As Pete said.. Under our old system anyone who wanted to vote by mail, could. You didn't have to have a "reason". Although it didn't seem to me that Pete "blamed" the low turn out on vote by mail, it sure doesn't seem to have increased it. If it has hurt turn out, it could be because some of the aura of meaning and value has been lost by making voting like paying a bill or something.

Vote by mail has taken away some of my confidence in the system by making more of the process invisible... and, of course it has made votes coersible. It has also taken away the check of exit polls.

I believe that the crooks running the system in Ohio would have found another way to disenfranchize voters. They need to clean up their system, as they do in Fla. Here in Oregon we should make the head of elections a non-partisan position to help prevent us from going down that road.

I believe we should make voting days holidays and provide free transportation to polling stations with private booths.

Ooops, I meant that they need to clean up their system in Fla. too.

Anyone who dislikes Vote By Mail should explain why it would have been better in 2000 to have had to stand in line while polling place voters marked their ballots on all those umpteen ballot measures that year (many of which failed). People I knew were thrilled that mail voting allowed them to break up the ballot measure voting and maybe only do 2 or 3 measures at a sitting--with their voter pamphlet and notes or anything else they had spread out on the dining room table.

As far as voter coercion, a person not secure in their own mail (able to take their mail ballot to the county elections office and vote there or some similar action) has problems which wouldn't be solved by returning to polling place elections (a system where, by the way, no absentee ballots can be counted until the polls are closed). And I never understood why poll books were supposed to be better security than signature check on ballots. (If you don't like the envelope going thru the mail with your signature, most counties have drop off places.)

As far as open primary, that is open to debate. There are people who think everyone who wants to vote in a primary should register in a party (which might mean in some cases registering for a party, voting, re-registering Indep. from June of that election year until March or so of the next election year, then re-registering again with a party--legal under the current system). There are those who say neither party has 40% of the voters and thus maybe parties should be paying to run primaries instead of taxpayer supported county elections offices.

In my state rep. district, Democrats have 35%, Republicans have 40.9% and close to 1/4 of the voters in what was once one of the most Republican districts in the state (S. Salem --now the district goes west to Monmouth), and primaries here are a rarity. The last time we had one was for an open seat a few years ago, hard to recall when the last primary was before that.

If someone presents evidence for their concerns, that would be one thing. But I think vote by mail is a good thing for a number of reasons. And anyone who doesn't like it should explain why the previous system of holding polling places open for less than 30% of the voters while most voters had signed up for absentee ballots was so great a use of resources.

Some national figure said some years ago "anyone who doesn't want to walk to their polling place...." and got deluged with stories of people who lived miles away from a polling place--in rural areas often miles without sidewalks.

We have much larger problems (electronic machines with no paper record, the idiotic double majority, etc.) which will not be solved by bashing vote by mail.

It has also taken away the check of exit polls.

As someone who lives in a district where the Democrat lost by 61 votes because Carter conceded early, and as someone who recalls that the phone lines were tied up for hours (maybe until the next day?) when Dan Rather looked into the camera before the polls closed on the W. Coast and said "it is over", I don't buy the Gospel of Exit Polls.

How are exit polls a representative sample? Have they never been wrong? (ask NH Sen. Swett--ABC some years ago declared him the winner on national television and then had to retract.) Does everyone who stops to do the exit poll tell the truth, the whole truth? How many Oregonians have the experience of being exit polled? Are those who vote absentee not representative of voters, only polling place voters are? Could someone run successful campaign the following election by a strategy done entirely based on exit polls?

Vote-by-male critics all seem to present their arguments in a vacuum.

They say, for example, that vote-by-male permits abusive husbands to force their wives to vote a particular way. But is there any evidence that this occurs MORE OFTEN than the cases of abusive husbands preventing their wives from going to the polls in the traditional system?

In a vote-by-mail system, anyone can take the time to educate themselves by reading the voters pamphlet and learning about the candidates from other sources. Not so for polling-place voting. Is there any evidence that MORE votes are influenced by abusive husbands in the vote-by-mail system, than, say, those battered wives who do go to the polls in the traditional system but just vote how their husband told them to because they did not have an opportunity to educate themselves about the candidates?

If battered wives aren’t any worse off in the vote-by-mail system, then the abusive husband argument never even gets going.

Vote-by-mail critics argue that the new system eliminates the "civic ritual" aspect of going to your community polling-place and casting a vote. Oregonians can still vote at the elections office, but, OK, I take this as a valid point. But the question remains: Does this disadvantage OUTWEIGH the numerous advantages of vote-by-mail? Vote-by-mail, as we know, boosts turn-out. Is it more important for our democracy that people engage in this “civic ritual,” or that more people vote? Is the “civic ritual” more important, or is it more important to enfranchise the disabled (who often can't get to a polling place) and the working single parent (who doesn't have time to vote on a prescribed date)? Is the “civic ritual” more important, or is a relatively fraud-proof system more important?

The answers are obvious. I don't understand why we can't talk about political issues without demagoguing them. Vote-by-mail is a public policy choice like any other. It has costs and it has benefits. And it's pretty clear to me that the benefits, in the end, outweigh the costs.

And, er the exit polls that showed the Kerry won, and the subsequent academic analysis showing that DieBold stole the election. (sorry -- don't mean to sidetrack the conversation, let's stay focused on VBM and DeFazio).

But Peter may forget that anyone who wants to vote the old-fashioned way, and use a booth at the elections department, can still do so. I'm pro-choice, and I vote. By mail.

Yeah, like I want to return to the old days of driving to the local elementary school to vote, standing in a long line for an hour and patiently waiting while some other voter is standing in the voting booth way too long since they haven't opened their voting pamphlet until now.

Leave vote-by-mail alone! It's working!

You wrote: "In 2006, over 80% of Oregonians voted."

Huh? That can't be correct. Peter is correct. Vote by mail is not the panacea its supports tout it to be. We had a workable system when we had both vote by mail (absentee balloting) and the good old fashioned ballot box. Vote by mail has increased the cost of election campaigns and therefore increased the influence of money and special interests over our public policy. On that point alone, it has done great harm!

T.A.: I think your year is wrong? Do you mean 2006? or 2004? As far as I know we had 1 statewide election this year - 2006 - and turnout was below 40%. What am I missing?

I did not say it increased the cost of "elections." I said it increased the cost of the election "campaigns" as in the amount raised and spent by the candidates.

I said it increased the cost of the election "campaigns" as in the amount raised and spent by the candidates.

Are the candidates being frugal and watching how they spend their money? Or are they bombarding us with ads of all sorts because that sort of one way campaign is better than actual conversation with voters?

Somehow I don't see the single factor causation. Does anyone really believe that if we'd had the old fashioned polling place election with the tone of this primary more people would have voted?

Or would people rather beat up VBM than talk about changing the double majority?

Voters turned down Measure 46 (honest double majority measure--it was in the title about the power of non-voters) while double majority was in the fine print of Measure 47. It was never discussed as part of 47 that I know of. So how did the voters "speak" on double majority?

Are the people who don't like VBM going to tell the 757,204 Oregonians who voted in Vote By Mail "you were wrong about mail voting, but please vote for our candidates"?

As I look at the numbers, No on 60 VBM did not carry a county.

CityHallVet:

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Or should we just take you at your word that candidates have had to raise more money as a result of vote-by-mail?

(Note: saying that political fundraising has increased in recent years is not evidence that vote-by-mail is a problem, because campaign fundraising has increased across the country in that time. Let's see some proof that VBM is more expensive for candidates than the alternative.)

(Indeed, I could make an argument that VBM is less expensive for candidates, since they can rely more heavily on a field program, and a two-week-long GOTV effort, rather than needing to dump ALL of their resources into more expensive TV ads. This argument -- also lacking in evidentiary support -- is beside the point, however.)

Even if evidence to support your claim existed, which it does not, your argument still fails to consider the counterveiling benefits of VBM (increased turnout, a more educated electorate, etc.) See my earlier post in this thread.

I think vote by mail should be left alone. It's a great service for rural people.

And by the way, a real urban/rural divide exists on the vote by mail results. In the 19 Counties that are fully in the Second Congressional District, the fourth largest CD in the Country, our voter turnout was much higher than the State average. Two of our Counties were over 70% voter turnout. A total of 6 Counties in the Second CD were over 50% voter turnout. 15 of 19 were over the State average of 38%, and one tied the State average. Only three Counties were below the 38% from the Second CD.

The three "big Counties" were all below the State average: Multnomah at 35%, Washington at 35%, and Clackamas at 30%. To me this looks like an urban problem.

What is happening in our urban areas that causes a low vote by mail turnout?

Did anyone look at the Marion County turnout? We had a contested state rep. primary, a hotly contested county judicial election, 3 women running for municipal judge, and a hotly contested Salem City Council election.

And while the Capital City is one of the largest in the state, there were people here who knew (and told their friends about) people they called by first name: Chuck, Paul, Laura, and the 3 women running for municipal judge. Chuck, Paul and Laura won, thanks in part to volunteers and people who had known them for years and spoke up for them. In a county where that sort of local contested election is not the case, we could go back to the old polling place election system and given the tone of the Gov. primary, people might still not have bothered to vote--esp. if they were making a conscious decision to avoid the primary so they could sign a Westlund petition.

People tend to make a special point of voting if someone they know is on the ballot, whatever form that voting takes.

I think most of the points have already been covered regarding the debatable effects on turnout and on campaign spending. The only observation that I would like to add to the debate ... is to suggest that Mr. Barnhart's suggestion that Oregonian's are more thoughtful and deliberative because of VBM elections is false. In fact, the academic research that I've read on this topic suggests that voters are less deliberative and MORE partisan. On face, that may seem ridiculous to political geeks like us that read the voters guide from cover to cover, but we are clearly the exception and not the rule.

In fact, the academic research that I've read on this topic suggests that voters are less deliberative and MORE partisan.

Dylan, perhaps you can enlighten us about that academic research?

There are those of us who have taken poli. sci classes AND worked on campaigns and believe the campaign experience had more to do with reality than the poli sci classes---even if the academics would call the campaign experience "anecdotal".

And does the academic research control for the fact that during the Vote by Mail years this state got so partisan Tom McCall might not have been able to win an election? Or are you saying nothing but VBM caused the polarization? That, for instance, without Vote by Mail all legislators would have been as gracious to each other in the last 10 years as they were back decades ago?

For the record, I am not an academic and DO have a history in campaigning both for a campaign consulting firm in DC and with a congressional candidate in Oregon. BUT my friends continuously poke fun of reading preferences, as I would prefer to read academic journals and books on game theory over say "The Da Vinci Code". Still a geek at heart.

I'd be happy to share. The article is entitled, "The Impact of Voting by Mail on Voting Behavior" by Hanmer and Traugett. I think I still have the pdf on my laptop. If someone would like me to send them a copy of the journal article feel free to write me at [email protected] and I'll pass it along. The article does have additional information on residual voting, under/over voting, and down ticket voting. (Which, for the record, show statistically irrelevant effects since the move to VBM.) But the straight ticket voting results is what I was referring to.

As for LT’s questions, the results deal with the voting behavior and not relationship of individual members in the legislature. I am sorry if I was unclear. And obviously running Tom McCall as a control in different elections is unrealistic. But to the point of the questions … I don’t think there is anything intrinsic about getting a mail ballot that makes one more partisan. It is the ability to target and mobilize voters by parties and ideological groups that is creating this change in voting behavior. Something as a campaigner, I am sure you’ve witnessed. But the authors of the research … myself … and even I suspect LT (don’t mean to put words in your mouth but I don’t think you’ll disagree with me) would agree that VBM elections are still very new and this is a statistical area that needs more studying. But I must say … I think Oregon political parties are becoming progressively better at GOTV mobilization and would suspect that that this trend will continue as we gain more experience voting with this method.

If people would prefer me to elaborate more on the control … the survey sample … or my history in campaigning … just ask.

Here is a link to the previously mentioned abstract.

I'm for choice. Let people who want to vote early request absentee ballots. Let people like me who want to gather their candidate info (LWV, Voter's Pamphlet, glossy & deceptive literature from the campaigns) and make their decisions do it - either with a sample ballot to check and bring to the polls or with an absentee ballot to check and mail in. Let people choose their own preferred method of voting. Stop mandating your way to others. I voted against VBM at the polls and would love the chance to do it again. (indefinite antecedent - could mean wants to vote against VBM again, or could mean wants to vote at the polls again.)

Penny, whichever county you lived in when you voted against VBM you were in the minority--it carried all counties.

TA-- VBM, in conjunction with voter-owned elections and instant runoff voting (replacing primaries and allowing party affiliations to remain intact and meaningful), is part of a package of solutions that seems to me our best bet. i haven't seen anything else that works better.

I agree with you on everything but instant runoff. "allowing party affiliations to remain intact and meaningful" won't happen unless you can convince people to quit registering in minor parties and NAV and convince a majority (of legislators or voters) to vote in IRV. You're saying Indep. have no right to nominate--they should register in a party if they want to nominate. You have a right to that opinion, just as anyone has the right to argue over VBM or any other issue.

But until you can convince people who don't follow this stuff regularly that they should make the change to IRV, it won't happen. No one is required to accept IRV without question, just because some people think it is a good idea. In some races, there is only a choice between 2 candidates--Grisham v. Doyle being a great example in 2004. How would IRV work in that situation? Tell people how it would work, don't say "but suppose there had been 3 candidates" as some IRV supporters say.

TA ... I think I got a little lost ... why do we need to do both VBM and VOE and IRV as a passage deal? I see as about a much linkage between these issues as ... say lobbying reform and VBM. Do you think they should be linked? Or would you simplily like to see them all passsed? Or would you, in fact, be happy if we just passed (or in the case of VBM kept) one of these options individually?

As for IRV ... I agree with LT. A cardinal rule of democracy is that all voters have an equal say. Yet instant-runoff voting essentially allows supporters of the least-popular candidates to REcast their vote again once it becomes apparent they are not going to win. Why should one voter be allowed a second bite at the cherry, just because his candidate is unpopular?

Which state has IRV? Just because something has worked at the city level it will work at the state level?

And again, if it is true that with only 2 choices people could vote one choice for each candidate or 2 votes for one candidate, why don't IRV advocates say so?

Because "we have this great idea, therefore it will work" is seen as a better strategy than explaining how IRV would work?

And are you saying the dumb law from 2005 would be overturned and anyone could sign a petition even if they voted in the primary? Or how would Ben Westlund get on the ballot? Would he have not be allowed on the ballot as Indep?

There I go again, asking implementation questions when IRV advocates don't want to go beyond "isn't IRV great!?

Before I get into answering TA response ... let me answer TL's first question to TA. Yes ... San Francisco has it. But I think Vermont has it too ... but they're all based of the Irish National Model. At least I think.

As for TA ... the problem I see with linking this bills for you is they all have different reasons to support them. And in some cases the argument for passing something like VOE (getting the money out of campaigning) works against you in VBM (which is increasing the cost of elections) by requiring a sustained media drive over the last month.(yes ... I know disagree with that ... I was reading the comments in order.) But you must admit that this makes the issues muddled when you combine them and ... in the end ... makes them harder to pass.

As for the analogy, it is my understand that with IRV, you vote for your choices in numerical order but unlike an MVP race it doesn't give a numerical value to the different choices (1st is 5 points, 2nd is 3 points or 3rd is one point ... like an MVP race). Rather ... under the IRL system, the computer eliminates the candidate with the fewest votes, and then switches his votes to his number 2 selection and recasts his vote for them. If those fresh votes still do not put any candidate over 50% of the vote, the process is repeated, each time eliminating the low vote-getter and redistributing their votes to lesser candidates until someone gets a majority. In my opinion ... this violates the democratic principal of one person one vote.

Pretty soon will have a BCS system for selecting a winner ... with computer simulating ranks ... and preferences given to Multnomah County preferences over other counties. :)

I still believe that making election day a holiday, and providing free transportation would increase participation and interest and belief in the value of voting. (Of course I understand that better and clearer choices are probably more important.)

Karl, Who would provide the free transportation? I drove people to the polls a few decades ago, and it was a logistical nightmare getting people to call the central office, getting directions, picking up the voter, transporting them to the polling place and back. And gas was a lot cheaper back then.

Ginny Ross, Thank you for explaining what i should have known...How our system works and how vulnerable it is. It's hard to believe that there is no check on the secretly tallied machine results. For people to believe that their vote has meaning they have to believe that the results can't be messed with.

Vote by mail is more prone to fraud. Why do you want to make voting easier for those unwilling to make any effort?

I have been doing exstensive work opposing all Vote By Mail and Touchscreens in King County. For anyone intersested, I have put an article with many links, and all my current research online. For those of you that want to know why those of us opposed to this system are opposed.

Vote by Mail, and Diebold... All your Votes are Belong to Us. http://www.gentrylange.com/absentee_statement.html