Vote by mail? OK, so I was wrong ...By Mark Trahant
Published September 25th 2005 in Seattle-Post Intelligencer
I make mistakes from time to time. I've misspelled names, gotten a key
fact wrong or made a prediction (either in print or in conversations
with friends) that turned out to be extraordinarily wrong. I hate every
misstep, but at least journalism has a process for this sort of thing.
We write a correction, a one-sentence mea culpa that (in theory) sets
the record straight.
But we don't have the same sort of process when we get something big wrong, such as an idea we've promoted, a philosophy or a major public policy initiative.
So here goes: I am wrong about voting by mail.
I thought voting by mail was the ideal way to increase voter participation. I loved the idea of taking my time to sort through a ballot (especially complicated initiatives), ticking my choices and then mailing it off for an efficient count. I also liked the notion that making voting easier would increase participation. When it comes to democracy, the more, the better.
My thinking -- make that my rethinking -- about voting by mail started with allegations a few months ago involving election fraud in the United Kingdom.
A judge tossed out a local election in April, saying the vote-by-mail system was "wide open to fraud." The scandal involved forged signatures and stolen ballots. The judge in the case, Richard Mawrey, told the BBC that the electoral fraud was so great that it would "disgrace a banana republic."
Compare and contrast the two methods of voting: At the polls, ballots are secured and guarded. Someone is always watching. A mailed ballot is secure only at the post office and when it returns to the election office. Most of the time, the ballot is out in the open. It can be stolen from a mailbox, filled out by anyone or be freely given to a third party. In between the round trip to the post office, there are no controls. None.
The potential for fraud is greater because we tend to vote in geographic patterns. Professionals know where we live and how we are likely to vote. Consider the impact on a statewide race if 10 percent of Democrat-leaning Seattle's ballots were stolen from mailboxes. Or vice versa from, say, Spokane.
Another reason for my change of heart occurred on Bainbridge Island. Days before the election, a Web site revealed that a mayoral candidate's resume was padded. I didn't vote for that candidate, but I had already voted. What if it were my candidate? I could not take my vote back. I wonder if the frenetic pace of 21st-century life is a contradiction with vote by mail. Two weeks is too long to be committed; the world is changing too fast every day.
Perhaps my newfound concern about voting by mail came too late. I am now listed as a permanent absentee and many counties have given up on polls. I hope it doesn't take a major fraud to reverse this trend.
I still think we need to do more to re-engage Americans in the voting process. We ought to work harder to get people to the polls, perhaps making voting near effortless.
Last week, a commission led by former President Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker proposed significant electoral reforms. Their first suggestion is to transfer the registration process from local and county governments to the state. The commission proposes a "universal" list, maintained by the state, but with a database open to other state governments.
The commission also calls for a requirement to show a driver's license or some other identification before voting. Perhaps it's inevitable that we will have to prove who we are, but I fear this will be one more reason for people not to vote.
Another commission recommendation is to require a paper trail for electronic voting machines -- or at least some system for auditing votes.
The Commission on Federal Election Reform made 87 suggestions, reaching a price tag of $1.35 billion. That figure could doom this report to inaction.
These reforms probably would improve the integrity of the election process.
There are ideas I would add to the mix. I think we should exchange expensive primary elections for the more accurate instant runoff voting where we pick our favorite candidate, second favorite, giving us more of a choice in the process. And, if we require some sort of ID, I think we should do away with voting registration. The ID ought to be good enough.
None of these reforms are enough, though. America needs to figure out how to increase participation by all citizens; we need a renewed ethic, a zeal for democracy. We need to remind people that democracy is fragile -- and we should guard against those excesses that would disgrace even a banana republic. When it comes to our elections, we need to move beyond recent mistakes.
But we don't have the same sort of process when we get something big wrong, such as an idea we've promoted, a philosophy or a major public policy initiative.
So here goes: I am wrong about voting by mail.
I thought voting by mail was the ideal way to increase voter participation. I loved the idea of taking my time to sort through a ballot (especially complicated initiatives), ticking my choices and then mailing it off for an efficient count. I also liked the notion that making voting easier would increase participation. When it comes to democracy, the more, the better.
My thinking -- make that my rethinking -- about voting by mail started with allegations a few months ago involving election fraud in the United Kingdom.
A judge tossed out a local election in April, saying the vote-by-mail system was "wide open to fraud." The scandal involved forged signatures and stolen ballots. The judge in the case, Richard Mawrey, told the BBC that the electoral fraud was so great that it would "disgrace a banana republic."
Compare and contrast the two methods of voting: At the polls, ballots are secured and guarded. Someone is always watching. A mailed ballot is secure only at the post office and when it returns to the election office. Most of the time, the ballot is out in the open. It can be stolen from a mailbox, filled out by anyone or be freely given to a third party. In between the round trip to the post office, there are no controls. None.
The potential for fraud is greater because we tend to vote in geographic patterns. Professionals know where we live and how we are likely to vote. Consider the impact on a statewide race if 10 percent of Democrat-leaning Seattle's ballots were stolen from mailboxes. Or vice versa from, say, Spokane.
Another reason for my change of heart occurred on Bainbridge Island. Days before the election, a Web site revealed that a mayoral candidate's resume was padded. I didn't vote for that candidate, but I had already voted. What if it were my candidate? I could not take my vote back. I wonder if the frenetic pace of 21st-century life is a contradiction with vote by mail. Two weeks is too long to be committed; the world is changing too fast every day.
Perhaps my newfound concern about voting by mail came too late. I am now listed as a permanent absentee and many counties have given up on polls. I hope it doesn't take a major fraud to reverse this trend.
I still think we need to do more to re-engage Americans in the voting process. We ought to work harder to get people to the polls, perhaps making voting near effortless.
Last week, a commission led by former President Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker proposed significant electoral reforms. Their first suggestion is to transfer the registration process from local and county governments to the state. The commission proposes a "universal" list, maintained by the state, but with a database open to other state governments.
The commission also calls for a requirement to show a driver's license or some other identification before voting. Perhaps it's inevitable that we will have to prove who we are, but I fear this will be one more reason for people not to vote.
Another commission recommendation is to require a paper trail for electronic voting machines -- or at least some system for auditing votes.
The Commission on Federal Election Reform made 87 suggestions, reaching a price tag of $1.35 billion. That figure could doom this report to inaction.
These reforms probably would improve the integrity of the election process.
There are ideas I would add to the mix. I think we should exchange expensive primary elections for the more accurate instant runoff voting where we pick our favorite candidate, second favorite, giving us more of a choice in the process. And, if we require some sort of ID, I think we should do away with voting registration. The ID ought to be good enough.
None of these reforms are enough, though. America needs to figure out how to increase participation by all citizens; we need a renewed ethic, a zeal for democracy. We need to remind people that democracy is fragile -- and we should guard against those excesses that would disgrace even a banana republic. When it comes to our elections, we need to move beyond recent mistakes.