So much for 'Vote by Mail'
Dr H
I stood in line for more than an hour to access my polling place; in
Portland, lines stretched for more than three blocks from elections'
offices; an estimated 40-60% of voters didn't turn in their ballots
until the Monday and Tuesday of election week.
This is an improvement?
Mail-in ballots:
- deprive you of the right to vote on Election Day, since the ballot
must be mailed well in advance of Election Day
- deprive you of the right to a secret ballot, since your signature
must appear of the ballot envelope
- deprive you of the right to cast you ballot in a supervised setting,
free from harassment
But OK, assume that, for better or worse, everyone in Oregon is for all
practical purposes from now on going to be considered an "absentee
voter." In this case, why are we still using these ridiculous
punch-card ballots which were designed to be used in a voting booth?
It has long been illegal to require literacy as a prerequisite for
voting; what of the innumerate? What does someone who has difficulty
with numbers make of "on page 18 of the ballot, to vote yes for
Measure 93, punch #116 on the ballot"?
Why not go back to the original absentee ballot format which consisted
of a large sheet of paper, with each office, party, and candidate
clearly identified, and with a large box for "X-ing" next to your
choice?
I still vote, but frankly, as I see more and more steps taken to
disenfranchise more and more citizens from the voting process, it
seems more and more to be a waste of my time.
Dr H
Dan Robinson
On 2000-11-28 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
>I stood in line for more than an hour to access my polling place; in
>Portland, lines stretched for more than three blocks from elections'
>offices; an estimated 40-60% of voters didn't turn in their ballots
>until the Monday and Tuesday of election week.
>This is an improvement?
Funny, a friend waited till about an hour before closing (then
sold out and voted for Gore) and had virtually no waiting.
>Mail-in ballots:
>- deprive you of the right to vote on Election Day, since the ballot
>must be mailed well in advance of Election Day
Obviously not so.
>- deprive you of the right to a secret ballot, since your signature
>must appear of the ballot envelope
I doubt that. We sign the outer envelope, and my understanding is
it's opened and the anonymous inner envelope with the ballot is
passed on to be opened later.
>- deprive you of the right to cast you ballot in a supervised
>setting, free from harassment
Why? You punch your ballot at home, and we can't help you if
there's harassment there. You mail your ballot, or take it to an
election office or drop box. If there's harassment there,
especially if it's worse than in a conventional polling place,
you really should report it to someone more official than us.
>But OK, assume that, for better or worse, everyone in Oregon is for
>all practical purposes from now on going to be considered an
>"absentee voter." In this case, why are we still using these
>ridiculous punch-card ballots which were designed to be used in a
>voting booth?
>It has long been illegal to require literacy as a prerequisite for
>voting; what of the innumerate? What does someone who has
>difficulty with numbers make of "on page 18 of the ballot, to vote
>yes for Measure 93, punch #116 on the ballot"?
Here maybe we could agree. I think we could make the ballot card
a little bigger and put names or initials, and Measure #s on the
card itself.
But there will always be those for whom, for various other
reasons voting would be more effort than it's worth for all
concerned. There has to be some point at which we assume that
they're proportionately represented by those who can.
>Why not go back to the original absentee ballot format which
>consisted of a large sheet of paper, with each office, party, and
>candidate clearly identified, and with a large box for "X-ing" next
>to your choice?
That might mean going back to all hand counting. I doubt it's
worth it. Instead, maybe we could have ballots that used a
standard paper punch, or a cheaper substitute, that wouldn't
leave chad.
>I still vote, but frankly, as I see more and more steps taken to
>disenfranchise more and more citizens from the voting process, it
>seems more and more to be a waste of my time.
As long as you aren't among those disenfranchised, that would
seem to mean your vote has more power, and of course we know
you'll vote "correctly".
But the next question, which I hope we'll have to answer soon, is
what will a proportional representation ballot look like? I hope
we have the option of computer voting before that.
Dan Robinson dan...@efn.org
Eugene OR 97401 www.efn.org/~danrob/
A true believer can be sure without any pertinent facts.
A true scientist can't be sure, even with all the facts,
Because he can't be sure he has all the facts.
John E. English
nurses vote their ballots, etc.
josiah
Dr H
On 29 Nov 2000, Dan Robinson wrote:
}
}On 2000-11-28 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
} >I stood in line for more than an hour to access my polling place; in
} >Portland, lines stretched for more than three blocks from elections'
} >offices; an estimated 40-60% of voters didn't turn in their ballots
} >until the Monday and Tuesday of election week.
} >This is an improvement?
}
}Funny, a friend waited till about an hour before closing (then
}sold out and voted for Gore) and had virtually no waiting.
Heh, maybe I should have waited until closing, then. Unfortunately,
Ihad to work.
} >Mail-in ballots:
}
} >- deprive you of the right to vote on Election Day, since the ballot
} >must be mailed well in advance of Election Day
}
}Obviously not so.
Obviously so, if you want to *mail* it. If I don't get to *mail* it
on election day, then I should be provided with a polling place in
my district where I can cast my vote in person.
BTW, how do the homeless vote by mail?
} >- deprive you of the right to a secret ballot, since your signature
} >must appear of the ballot envelope
}
}I doubt that. We sign the outer envelope, and my understanding is
}it's opened and the anonymous inner envelope with the ballot is
}passed on to be opened later.
Is your understanding correct? I am not confident that someone
removing a ballot from an envelope with my name on it can't connect
that ballot with me if they want to.
} >- deprive you of the right to cast you ballot in a supervised
} >setting, free from harassment
}
}Why? You punch your ballot at home, and we can't help you if
}there's harassment there.
You can by providing a supervised public polling place.
}You mail your ballot, or take it to an
}election office or drop box. If there's harassment there,
}especially if it's worse than in a conventional polling place,
}you really should report it to someone more official than us.
Irrelevent. The cote has already been cast at that point.
} >But OK, assume that, for better or worse, everyone in Oregon is for
} >all practical purposes from now on going to be considered an
} >"absentee voter." In this case, why are we still using these
} >ridiculous punch-card ballots which were designed to be used in a
} >voting booth?
}
} >It has long been illegal to require literacy as a prerequisite for
} >voting; what of the innumerate? What does someone who has
} >difficulty with numbers make of "on page 18 of the ballot, to vote
} >yes for Measure 93, punch #116 on the ballot"?
}
}Here maybe we could agree. I think we could make the ballot card
}a little bigger and put names or initials, and Measure #s on the
}card itself.
I could support that, as a first step.
}But there will always be those for whom, for various other
}reasons voting would be more effort than it's worth for all
}concerned. There has to be some point at which we assume that
}they're proportionately represented by those who can.
At public polling places, assistance was available for those who
had trouble understanding the ballot -- there is no equivalent for
those voting at home.
} >Why not go back to the original absentee ballot format which
} >consisted of a large sheet of paper, with each office, party, and
} >candidate clearly identified, and with a large box for "X-ing" next
} >to your choice?
}
}That might mean going back to all hand counting.
I don't have a problem with that.
}I doubt it's worth it.
I think maintaining constitutional guarantees of a fair and secret ballot
are worth it.
}Instead, maybe we could have ballots that used a
}standard paper punch, or a cheaper substitute, that wouldn't
}leave chad.
Might be a tiny improvement. Who supplies the paper punches?
} >I still vote, but frankly, as I see more and more steps taken to
} >disenfranchise more and more citizens from the voting process, it
} >seems more and more to be a waste of my time.
}
}As long as you aren't among those disenfranchised, that would
}seem to mean your vote has more power,
That's a very optomistic, and possibly naive view. Noting that some
groups are *obviously* disenfranchized, makes me wonder how many people
have been disenfranchized without realising it.
One of the reasons I oppose universal vot-by-mail is that back when
we only did this in off-November elections, I was three times effectively
denied my right to vote: twice by the Post Office, and once by the
County Board of Elections.
One ballot was returned to me -- after election day -- for "insufficient
postage", because the USPS apparently considered it an "oversize" letter,
and was charging additional postage for such at the time. A year later
I had a ballot returned -- also after election day -- for postage because
the stamp had follen off in transit through the postal processing equipment.
The square glue-mark where the stamp had been was clearly visible, and
the envelope was clearly marked "ballot".
I leave aside the fact that being required to purchase a stamp to vote
amounts to an unconstitutionaly poll-tax.
In the third case, my ballot was returned by the Board of Elections
-- this time a day before election day -- with a letter informing me
that I sould need to re-register, and obtain a new ballot, because
they didn't think my signature on the envelope matched the signature
on my registration card. I happened to be out of town on the day the
ballot was returned, and wasn't able to obtain a new one in time to
vote in that election.
This, to me, is evidence of a high perentage of problems with the
vote-by-mail system.
}and of course we know you'll vote "correctly".
What exactly do you mean by that?
}But the next question, which I hope we'll have to answer soon, is
}what will a proportional representation ballot look like?
Geez, Dan, proportional ballots are nice to *think* about; how're
you gonna get them to happen?
}I hope we have the option of computer voting before that.
Why not just turn the government over to the hackers directly?
Dr H