back
1 comments
Could it be that there isn't much fraud around mail-in ballots at the moment because it's not the primary method of voting and mail in and absentee ballots aren't always counted? Might this change if mail-in becomes the primary voting method? It seems pretty undeniable that commiting fraud via mail-in ballots would be far easier than if voting were mostly in person. We shouldn't wait for an attack vector to be exploited before securing the vulnerability.
> Could it be that there isn't much fraud around mail-in ballots at the moment because it's not the primary method of voting and mail in and absentee ballots aren't always counted?

There are states where it is the primary method, and they are (other than overseas absentee ballots, IIRC) in most places counted the same as any other ballots (provisional ballots aren't always counted, but that's a different kettle of fish.) In some cases the process results in them being counted later, which may be after immediate media attention to the counts moves away, but...

In what state is mail-in voting accounting for a plurality of votes cast in a national election? That's the only way you could claim that it's the primary method in a given state.

Further, mail-in ballots don't tend to lean toward one party or the other at present, so claiming that it's an attempt at Democrat voter suppression is disingenuous. 538 recently published an article on the matter. I would link it, but it's a pain on mobile and I've given you enough info to find the article yourself. This really is about security, an area in which mail-in ballots are lacking.

> Further, mail-in ballots don't tend to lean toward one party or the other at present, so claiming that it's an attempt at Democrat voter suppression is disingenuous.

No, claiming it would be effective Democratic voter suppression might be inaccurate (though the issue isn't “who votes more by mail”, but “who votes by mail that would not vote if only allowed to vote in-person”, which are not equivalent questions, so the fact you relate doesn't even make that weaker case.)

But that the motivation is partisan (whatever the evidence is about the likely effects) comes straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/trump-voting-by-mai...

It's not disingenuous to suggest an actor has a nefarious motive when the actor explicitly announces that motive, even if there might be evidence that the act taken would not realize the motivating goal.

Ok, doesn't change the fact that not adopting vote by mail as a primary method is not voter suppression. I'm not concerned with intent in this case. It also doesn't change that vote by mail has a larger attack surface than in-person voting and is therefore less secure. If voting accessibility is a problem, expand early in-person voting. Given the current climate, I don't trust that either side will not try to unduly influence the election using any means they think that they can get away with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

> The U.S. state of Oregon established vote-by-mail as the standard mechanism for voting with Ballot Measure 60, a citizen's initiative, in 1998. The measure made Oregon the first state in the United States to conduct its elections exclusively by mail.

Interesting. How do they prevent fraud? The goodwill of man isn't an acceptable answer.
I understand signature matching to be a part of it. I don't know, beyond that. I would expect the Oregon secretary of state's office, or similar, would have more info. I'll spare you the lmgtfy link.
You should spare the link, since you are making a claim of fact without providing evidence.