• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vote by mail

What a stupid concept. Voting should not be made easier.

I know quite a few people IRL that share that opinion. They're usually people who view voting as their civic duty and always make the effort/sacrifice to go to the polls and they're a little miffed that it is now easier for people who never bothered to vote in the past to now do so.

I'm one of those people who has never missed a vote (well maybe a school election... once) in the last 30+ years, but damn, I've been doing the mail thing the last couple of election cycles and I never want to go back to a polling station.
 
I never calimed that it would be perfect, just far better than what we currently have. What you're doing is falling into the trap of sacrificing better because it's not perfect (a common malady these days). Improvement is a process, it rarely occurs that you get the perfect scenario all at once (and often never do). Our question shouldn't be "Is this the perfect voting sytem"?, but rather "Os this a step towards that goal?"

I will admit up front that I am anal about voting integrity. Therefore, I want perfect. I know it is not possible yet, but I still want it. So with that frame of mind, I do not perceive wanting any changes to be a change towards perfection as being a trap. Far from a trap, perfect should be the goal, even if it takes in a different direction from. easy.
 
I will admit up front that I am anal about voting integrity. Therefore, I want perfect. I know it is not possible yet, but I still want it. So with that frame of mind, I do not perceive wanting any changes to be a change towards perfection as being a trap. Far from a trap, perfect should be the goal, even if it takes in a different direction from. easy.

To me perfect would be everyone who is eligible and wants to vote can easily do so while making voter fraud non-existent. I don't think we can ever get "perfect", but we can sure work to that end.
 
I know quite a few people IRL that share that opinion. They're usually people who view voting as their civic duty and always make the effort/sacrifice to go to the polls and they're a little miffed that it is now easier for people who never bothered to vote in the past to now do so.

I'm one of those people who has never missed a vote (well maybe a school election... once) in the last 30+ years, but damn, I've been doing the mail thing the last couple of election cycles and I never want to go back to a polling station.

I understand. I am just in the camp that doesn't see "easy" as being that important when compared with accurate. Having the right people in office is more important than getting the person who was the easiest.

For instance, the ID of the voter should be verified. That is something that can be done face to face, but would be nebulous at best via mail.
 
To me perfect would be everyone who is eligible and wants to vote can easily do so while making voter fraud non-existent. I don't think we can ever get "perfect", but we can sure work to that end.

Agreed, that would be perfect. Until technology can get us there, I am willing to sacrifice the easy side of the equation, and place more importance on the accurate side.
 
You're going to trust the union-run US Postal Service to deliver votes from highly Republican areas?

Why not? We trust them with our voter registrations.
 
Why not? We trust them with our voter registrations.

You can check on your voter registration, especially if there's time to fix it and re-register.
 
I understand. I am just in the camp that doesn't see "easy" as being that important when compared with accurate. Having the right people in office is more important than getting the person who was the easiest.

For instance, the ID of the voter should be verified. That is something that can be done face to face, but would be nebulous at best via mail.

That's why VBM should be set up so that you provide ID when registering to vote.
 
Agreed, that would be perfect. Until technology can get us there, I am willing to sacrifice the easy side of the equation, and place more importance on the accurate side.

The most accurate ways are the simplest. In Oregon, we vote, put our ballot in an envelope and sign the envelope. They can do a check on our signatures and confirm our identity. With online voting there is ZERO double-check. Unless we resort to draconian measures that would make voting so expensive and inconvenient, there will always be a small measure of inaccuracy and the possibility of fraud. We would have to have DNA checks, lie-detectors to validate that you were coerced, etc., etc., etc.... What is needed is system that opens the door to as many legal voters as possible, keeps costs under control, makes voting as convenient as possible and does it absolute best to make voting as accurate as possible. I believe that system is VBM.
 
That's why VBM should be set up so that you provide ID when registering to vote.

That would only prove who registered. It would not, in any way, prove who placed the vote.
 
The most accurate ways are the simplest.

You can't be serious. If that were true we would just elect folks based on who got the most Facebook likes. Accurate and simple tend to be two words that occupy different ends of any spectrum.

In Oregon, we vote, put our ballot in an envelope and sign the envelope. They can do a check on our signatures and confirm our identity.

Anybody can stuff an envelope that has been previously signed or forged. That is hardly a source of comfort that the vote in the envelope is valid. Let me reiterate; there is no proof that the person who filled in the ballot is the same person who signed it or forged the signature.

Signature? How many are checked? Who does the checking? It hardly sounds easy or a safeguard. Let me think about it for a second... Has a person's identity ever been stolen using a false signature? I am thinking only millions, if not trillions of times.

With online voting there is ZERO double-check.

My apologies. I was being facetious about the online voting. My fault for not making that clear. Online voting would be difficult at best.

Unless we resort to draconian measures that would make voting so expensive and inconvenient, there will always be a small measure of inaccuracy and the possibility of fraud. We would have to have DNA checks, lie-detectors to validate that you were coerced, etc., etc., etc....

Sorry, I just don't think throwing an election here or there is acceptable as long as voters are not bothered to get off the couch. It is not a fair trade in my view.


What is needed is system that opens the door to as many legal voters as possible, keeps costs under control, makes voting as convenient as possible and does it absolute best to make voting as accurate as possible. I believe that system is VBM.

I agree. But first things first. First we make voting accurate and secure. The rest of the requirements on the list are gravy we add later as technology improves.
 
You can't be serious. If that were true we would just elect folks based on who got the most Facebook likes. Accurate and simple tend to be two words that occupy different ends of any spectrum.



Anybody can stuff an envelope that has been previously signed or forged. That is hardly a source of comfort that the vote in the envelope is valid. Let me reiterate; there is no proof that the person who filled in the ballot is the same person who signed it or forged the signature.

Signature? How many are checked? Who does the checking? It hardly sounds easy or a safeguard. Let me think about it for a second... Has a person's identity ever been stolen using a false signature? I am thinking only millions, if not trillions of times.



My apologies. I was being facetious about the online voting. My fault for not making that clear. Online voting would be difficult at best.



Sorry, I just don't think throwing an election here or there is acceptable as long as voters are not bothered to get off the couch. It is not a fair trade in my view.




I agree. But first things first. First we make voting accurate and secure. The rest of the requirements on the list are gravy we add later as technology improves.

Voter fraud here has been near zero, voter participation has increased, costs have declined. Everythign you're throwing out there is strictly "What if...", but our results prove themselves out...
 
Voter fraud here has been near zero, voter participation has increased, costs have declined. Everythign you're throwing out there is strictly "What if...", but our results prove themselves out...

Yes, my points are indeed "what if...". So, out of curiosity, how would the state go about proving fraud, or lack thereof?
 
Yes, my points are indeed "what if...". So, out of curiosity, how would the state go about proving fraud, or lack thereof?

One way I can think of is if the envelopes are bar coded and ran through a scanner when they are mailed and scanned when they return. If a voter claims they didn't receive a ballot the data base could be easily checked. Of course this is hypothetical.
 
Voter fraud here has been near zero, voter participation has increased, costs have declined. Everythign you're throwing out there is strictly "What if...", but our results prove themselves out...

Please disregard my last questions. I am out of line asking others to do my homework. Since this whole VBM thing interest me, it is up to me to do some homework, and get back to you with some more well thought out questions or opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom