail ballots:

"Washington State - Currently, thirty-four out of the state's thirty-nine counties are entirely vote-by-mail. In addition, King County, the state's largest, is currently transitioning to vote-by-mail and Snohomish County, the state's third-largest, made the switch in May 2006. In the remaining four counties that still use polling places, more than half of the voters are already registered as permanent absentee voters. One of these remaining counties (Pierce, the state's second-largest) rejected a move to vote-by-mail because of the increased cost."

I would also like to point out the alleged issue of nursing homes and fraud.  So, how were these folks going to vote otherwise?  In person with their IV's and roller beds at the polling place?  I don't think so.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:32:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Can you point to a single actual occurance?

Sure all those things can happen. But bring up one specific case.

As to the old way, LBJ won the Senate stuffing the ballot boxes at the county level. There are numerous other proven cases of fraud using the walk in on voting day approach.

From what I have seen, mail in votes reduces fraud.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 14:14:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It happened in Costilla County

About 20 years ago, the Costilla County sheriff was conviced of absentee voter fraud.  The tipoff was when they had 118% voter turnout in one election.

---

by: TomS @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 20:29:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But when we got similar incidences in 2000,

it was shrugged off.

I would like to think, too, that twenty years later we can design a system almost from scratch to minimize fraud.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 23:07:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Funny you should mention Ohio

Just within the past week, the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland and immediate surrounding suburbs) Board of Elections voted, under pressure from the Ohio Secretary of State, to scrap the election system Coffman ruled as acceptable in Colorado, yet unacceptable in Ohio and replace it with the same system used in Boulder County, which I beleve Coffman just ruled unacceptable.  Go figure.  By the way, Cuyahoga County is the same size as Adams County, Arapahoe County, and Denver County combined.

---

by: TomS @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 20:36:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it too early to change the CD-6 line?

I prefer Coffman over the others, but I can't help but think that his clumsy handling of the obvious conflict of interest here will hurt him.

I'd at least point the arrow down or leave it neutral, and maybe change Coffman to 3-1 along with Harvey.

But hey, it's still early! (Except for presidential politics.)

---

by: Half Glass Full @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 15:19:57 PM CST

Coffman

...But Coffman said he believes that an all mail-in election could result in votes being coerced: "It would be great that the person makes a decision on their own about how they cast their ballot. Do they want to cast in the privacy of a voting booth or do they want to cast it at a dining room table with their spouse looking over their shoulder?"

If this logic held any water at all, then absentee voting should be outlawed.  Give me a break.

---

by: The realist @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 16:53:34 PM CST

Mail ballots promote fraud

In Chicago, precinct leaders are notorious for having nursing home and assisted living residents as well as other vote absentee by mail. Of course, the precinct leader is happy to help the voters.

So you can see non-English-speaking voters who aren't citizens being encouraged break the law to elect Dems.
That's what this fight against electronic is all about, preserving the right to promote corrupt voting at the precinct level.

This is not about promoting accurate voting, it's about preventing electronic voting, which would reduce fraud and errors to less than 1% of votes cast from the much larger potential for fraud in certain precincts.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 18:02:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Since when did Republican Secretaries of State care about fraud?

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 19:18:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ever since the fraud isn't their's....

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 20:37:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How does electronic voting address your concerns?

Absentee voting remains as an option...

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 20:11:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Give it a rest, AS

Oregon uses mail ballots for ALL elections.  No apparent massive fraud that you claim.

Just in case you aren't aware, one does not have to speak English to be a citizen, which is a requirement to vote.

If non-electronic voting is, in your estimation, prserving the right for corruption at the precinct level, what is electronic voting, then?  Corruption at the county level?  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 20:36:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It apparently hasn't happened

... doesn't cut it.

There is a well-documented problem with mail-in ballots, and it's exactly as I (and O'Malley) have noted.  A mail-in ballot is inherently insecure; it removes the privacy of the voting booth and opens the door for rampant coercion.

That is hasn't been detected or seen "in the wild" is about as good an excuse as the fact that the well-known Diebold issues haven't been seen "in the wild".  If we're talking voting integrity, neither are acceptable.

Absentee balloting was traditionally done only because some citizens absolutely couldn't get to the voting booth.  That's how it should remain.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 14:04:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

now, that's a sensible point

Note to certain debaters who are long on claims but short on any sort of supporting statements - if you're going to allege that something is wrong or bad, you can help your case by explaining how.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 16:26:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Things change.

Absentee ballots were little used, but now one does not need to be absent on voting day.

No reason to keep doing things jus' cuz we always did it.  

I'm certainly open to what problems Oregon has experienced, but I'm not open to conjecture.  And guess what?  There's your paper trail everyone is trying to create with precinct machines.  

K.I.S.S. (I know you aren't stupid, BTW.) Mail ballots do that.  No election judges, no lines, no precinct level error or fraud, focused (few) machines that can be observed and audited vs. many thousands.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 17:13:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I kept it simple

I provided a simple objective analysis of the weakness of the system.

The opposite truism to what you write is that you shouldn't fix it if it ain't broke.  A similar set of truisms are that you should only fix the parts that are broken and don't break anything that's working.

I have no objection to changing the way we vote; I've looked at eVoting, the new electronic machines available, different voting methods like IRV/Ranked Choice and Condorcet.  I am in favor of improving the system, however it may be done.

If we put the mail-in ballot process through the same review that our electronic equipment just underwent, it would fail miserably.  (Short of ensuring that all ballot drop-off points were in a private area under the control of the elections body, with an opportunity for a private report of attempted influence.)

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 17:36:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Something missing...

In my last post, that should read:

...it would fail miserably with no potential for remediation.  (Short of...)

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 17:39:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, I see

Since "non-English-speaking voters who aren't citizens" have never voted in an American election as you have previously asserted, they're going to do so now.

(Yes, that challenge to produce even one single scrap of evidence that this has ever happened still stands - not that you'll meet it and redeem yourself...)

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 22:20:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What are you smoking?

This fight against electronic voting is about the fact that the machines suck - no more, no less.

The County Clerks aren't somehow universally Democrats all of a sudden, nor is the Secretary of State in on it.

The rate of errors on voting machines is well over 1%; the newer machines prevent much of that (over- and under-voting) but they have their own problems which would allow massive and easily perpetrated fraud.

The only acceptable solution right now - provided the vendors can't repair the deficiencies in their equipment - is counting ballots by hand, or at least running optical ballots through the machines repeatedly and performing a thorough audit.  In the end, I think one of these is exactly what's going to happen.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 14:09:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In Missouri,

at least until several years ago, the precinct captain or stand-in at nursing homes was a common practice. It was also commonly exposed.
In very small counties the very presence of the elected county clerk, and his/her minions, in the room works the same way.
I'm in favor of AVBM and I think there are adequate steps that can be taken to minimize fraud potential. For instance, I would suggest a "sample", done by other than your own county clerk, to ensure that ballots are returned at some rational rate.

---

by: Gray in the mountains @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:17:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The most expensive pieces of paper in history?

Those little dangling chads, and the butterfly ballots in Florida.
What a mess. Yes, mail ballots invite fraud - and that can't be denied. Are the signatures on the ballot envelope checked. Nope.
Help America Vote Act (HAVA): Here, hava ballot; oh, here, hava nother.
Things simply weren't that corrupt before.
What's next?
(Holding up a purple finger.)

---

by: Taxosaurus @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:23:52 AM CST

What is with you cons?

No one checks signatures at a precinct polling place, either.  

Is the history of mail in/absentee ballots full of fraud?  Not at all.  In fact, I would say that there is far LESS opportunity to perpetrate fraud.  Like, first you have to get the ballot mailed to you, you know?  However, one could pick a name of a neighbor of the same gender and perhaps commit fraud, or at least get a provisional ballot.

You authoritarians have been fighing the wider franchise of citizens forever.  First it was non-property owners.  Then it was women. Then it was minorities.

Now you "discover" another reason to make sure that as many people that are entitled to vote, do so.  Did you know Oregon has a higher percentage of voter turnout?

And if you think HAVA was other than yet another cynically named and Republican created law to ihibit voting, you are a fool.  The handicapped have ALWAYS been able to vote.  Either at the kitchen table, or with assistance in the voting booth.  Much ado about nothing (except for mandating machines that rich Republicans happen to make.)

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:11:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Read the above

Fraud isn't just in obtaining extra ballots.  In the case of mail-in, it's about the opportunity to have, say, a corporate or church (or union, or commune) "voting session", or a mob/gang-influenced vote, or just a plain old spousal "discussion".

Mail-in ballots violate one of the core precepts of voting integrity and should only be used by those who truly need them.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 14:14:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Until such things raise their ugly faces...

...I'll stick with them being highly improbable.  As if spouses haven't been brow beaten for years into voting the way she's been told.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 17:08:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong approach

Voting methodology isn't a reactive kind of thing.  It's kind of like building on a 25-year flood plain - you know that sometime your house is going to get flooded, you're not getting insurance for it, and in all likelihood if the city council thought it through they wouldn't give you the permit to start the task - why do it?

I don't know why people have such dismissive and illogical reactions to this issue.  In the aftermath of 2000 we mandated the use of machines that weren't ready for prime-time.  Now we're de-certifying machines just before an election when a number of them have functional workarounds.  We get people who want to go back to hand-counting, people who want mail-in, and people who don't care and want to go ahead with unauditable, security-defective DREs.

No system is perfect, but only a well-thought-out system is good for our society.  Running off in one direction or the other doesn't help it.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 17:21:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wikipedia on the Oregon mail voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

A quick summary:

"Opponents claimed the system would invite election fraud as well as the possibility of people pressuring each other in terms of how they vote."  Hmmmmm......  Sounds familiar.

81% of a survey respondents favored keeping the current (mail) system.

30% say they vote more often.

No mention of fraud or allegations.  I do understand that this is Wikipedia.  Again, please show me where the mail ballot in Oregon has led to fraud.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:26:37 AM CST

We're not going to agree on this

I can see it already.

Vote-by-mail has a known (i.e. logically "provable") weakness.  I will not put my name behind support of replacing a system with known (but resolvable) weaknesses with a system that has another known (and less resolvable) weakness.  Argue for it all you want, but AFAIC, this nation doesn't need to go down that path a second time in the same decade.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 10:22:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We agree on most things,

so here's the exception.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 23:08:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]