I don't have any desire to vote by mail.

And you could modify by adding the "drop box" option we have in Washington state.

If you make a mistake on your paper ballot, its ruined. Then you might not have time to get another one.
Ballot might get lost in the mail.
Ballot might not arrive.
Somebody can decide your signature doesn't match.You also have to pay for stamps (so your voting isn't free).

You can look it up online.

Actually, I have been an election observer up here, and signatures are checked and rechecked, so there is NO chance of fraud.

Your criticisms are completely unwarranted.

ALL states should be vote by mail.

I am concerned somebody decides my signature isn't mine. As you claim signatures are checked and rechecked, clearly that can happen. And obviously has happened to many people.

I have a wrist injury that was the cause of a signature mismatch. The procedure used to validate signatures is described on pages 28 and 29 of the pdf linked below. If there is a signature mismatch you are sent a letter indicating this and a signature card is enclosed that you can fill out and mail back in. The format of the letter is on page 79 of the same pdf. From the letter:

"However, your ballot has been challenged because the signature on the return identification envelope does not match signatures contained in your voter registration record.
We have enclosed a new voter registration card for your convenience. Please complete the form and return it to our office by 5 pm on, __________ (14 days from the date of the election) or you may choose to update your signature in person by coming to our office at __________________.
Your ballot will not count unless, after comparison, we can verify the signature on your return identification envelope matches the signature on your new voter registration card. If a new voter registration card is not returned by _________, your registration will be placed in inactive status. This means that you will not receive a ballot for future elections, or be qualified to sign petitions until you submit an updated registration card."

So, if your ballot is challenged you have a chance to update your signature and have your vote counted. Just because it is challenged does not mean that your vote won't be counted.

I took the option to go to the elections office in my county and sign the card there. My signature on my ballot was validated and my vote counted. It took me less time to make this trip than it took me to vote in person so many years ago here in Oregon.

And if you don't trust the mail you can take your completed ballot to the elections office in your county or to one of the many convenient ballot drop-off locations.

http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/vbm_manual.pdf

It could have been done by mail.

The argument against mail-in voting is without merit.

If you want to mail in your goddamned ballot then do it but people need to stop trying to force it on people who don't want it.

Here is it again:
http://www.homelessinfo.org/what_we_do/voter_registration.php

Outreach programs ONLY work with people who access programs. Not all homeless people do. Most shelters are dry shelters, which means all of the homeless people with substance issues do NOT get services from those organizations and shelters. Many homeless people do NOT wish to get help from anyone and are very independent. NO US citizen should be forced to jump through hoops to vote. By having voting precincts someone like I described can walk to the nearest polling place and exercise their right to vote without having to rely on any services. That is their RIGHT. So no...mail in voting only should NEVER be enacted for all states. It should be an OPTION, but not the ONLY one.

Cite a state with conventional election day voting that provides the level of access and outreach to homeless that is provided here. The site I linked to is not the only program.

locations are all over the place -- with the advantage that they are open for weeks, have no lines.

"Mail in" does not just main return by mail.

And as someone who worked with the homeless...they are automatically disenfranchised because they don't have an address. Mail in can be an option but it should NEVER be forced. Too much can go wrong.

Time required? Maybe fives minutes if you have a really slow printer.

People who don't have printers likely don't have cars, either.

One I should always remember. In Seattle it's so easy to get around without a car, I tend to forget how tough it can be elsewhere (like back in NJ).

eom

Provisions for homeless:

http://www.homelessinfo.org/what_we_do/voter_registration.php

WA is extremely concerned with affording EVERY eligible voter the simplest way possible to register, obtain ballot, cast vote, and have that vote counted.

the majority of chronically homeless people I know would NOT use mail in voting but would vote in person. Hell, if mail in was my only option then in most elections I would not bother to vote either. I would in this election, but in most I wouldn't bother. I like the freedom to CHOOSE how to vote.

for the homeless people who do NOT use services.

As I said in 220:

You can use the white painted ballot drop boxes without postage and it's only for ballots, so they won't be lost in the mail.
Oh, did I mention no lines, no waiting.

Perhaps my move, decades ago, to the west has given me more oxygen to the brain? However, I understand not everyone has internet access. We still need a way to include those less fortunate.

eom

I will not replace my original comment that was in support of your concerns.

Sorry about that. I worked with homeless people for a few years and I know how hard it is for them to get jobs because they have no address to list. It's not easy to get rides to a county headquarters to get a ballot. It's easier to get to precincts that are near service centers. There are always a certain percentage of homeless people who do NOT seek services and sleep outside. Making voting ONLY mail in disenfranchises the homeless and it's not OK. It's an issue that is very near and dear to me. I get so irritated when others try to push their preferences onto others. I already had my knickers in a twist when I misread what you posted. I apologize.

My brain is faster than my fingers.

Obviously. We aren't idiots here in WA. And I'm sure they aren't idiots in OR or other states.

Obviously. We aren't idiots here in WA. And I'm sure they aren't idiots in OR or other states.

In Ohio, we have no excuse absentee voting. I prefer to use it, some would rather vote in person, so we both get to vote how we want.

I don't want voting by mail to be an only option.

... have made it clear that in "Vote by Mail" states, voting by mail is NOT the only option.

I'm a little confused. You seem to be re-posting objections that have already been addressed in multiple replies up and down thread.

It's a more general discussion, particularly in light of the people from other Vote by Mail states voicing their agreement that Vote by Mail systems -- in general, and as implemented in their states -- are a good thing.

The point is, Vote by Mail systems are designed to address each and every one of your concerns, because the concerns you have are the same concerns the voters in those states had as they designed their systems.

A lot of people don't want to vote by mail even if they can.
These people aren't all wealthy or republicans.
It might work for a state like Oregon but it won't work for many large states.

There is a big difference between "Vote by Mail" systems, "No Excuse Absentee Ballot" and other forms of "Early Voting."

I suspect you are referring to problems in states that have "No Excuse Absentee Ballot" or other form of early voting, not true "Vote by Mail" states.

You get your ballot in the mail, you fill it out, and you mail it.
If voting by mail is so great and convenient, why do you suppose many people prefer to wait in line?

... of requesting the absentee ballot. It complicates things. A majority of voting still happens on election day with all the attendant problems.

It takes five minutes. If filling out a short form is a burden to a person, then this person sure as hell isn't going to fill out a whole ballot.

... but a system that requires you to request a mail in ballot is in no way comparable to a system in which all voters receive their ballot in the mail automatically, and have multiple options for returning that ballot.

Mixed "early voting" systems are proving to be very problematic. Because voters have the option of voting early, the states are cutting resources on election day to the bone. To date, most have done a lousy job of providing enough polling places for the people who decide to wait until election day.

These sorts of problems are completely eliminated with systems like ORs and WAs.

What hasn't been addressed? I'd be happy to hear what you see as remaining problems so we can work on ballot measures to fix.

No system is static. Always room for improvement. It's all part of working collectively to create "a more perfect union" -- it's the American way. The country has taken giant steps away from that goal, but that doesn't change our obligation to work to hang onto the things we've gotten right and work to change the things we've gotten wrong. And implementing systems that protect the integrity of our elections is the bedrock on which all else is built.

Once again, if you want to help, one thing you can do is contribute to verifiedvoting.org to support the important work they are doing.

in presidential election years and not far from that in the off-years, making Oregon among the highest in the country.

That's what happens when you make it easier to vote; you get an active, engaged citizenry. They have the time to study the issues and vote at their leisure, taking several days if needed. Long lines are never an issue. We also made it easier to register to vote through the DMV.

The only downside is, with so many people voting, it makes it harder for Republicans to win. You can tell I'm torn up about it. Republicans want to make it more difficult to vote, with limited early voting, ID requirements, etc., because they know their political fortunes depend on it.

eom

and can get their ballot there.

http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150902/NEWS/150909963

and that's what you HAVE to do to vote in those states.

The existence of those those lines doesn't vindicate the status quo, anymore than the existence of large-scale protests against JIm in the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties somehow prove that the violence used to crush those protests was morally defensible.

You haven't demonstrated why it wouldn't work in a large state.

In large states drop box options exist, and as has been pointed out, additional ballots can be downloaded if you make a mistake on your ballot.

You don't have to have voting machines to be able to correct mistakes.

And have you not seen the dozens of threads on this site in which the horrible problems with electronic voting were pointed out?

You have the right to your opinion, but it is sincerely puzzling that you are going to such great lengths to defend a basically unsound and undemocratic voting system.

(or states with an "election day only" system).

I'm sure it is no news to you, but many states that have added early voting locations, and/or added or expanded mail in options, are making budget assumptions that vastly overestimate the number of people who will take advantage of mail in or other early voting processes. Many jurisdictions cut election day resources to the bone, and end up being overwhelmed.

States like WA and OR that mail every registered voter a ballot, which the voter can either mail back by the mail-in deadline or drop in secure dropbox anytime from the date the ballots are mailed out until 8pm Nov 8. (Or if the voter needs help, they can go to an accessible voting center.)

There are no lines on election day in OR and WA because election day is no different than the day before, or the day before that. Same number of secure dropbox locations. Same ballots. Same process.

In states with mixed systems, early voting, mail in voting, and election day voting are all different processes that involve different rules and resources. It's a formula for problems.

Secure drop locations are effectively the same as polling places, except they have the enormous advantage being open for a few weeks. Not to mention no lines.

I am beginning to think that you have some ulterior motive for touting systems that consistently result in widespread disenfranchisement. Any system that creates lines is a system that suppresses votes. A line is tantamount to a poll tax.

I already told you why I don't want to vote by mail. If you refuse to believe it that's your problem.

... every reason you have offered for rejecting the concept has been addressed. And the problems with the system you think should be hung onto have also been made clear.

It appears to me that all you have left is "I don't like it" because "I don't like it." Not a defensible position.

But still, I hate voting by mail since there's just too much of a chance your vote will get "lost." My county has a vote tracker, and my vote hasn't counted since I first found-out about the tracker.

We just got our ballots. Yes, you can research issues and I found that handy when deciding the fate of judges up for reappointment. Still, I prefer the ritual of standing in line at the polls and physically pulling a lever or punching out a chad. Growing up, my mother always took me in the voting booth since before I can remember, telling me which levels to pull down. Our precinct was at my elementary school, so as I got older, she would actually take me out of class to vote with her; none of the other parents did that and it made my classmates jealous. She would also wear a dress and heels for the occasion! Sigh. Memories.

... on a single day, at polling places, voter suppression and disenfranchisement is all too common. Ease of access varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, sometimes in ways that disadvantage specific classes of voters.

And if the polling places use electronic voting machines, the elections are even more vulnerable to manipulation.

There is no perfect voting system. I miss the old "election day" excitement too, but I'll trade that any day for a Vote by Mail system that does a far better job of ensuring that every eligible voter can easily cast their vote, have that vote accurately counted, and have the means to verify.

The ballots have to be scanned by the machines. So if you are concerned about the machines, you aren't avoiding the machines if you vote by mail.
Ballots have to be stored somewhere. So if you are concerned about ballots being thrown out, that can still happen.
Now you have additional problems about ballots possibly being lost in the mail, or arriving too late (if postal service is too slow).
You also have an issue with somebody else deciding if you signature matches or not (and signatures change overtime).
Yes, you can track the ballot, but if you realize it hasn't arrived after the election is over, are they going to let you do another one? I don't think so.

All the other problems/objections you cite have been addressed in other replies.

"On Tuesday, the county unveiled the ClearVote system which will scan both sides of a ballot at once and then create an image. The system will also be able to count about 4000 ballots an hour instead of the current pace of 1000 per hour."

http://koin.com/2015/07/28/ballot-scanner-to-revolutionize-oregon-vote-tally/

The big difference is that the machines can be audited with packs of "test" ballots with known vote totals to make sure that the machines are counting the votes properly. Sets of actual votes or test packs of votes can be counted on multiple machines to test for accuracy and reproducibility. And the paper ballots can also be counted by hand if needed - thre are no black box tallies that can be manipulated.

that even states where the particular ballot in question is located. All ballots are scanned and kept in secure locations. Sure beats the hell out of states like Florida, many Southern states that have no "paper trail" whatsoever.
Ballotpedia has a list of all state's voting methods and which ones can be verified with paper trails. Pretty interesting stuff. Most voting machines are so old they are failing, thus the discrepancies that allow many voters to doubt election results.

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state

I love Oregon! Hey, we still don't have to pump our own gas, which I consider a luxury in this rainy weather!

and a big thumbs up for not having to pump our own gas.

Having a secure paper trail for votes cast is paramount. In the past I've read about states that provide printouts for voters that show how they voted but there is no paper hard copy made for the precinct. Hopefully that approach is a thing of the past and isn't used anymore because it is worthless as the black box where the vote totals are held is still open to manipulation and cannot be verified.

I only feel nostalgic.

I moved to WA from NJ last year. I missed having an "election day" (and the big GOTV efforts that go along with it). But, I got to have a whole new experience -- the Democratic caucuses. A wonderful community event. There are all sorts of objections to caucuses, but I hope WA Dems don't replace them with primaries before 2020. I would hate for my first caucus to be my last.

In Oregon when you turn in your ballot and your signature is verified your name is then taken off the list of outstanding voters. This list is periodically (every 24 hours I think) provided to the various legitimate GOTV groups. The GOTV groups will call those whose ballots are still outstanding to remind and encourage those individuals to turn in the ballot. The end result is that the earlier you turn in your ballot the sooner the GOTV phone calls will stop. I was a volunteer in this process for a number of years for the Oregon Democratic Party so my guess is that the other vote by mail states have a similar process in place.

I'm still learning "the ropes" since moving to Seattle. I've done some calling into other states through PDA, but not much locally. In NJ, I was in a district that was competitive (at least in some elections). I had more motivation to work locally -- felt much more connected.

I already have an option of voting by mail in my state, I don't want to do it.
Somebody is going to check my signature and decide if it's mine? No thank you.

The process puts to rest Republican fears of "voter fraud."

I am worried about votes not being counted because somebody decides the signatures don't match.

Those long lines you see in NC? They could have requested absentee ballots and voted by mail. Obviously they prefer to vote in person. It's fine to have it as an option. I don't want it to be the only option.

...that are open up to, and including, Nov 8. (Close 8pm)

Accessible voting centers are available for voters who need assistance completing their ballot.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/how-to-vote/ballots/returning-my-ballot/accessible-voting-centers.aspx

Ballot drop-boxes
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/how-to-vote/ballots/returning-my-ballot/ballot-drop-boxes.aspx

It's been shown that voting machines can malfunction or be sabotaged. The 2000 result was caused, in significant measure, by voting machines(as was the controversial 2004 result in Ohio).

Why are you defending the voting procedure that Republicans and the wealthy prefer?

Are you suggesting only Republicans and wealthy like to vote in person?
Why do you think there are lines in states like NC? They could have voted by mail if they wanted to. Obviously a lot of people prefer not to.

You'll find research findings, statistics, etc. related to electronic systems and various other systems.

Facts. Not opinion.

Voting systems must be designed to ensure that every eligible voter can easily cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

Ken Burch is right. Systems that employ electronic voting machines have the most problems achieving that goal.

The existence of lines doesn't vindicate the use of voting machines.

No machines? It would take forever.

and a lot of other countries. they manage to announce the results of over 600 parliamentary constituencies in a single night.

And the speed with which results are announced is the least important consideration.

Election results will be certified by each county on November 29, 2016. Results are reported by each county as they are tabulated, but until certified, those results are preliminary.

What difference does it make how fast the results come in?

I've got no problem with it taking however long it takes to complete a process that has the safeguards necessary to protect the integrity of the results.

Here you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2530068