Re: [EL] All-mail elections research & analysis?

There was a thread started March 10, 2009 by Rick Hasen (initially
about secret ballot elections in the context of labor unions and
entitled "EFCA") that lasted a remarkable five days and includes lots
of observations nevertheless relevant to all-mail elections.

 The "transition" to all-mail balloting has happened in a handful of
states without a robust discussion of the direct implication that it
essentially eliminates the secret ballot for a very high percentage of
voters, and leads to demonstrable levels of changed votes. (See the
study reference, infra)

In addition, even though the Postal Service is technically "public",
for purposes of the transparency nearly everyone desires with
elections, switching to all-mail voting when the counting of the votes
has in recent years been made proprietary and secret constitutes the
completion of a process of total privatization of elections from a
transparency standpoint.  (No one can monitor the innumerable
households where voting will actually occur, nor monitor the countless
mail streams that contain easy to recognize ballots, making both the
casting and the counting of ballots impossible to watchdog by citizens
or even political parties).

US Postal Inspector Tony Robinson says “never send money through the
mail.”    Inspector Robinson cites one case where there was only a few
complaints compared to the hundreds of cards with cash actually stolen
by a postal
employee.  See video near the bottom of this link:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/postal/sendcash.asp  Assuming such thefts
were fully discovered in elections, the well-known difficulties of
election contest challenges makes success questionable at best

Because ballots are more precious than cash in a greeting card, in my
view mail-in voting should be restricted to a showing of need and a
voluntary assumption of the risks therein, rather than a forced
assumption of those risks by the voters.

In addition, the best evidence available suggests all-mail voting
results in a significant degree of voter intimidation combined with
substantial changes in voting patterns by actual voters.    In a 2004
study in Oregon, fully 1.5% of Oregonians reported feeling actual
pressure to change their votes in their all-mail elections, and 0.5%
of Oregonians said they "would have voted differently" but for other
persons being around the household pressuring them when they voted.
This seems to me to be a clear statement of voter
intimidation/pressure as well as the best evidence of the same, absent
actual videotape of the same within the voting household.

In 2008, Oregon had 2,143,290+ registered voters.  Assuming an
optimistic 80% voter turnout, that means that  approximately 8,570
voters experienced switched votes in one or more races in Oregon on a
presidential election year ballot, if 2008 was similar to the data
produced for the 2004 study.  Such intimidation is of course an
election crime, so who is prepared to say that 8,570 election crimes
in a presidential year in a state like Oregon is acceptable, and that
it is consistent with a fair election when votes are actually changing
as a result?

Pau Lehto, J.D.

On 12/14/10, Jason C. Miller <jcmiller@gmail.com> wrote: