Another Reason to Question Vote by Mail
I have always had an instinctive discomfort with vote-by-mail. For me, going to my local polling place, having a volunteer check off my name, and stepping behind the curtain was a reflective act of citizenship. The physicality of the experience reminded me of the importance of the act and somehow made voting seem more deliberative. It was not only a chance to exercise my own citizenship but also a chance to greet my neighbors as they exercised theirs.
Over the years, I was persuaded by many thoughtful Oregonians that vote-by-mail improved access, increased turn-out, and did not pose a greater threat of fraud than any other voting system.
This week, though, we are given another reason to revisit our commitment to vote-by-mail. If there wasn’t enough cause to question the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, the story developing about the explosives cache at Al Qaqaa should make any voter think hard about whether this administration should be permitted to continue its current course.
When The New York Times broke the story on Monday, many of us – me included -- had already voted. As the details of the story continue to come out, nearly one quarter of Oregonians, and many more in some counties, have already cast their ballots. Typically, I wait until Election Day to vote, but this year I was cajoled, and ultimately persuaded, to “vote early” so that progressive causes could focus other places. Now, I wonder -- is it a mistake for us to have our citizens making this critical decision before all the information is in?
|
October 27, 2004 |
Wendy Radmacher-Willis | Comments (24 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: cc | Oct 27, 2004 5:32:07 PM
While I understand the concerns you've pointed out, I still think Vote-by-Mail is the way to go.
First and foremost it truly gives everyone an opportuntiy to participate. How many people - specifically the blue collar folk - would not have the time to vote because, perhaps they're working two jobs. Or the middle class people who need to get up at 6, drop one kid at daycare, another kid at school, go to work, do the job of four people (because the other three have been laid off), leave work at six or seven..... never making it to the polls by 8. We don't make voting day a national holiday (which we should), so VbM gives everyone the opportunity that they otherwise might not have been afforded because they have things they HAVE to do during regular polling hours (which means that they'd never get to go to their county elections office to cast a ballot early, either).
Secondly - how many of us were registered permanent absentee waaaaaaaaaay before we made Vote-by-Mail official for all elections? I was! Most of my friends were. My mom, my grandma..... many Oregonians were (many people across the country are as well - or they've already voted at their local elections office). Either we're just proactive around here or we're just lazy. Either way, I've only cast two ballots at a polling place in my life and though it was fun, I see no need to ever do it again. I do miss the little chad poking device though. That was a handy tool. Somehow a pen just seems boring... anyway... Oh and I REALLY miss the "I Voted" sticker. But other than that, I don't miss having to figure out if my polling place moved - and where to - standing in a line to get up to the little desk with the two volunteers there, having them hunt for my name on a list - maybe they find it, maybe they don't...... etc.
Thirdly - there have been issues with voter fraud in almost every close election - Kennedy-Nixon being the first to come to mind. If someone wants to stuff the ballot box, they can. In Oregon, instead of stuffing it, people just find ways to keep the ballots from ever getting there (shame on them). And then, as I've mentioned before on some post or another, my aunt used to vote three or four times every election - just going from polling place to polling place where she had been registered previously. Nobody ever caught it and she voted quite often. She wasn't the most upstanding individual, obviously, and she passed away years ago. I hope she wouldn't mind if I used her to make my point. lol.
Finally - as for October Surprises. I'm with Mike D - anyone who is that easily swayed this late in the game had no sense of conviction to begin with. Most folks who are that wishy-washy probably haven't voted yet (like my roommate - I'm about to kill him. No, not because he hasn't voted but because for some reason I cannot fathom he is still undecided. Don't ask me, I can't figure it out. He's *leaning* Kerry. I can't figure out what it's going to take to just shove him over. I've tried everything. Arg.).
While it may not be a perfect system (give me secure online voting... aaahhh someday), I think it has no greater chance of fraud than traditional polling place voting and I think it really gives more folks an opportunity to participate. Whether they choose to use that opportunity is up to them, of course, but they don't really have any excuses now. And I don't think that October Surprises have a large enough impact - even on those who are easily impacted... and those who spring such surprises are aware that we start a few weeks ahead of time out here, so they should plan them better. lol.
Anyway, I think that covers it, so I'll jump off my "I (heart) Vote-by-Mail" soap box now. :-)
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 27, 2004 6:18:47 PM
There are several downsides to vote by mail, but I don't see this as one. For the first time since its inception, I voted early. Normally I walk my ballot three blocks over to the Albina Library on the night of the election. In 2000, I knew a number of people who were literally circling drop-off sites listening to the radio to see if they should vote Nader or Gore (the one time in my voting life that living on the West Coast seemed cool).
The big disadvantages as I see it is that you have to have an address. Maybe it doesn't affect that many voters, but it disenfranchizes exactly the population least able to buck it.
Posted by: cc | Oct 27, 2004 6:24:07 PM
Don't you have to have an address to have a district and a polling place in which to vote? And if one could use a homeless shelter to register, couldn't they do the same now? Though I don't know how shelters feel about getting hundreds of ballots. But I'm just curious what the difference is because I'm pretty sure you have to have an address either way (not saying it's right, I just would think that'd be how it would work).
Posted by: Randy | Oct 27, 2004 7:15:42 PM
I cannot understand how someone -- anyone -- could be undecided at least about the presidential choices at this point in the process.
Any sentient being has to have decided that Bush, et al, are congentinal liars -- or they are not.
What's one more piece of evidence that Bush, et al are incompetent or criminally negligent?
[And don't ask me for the link to the "criminally negligent" statement because I don't have one -- just my opinion.]
Posted by: Wendy R-W | Oct 27, 2004 9:15:46 PM
I fully agree that Election Day should be a national holiday, both to recognize the seriousness of the civic obligation and to make it easier for everyone to vote.
In this case, however, the evidence mounting about the explosives at Al Qaqaa is not part of an "October Surprise." Rather, it is the product of a credible news organization chasing a lead despite the administration's unwillingness to be candid with the public. In fact, the administration is trying to obfuscate as long as possible to get through the next week. The events of the last week say something substantive about our current President and are relevant to voters' decisions. I just wonder if there isn't a voter in Douglas County now wishing she would have cast her vote the other way.
Posted by: John Dunagan | Oct 27, 2004 10:26:30 PM
All that, and $500 fines for not voting, like they do in Australia.
I'm serious - I think every American citizen of majority age should legally HAVE to vote.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 27, 2004 10:33:56 PM
Jeff and CC: Yes, a homeless shelter is sufficient address for voting in Oregon.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Oct 27, 2004 11:08:29 PM
John: why should everyone have to vote, even if they don't have an opinion, or if they haven't educated themselves on the issues and candidates? I don't understand why it should be mandatory.
Convince me, eh?
Posted by: LC | Oct 28, 2004 2:05:09 AM
Speaking of...
Did anyone catch the new episode of Southpark Wed. night where Stan is exiled from town for not voting?
He decided not to vote because the election was between a "big douchebag" and a "turd sandwich".
P-Diddy and posse was threatening non-voters.
Instant classic.
Posted by: Jud Phud | Oct 28, 2004 8:02:27 AM
Evan,
If voting was mandatory, and there was a fine imposed, people would be informed. And the only people who don't have an opinion, are dead.
Posted by: Anthony | Oct 28, 2004 8:18:40 AM
"Jud"
If voting were mandatory and a fine imposed, even more uninformed people would vote.
Maybe "October Surprises" don't work, but hey, what's the harm in peddling another cooked-up story about the administration's incompetence?
Boy, the Kerry campaign got an add out quickly. Collusion?
Posted by: LC | Oct 28, 2004 10:37:25 AM
Personally, I've met many principled nonvoters. Some consider voting an act of force that implicates them in the bad things inevitably done by the person they vote for.
Sort of like the pacifist who burns his draft card, a few people I know believe that any act on their part that encourages or validates an elected official taints the voter as well.
You might scoff, but these people consider voting to be an act of coercive force (i.e., my vote forces others to be subject to the authority of another) and if none of the choices are trustworthy, they opt to keep their hands clean.
There is an element of truth to this perspective and I feel safer in a society where such a philosophy is honored rather than one where every apathetic person is forced to pick a side.
Posted by: Jonathan | Oct 28, 2004 12:01:55 PM
Presumably forcing someone to submit a ballot doesn't mean fining that person if they don't choose a candidate, right? The idea would not be to force someone to vote for a candidate, it would be to force the person to submit a ballot. The idea being, if the person was forced to take the time to submit a ballot, perhaps it would increase the chance that they actually put a few marks on it.
How about if we tie voting a whether or not someone gets their personal deduction??? (Form 1040: "Please attach proof of voting here.")
Posted by: cc | Oct 28, 2004 12:40:41 PM
Maybe "October Surprises" don't work, but hey, what's the harm in peddling another cooked-up story about the administration's incompetence?
It's not a cooked up story. How ironic, now they really *do* have WMD. Nevermind the fact that we have no idea where these 380 tons of missing explosives are or exactly how long they've been missing. Perhaps instead of ignoring the problem we should, I dunno, try to find 'em? But I don't know why we'd find these, we never found the other WMD. Oh right, cuz they didn't exist.
Be it an "October Surprise" or not, it still happened. And it's not really a good thing. And it does speak to this administration's incompetence. How do you lose 380 tons of explosives? This isn't the first case of missing arms over there, either. About a month ago we realized that we'd lost some stuff that, by itself was harmless, but could be used to make WMD if it got into the wrong hands. I'm guessing since they didn't ask to take it that it's in the wrong hands.
And this, though it really has nothing to do with this thread other than its in an article I was reading about the 380 tons of explosives and kind of speaks to the whole "incompetence" thing, is hilarious:
Kerry:
I'm going to apply the Bush standard to this: Yesterday ... George Bush said and I quote him: 'A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security.' Well Mr. President, I agree with you.
Touché!
As for mandatory voting... I don't know how I'd feel about that. I really think that people who don't vote really don't care and therefore perhaps they shouldn't be casting a ballot. One of my best friends (the sister of my as-yet-undecided roommate) doesn't vote. I looked at her this morning and said "You have three kids... do you realize how irresponsible that is?" and left it at that. Oh wait, I didn't leave it at that - I told her she was setting a really bad example for them as well. THEN I left it at that.
As a civic-minded person, I cannot understand the non-voter. I don't get them and I never will. However, I think if we forced everyone to vote, Homer Simpson would stand a good chance of winning a state or two. OK, maybe not an entire state, but he'd sure as hell beat Ralph Nader. ;-)
Posted by: Edubya | Oct 28, 2004 1:00:01 PM
"The idea would not be to force someone to vote for a candidate, it would be to force the person to submit a ballot."
But what do we do with the homeless people who won't vote?
Fining them or withoholding a tax refund (since they don't pay taxes) won't get us anywhere.
Maybe we should just round them up and send them to work camps where they can concentrate on their responsibility to vote. We could call them Voter Concentration Camps.
Posted by: Randy | Oct 28, 2004 6:41:15 PM
Anthony:
"Maybe "October Surprises" don't work, but hey, what's the harm in peddling another cooked-up story about the administration's incompetence? "
Just when I'm starting to think some of your opinions are well-reasoned, you give me this.
"cooked-up"
Usually the verb "cook" is paired with a subject. Care to enlighten us on the "chef" of this story? As I understand the story it was the NY Times which was relying on some international high explosives monitoring organization.
But I do love Bush's response -- (1) flogging the "maybe they weren't there when we invaded" argument (despite evidence from US troops (a) they seemed to be there when first inspected and (b) we didn't really have time to do a thorough search) and (2) if the area was not secured, it is the fault of the troops and not the chain of command.
And he castigates Kerry as "denigrating the troops" when Kerry points out problems with the PLANS they were asked to carry out?
Posted by: cc | Oct 28, 2004 7:08:30 PM
They were there within the few weeks after Baghdad fell. I can't find any info online but I was watching ABC news and they showed a video that was taken at Al Qaqaa I believe on 4/19 - ten days after Baghdad fell. The explosives are there - clearly marked and easily identifiable to folks well-versed in explosives markings. How the hell do you lose over 3/4 of a million pounds of explosives?
Additionally, though those in charge were fully aware that the explosives were there, troops were not told to thoroughly search or secure the sight. There were already looters there when they got there. It's just a case of somebody not doing their job and sh*t running downhill. These guys were just following orders and somebody completely dropped the ball.
Bush's excuses are wearing so incredibly thin. Hopefully we only have to listen to him and them for another, what, 84 days?
As far as this "October Surprise" goes, I think it kind of fits into the "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you" arena. Just because it happened in October of an election year doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not bad.
Posted by: Suzii | Oct 29, 2004 11:36:14 PM
Ummm... Edubya, where do you get the idea that homeless people don't pay taxes?
Posted by: Gentry | Sep 4, 2007 8:35:07 AM
Hi, good article. I run The No Vote By Mail Project from Washington State. Vote-by Mail is a bigger problem than many think. First it eliminates the secret ballot, then it undermines the security and chain of custody of the ballot, and finally it is counted on private corporate owned software. In addition the vote counting in many states takes a lot, lot longer than in used to, as votes come in for weeks after the election. That's just the tip of the iceberg, Vote-by Mail is a very bad idea.
Posted by: Gentry | Sep 4, 2007 8:35:25 AM
Hi, good article. I run The No Vote By Mail Project from Washington State. Vote-by Mail is a bigger problem than many think. First it eliminates the secret ballot, then it undermines the security and chain of custody of the ballot, and finally it is counted on private corporate owned software. In addition the vote counting in many states takes a lot, lot longer than in used to, as votes come in for weeks after the election. That's just the tip of the iceberg, Vote-by Mail is a very bad idea.
Posted by: Gentry | Sep 4, 2007 8:35:29 AM
Hi, good article. I run The No Vote By Mail Project from Washington State. Vote-by Mail is a bigger problem than many think. First it eliminates the secret ballot, then it undermines the security and chain of custody of the ballot, and finally it is counted on private corporate owned software. In addition the vote counting in many states takes a lot, lot longer than in used to, as votes come in for weeks after the election. That's just the tip of the iceberg, Vote-by Mail is a very bad idea.
Posted by: LT | Sep 4, 2007 10:30:12 AM
"First it eliminates the secret ballot, then it undermines the security and chain of custody of the ballot, and finally it is counted on private corporate owned software."
As people have been saying for years, anyone who is concerned their marking of a ballot will be scrutinized, they can mark it at the County Elections office. But anyone with those fears perhaps has problems which would not go away if we all had to stand in line on election day and even absentee ballots were abolished.
There is no undermining of chain of custody of a ballot if one takes the ballot to County Elections as I do, and absentee ballots were mailed long before Vote By Mail. In Oregon, political parties were sending out mailings inviting people to register absentee long before Vote By Mail, and one reason Oregon went to vote by mail is that so many people (sometimes over 70% ) were voting absentee and poll workers sat in the polling stations all day with very few voters. In that system, the polling books have to be closed and then a check to make sure no one has voted both absentee and in the polls before the absentee votes can be counted.
Don't know about other counties, but our country clerk has spoken often about how our votes are counted.
There were some people from blackbox.org who came to town saying we should never trust how our votes are counted---and long time activists who had observed vote counts took that as an insult to the local county elections officers.
Maybe Gentry would like to have stood in line in 2000 while people in voting booths voted on something like 20 measures. Many of us were happy about the idea of having the ballot available to mark over time, maybe a couple of measures at a sitting while we studied carefully.
In Oregon Measure 60 Vote By Mail carried every county. Were the majority of voters in 36 counties just plain wrong, or do vote by mail opponents contend that election was rigged?
Posted by: LT | Sep 4, 2007 10:41:57 AM
"this year I was cajoled, and ultimately persuaded, to “vote early” so that progressive causes could focus other places. Now, I wonder -- is it a mistake for us to have our citizens making this critical decision before all the information is in?"
A strong person does not allow themselves to be cajoled and persuaded to do something against their better judgement.
That said, some of us not only like VBM because it hurts the ability of last minute "late hit" attacks, but some of us research everything on the ballot so we can be sure no late information will surprise us.
There was a time when Oregon had a law that there was no campaigning on election day. Something close to 20 years ago there was a heated local legislative election where a powerful incumbent was being challenged by someone very popular. The incumbent sent out a "late hit" mailing which hit mailboxes on Monday. When the challenger did radio on Tuesday to answer the attack, some people said "whatever happened to that law against campaigning on election day?
No system is perfect. But after everyone was so concerned about the corrupt system of elections in Ohio, Blackwell the Sec. of State who helped Bush win in 2004 was denied higher office and Sherrod Brown defeated Mike DeWine.
Back 70 years ago there were other ways --very low tech-- to try to steal elections. My grandpa as a state AG was involved in one investigation where more people had cast votes than were listed as registered voters in certain precincts, and blue pencils were discovered to have defaced some of the ballots.
It is not the fault of advocates of vote by mail if someone felt cajoled to turn in their ballot early. Each individual has the right to independent thought, incl. when they will decide to mail/ take in the ballot.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Mike D | Oct 27, 2004 5:04:39 PM
If anything, vote-by-mail, would discourage these blatant October surprises because early voting would disrupt their timing.
If someone is waiting until they are standing in the voting booth to decide who or how to vote... is that really a thoughtful person or rather someone who allows the emotions of a late-breaking news item that may or may not be true, to sway their vote?
I think you want to make the your decision based on the ALL of the information you have up until you have to vote and not be swayed by dubious late-breaking "news" reports that are intentionally released to sway easily-manipulated (i.e. not thoughtful) voters.