Refuting the so-called
“Advantages of All Mail Balloting over Traditional Poll Balloting”
By
David M. Flint for AFVR
(The
numbered items are regularly presented as viable reasons to adopt an “all-Mail”
balloting system. These points are refuted by the facts set forth under each
item.)
1. Changing
to Mail balloting has resulted in increased participation among voters.
The reality is that
many mail-in ballots are returned to government offices with questionable names,
incomplete information, and a higher percentage of unreadable information on the
ballots. This requires election officials to do more editing and even utilize
“guessing” to interpret “Voter Intent”. Nothing assures that the voter is the
party who actually filled out and sent the ballot in. Many ballots are mailed
without the voter’s signature and are either not counted or are returned to the
voter (by mail) for the signature, increasing the cost. Such voters are counted
as having participated, even if their vote is not counted. Again, and
most importantly, there is no secure system, or requirement
to verify that the voter is the person who actually votes on the
mail-in ballot.
2. Mail-in
Voting allows for a more accurate picture of eligible voters, by keeping voting
lists up-to-date.
This point is
invalid because the mail-in system cannot verify that the voter actually
received his own ballot or registration card. The returned ballot does not
assure verification of residency as many individuals receive mail at an address
other than an actual residence. The Mail-in ballot system does, however, hinder
potential voters from registering at the last minute, if a voting jurisdiction
allows for it. Additinal criticism is that the Mail-in System of voting lends
itself to easily corrupt the integrity of the secret ballot, as it
opens the system to coercion at many points in the process. Private voting
booths in public buildings assure secrecy for individual voters, reducing such
coercion. With a mail-in ballot, critics further theorize that spouses, parents,
bosses, unions or other influential people could potentially coerce an
individual voter with little fear of being reported to election officials. In
the hundreds of elections conducted by mail so far, there has been scant
evidence validating this concern EVEN THOUGH THIS ALLEGATION HAS
increasingly BEEN ADDMITTED IN Anonymous
POLLING OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS when asked.
3. Mail-in
Voting gives voters a longer opportunity to study the ballot and find answers to
questions.
Sample ballots,
internet and news media information are much better sources for the voter to
become educated on the issues and candidates in an election. Updates and
changes are immediately available through internet and fax systems. However, it
is impossible to make last minute changes or revisions to a printed paper ballot
that has already been mailed. With current technology, ballots are now digitally
created and can be revised and updated quickly using the internet, government
fax systems and up-to-date machine voting before they are printed on or before
election-day. Again, it is impossible to accomplish such timely updates with
a mail -in paper ballot.
Because of the time
required to send a ballot through the mail, a voter is deprived of the
access to last minute election and candidate updates during the election
process. All reliable polls and study data indicate that up to 30% of voters
change their minds or make their final decisions on issues and candidates
at the last minute –often while in the voting booth. With mail-in
ballots, voters lose the chance to reevaluate data, because mail-in ballots
leave no chance to reconsider after the ballot is mailed.
The delayed counting
in the Mail-in ballot system, and staggered timing of the receipt of the ballots
by mail, creates the perfect setting for tipping election results
through various political strategies. Manipulation requires timing. With
planning, a group could now off-set or influence the late voters, by arranging
for a certain group to vote early—then pressuring or discouraging late voters.
4. Mail-In
voting is easier for election officials to conduct.
The actual history
of Mail-in balloting substantiates the high volume of complaints involved in
each election from voters who do not receive a ballot or receive one too late.
This does not include the complaints from the military and citizens temporarily
living overseas or out of the voting jurisdiction, for which the mail-in ballot
was originally designed to serve. Mail is often lost or stolen or delayed—giving
no assurance that each voter will be given equal opportunity to
vote by the deadline.
5. Mail-In
voting is cost effective.
The cost of
printing-and re-printing ballots, envelopes, instructions and labels elevates
the expense of running an election. Double postage is necessary for each ballot
to provide the simulation of equal access to voting for all voters.
Constant training and updated training is required for election staff to
accurately count the votes. Additional training will eventually be needed for
security purposes as the system becomes more familiar to the public and open to
miss-use or fraud. Counting the ballots takes longer as each voter signature
must be verified with the voter registration file. (In standard Poll-voting,
volunteer poll workers verify identification and/or signature verification while
face to face with each voter in each precinct, based on regulations for the
same.) LESS time is available to correct mistakes in printing, which adds a
“rush” cost to be paid for a correction. Most counties/jurisdictons fail to
include all the associated cost in their figures. When these other costs are
included and the numbers are run again, one wonders if the alleged minimal
savings outweighs the wearing down of the security and accountability in our
electoral system by the all mail-in balloting system.
IN CONCLUSION:
Supporters and
critics of mail balloting share one concern: voting-by-mail could
further alienate us from one another and the great patriotic
significance of the “Election Day”. Election Day in the United
States has traditionally been a time in every voting jurisdiction when voters
congregate at the polls and share ideas and support local needs with neighbors.
Traditional voting brings real political energy to the polls. The personal
contact on voting day facilitates the sense of responsibility and assurance that
one individual is as important as the next in our election system. The mail-in
balloting can never provide that or guarantee to individuals that their own vote
carries the same weight as another’s. What do you think?
