You can still request an absentee ballot in Oregon. It's a good idea to do this if you are going to be away from your registered address during the election, because of course the USPS won't forward your ballot. And, nope, you don't need to give an excuse.

LOVE vote-by-mail!!

Shame on Bill Bradbury - He intellectual dishonesty, or outright ignorance as demonstrated in these quotes of his words, embarrasses us all in Oregon for drawing national attention to a system that mature and intelligent Americans elsewhere already immediately recognize as an embarrassment and a disgrace to our representative democracy.

One episode that highlights its success occurred in Tillamook County, ...

Leading off with an unusual weather condition, and one that is no worse than other rural jurisdictions in other states have contingency plans for, is vacuous. On top of that, you have no way of knowing how many would have voted anyway under another system. On top of that is the 70% turnout of registered voters after lists have been purged at least twice in the last 10 years in Oregon, or 70% of of eligible voters. The latter is not impressive, and may actually indicate a failure of VBM to meaningfully increase participation in elections by actually increasing the number of eligible voters who participate. (Google threads about VBM on this blog to get references to the academic studies that have found the system does not convert many infrequent voters to frequent voters and how, therefore, with legally mandated purges the pool of registered voters converges to the pool of active voters who would have voted regardless of the method.)

The system has proven to be fraud-free...

Signature verification is irrelevant to preventing any type of election fraud that has been of concern in recent elections. The myth behind HAVA that ineligible voters are the main source of voter fraud is something that Republicans have been pushing to justify a host of measures with the unspoken goal of dishonestly disenfranchising voters. For you to try to leverage that to defend VBM is disgusting and says something about either how dumb you think the public is, or how dumb you are.

On top of that, with VBM you cannot prove that the person who signed the envelope is the one who filled out the ballot. And anyone can be coerced or participate in marking their ballot in some kind of group environment where they would can be influenced to vote in a way that they would not in the privacy of the voting booth. In a polling place election, mounting a fraud in which people actually had to go to the polls to significantly effect the outcome just doesn't happen because of the stupendous effort required to do that. And of course, people are free to vote however they actually want to because by design they have been removed from any possible coercive or persuasive influences in the privacy of the voting booth to the maximum extent possible.

With voting by mail, ...

I've already dealt in part with the fact that "turnout" issue is not as you misleadingly represent it. As far as voter harassment and intimidation - how would you know how much improper influencing is actually going on for the reasons already cited?

Voting by mail is also a cost-effective way to run elections,

Since when is saving money an important basis for choosing a system for the most important civic duty in a representative democracy? Particularly when virtually every other reasons cited as a strength by VBM in fact is easily shown to be misleading or in fact a weakness?

A University of Oregon study ...

If this is the study cited on the SOS website, it is the study that shows VBM has not increased participation in elections. The fact that the people express a preference for the consumerist approach to voting in which the system caters to their desire to sit on their lazy butts in their own isolated world, and to vote at their convenience rather than get out and set aside their personal focus every couple of years to participate in an important civic ritual, is the biggest negative about VBM. And, arguably, may be part of the reason that VBM does not actually increase voter participation. It encourages the opposite of community. It encourages self-centered isolation over true community interaction and participation. (One of these days I'd love to see a poll that examines the overlap between all the PDX whackadoodles who go on and on about walkable communities and all that B.S. and yet are just as strongly supportive of VBM so they don't have to go out and actually interact in their really community about the most important of community duties and issues.)

It is this kind of shameless appeal to regressive impulses that right now hold sway in our civic dialogue in the face of the contradictory facts that demonstrates how little VBM proponents have to offer to substantively defend VBM.

The foundation of our democracy rests upon the administration of free, fair and highly participatory elections. It's critical that Americans have faith in the security of their vote. Here in Oregon, with voting by mail, we have achieved those things and been able to assure voters that their votes count.

In the best tradition of the NW, we have only achieved the illusion of elections that fulfill the role the franchise is supposed to serve in our democracy and have achieved little of the reality when it comes to genuinely empowering all of those who are eligible to vote to actually vote.

The point of election day, as the founders' construed it, is the focusing of national attention and the setting aside of our personal, consumerist "Me first" mentality catered to by VBM to participate in a common national, state, and local ritual for the good of our democracy.

The abject inability of VBM proponents to ever answer any of the substantive criticisms of VBM with anything but the kind of adolescent sniping, complete with that intellectually dishonest faux NW humility masking a provincial smugness rooted in ignorance, that in fact is just an attempt to deflect attention for serious discussion:

And if our elections aren't quite as exciting, or if the results aren't as likely to be disputed as some others around the country, well, we'll just have to live with that.

shows just how morally and intellectually bankrupt, VBM proponents really are.

Jeremy Wright -

If you actually want to do something meaningful in reforming elections, rather than promote the fraud and sham that is VBM, start working on polling place elections, with same day registration, paper trails, and quality exit place polling. That is the recipe for quality elections in which every vote will count, and be counted, and that will improve participation by building a sense of true community participation in a process that means something to our community, state, and country.

Kari -

Can you tell us which western state, who has in recent years produced elected leaders you like, has moved to precisely this general type of system I just urged Jeremy to actually work for instead of VBM?

Bill Bradbury -

The most that can be said about your pathetic op ed is that it raises honest questions about your competence as SOS and as a leader. I certainly now will think twice about ever voting for you, or for any issue you endorse, because of your obviously suspect reasoning abilities, apparent intellectual dishonesty, and obvious contempt for the intelligence of the electorate. On the upside, you obviously have the support of a minority of folks who are similarly deluded about the merits of VBM, so much so that they will attempt to push this sham on the rest of the American public using much the same misleading propogandistic techniques and appeal to self-centeredness that has proved so successful for the right wing in recent years, rather than work on meaningful electoral reform. Thanks a lot.

I have some questions for anyone from the SOS office who may read this thread:

1) Did Bradbury use any state resources (time, computer, email, staff, etc.) to produce this advocacy op ed for the Washington Post? How about in connection with his participation in any other advocacy activities for VBM?

2) Without assuming that he did, if it does happen that he did, can you outline for us what he believes is the legal authorization and limits for him to expend state resources for this particular type of advocacy activity, and particularly outside the state of Oregon, within the scope of his duties as SOS?

3) Again, without assumng that he did, if it does happen that he did, what state agency would be responsible for possible enforcement of any possible ethics law violations that might be involved? (This is a general point of information that should be known to all going forward as we enter this period of national advocacy by VBM proponents).

Finally, without making any pre-judgements in the absence of facts, concerned voters who care about the actual integrity of our elections and our representative democracy should and would like to know the answers to these substantive questions. (And we would welcome at least a cursory examination of them by journalists.)

Hey all. It's good to see the op-ed posted and discussed here.

Thanks, Jeremy, for the VBM Project shout out. As to the web site, my apologies if there are clarifications that need to be made. This has been a one-man operation since our launch this year, and while I'm hoping to be bringing in more hands in the very near future, it's been difficult to keep up on everything. I'll get to it. (Feel free to visit the site to make a donation to help make that happen faster.)

I don't have a lot of time today to re-engage the somewhat bizarre reasoning in the anti-vbm comment above, but I will say this:

Yes, yes... all of the elections officials - the people (who come from all sides of the political spectrum) who actually run elections, and who are calling en masse for their states to move towards Vote By Mail, are part of a broad-based conspiracy - funded by the Masons and the trilateral commission and the Zionist cabal - to perpetrate election fraud on the people.

This would include the past three Oregon Secretaries of State (two Dems, one Republican) the Oregon County Clerks, the past two Secretaries of State in Washington (both Republicans,) the California Registrars, the Secretary of State and the Clerks and Recorders of Idaho, the Colorado County Clerks (and county governments representing 80% of Colorado's citizens), the Secretary of State of Minnesota... and this is just a partial list.

Don't even attempt to unravel this conspiracy. If you don't know the secret handshake, you'll get nowhere.

As to the turnout numbers, the poster argues essentially that since Oregon's voter rolls are clean ("have been purged") this makes our turnout numbers look better than they are. Of course, Vote By Mail, under which ballots are not forwarded when a person has moved or died is precisely the reason why Oregon has the cleanest voter rolls in the nation. This acts as a check against fraud, and allows us to plan elections based on an actual number of registered voters. This is a bad thing?

As to the Tillamook story, yes, other jurisdictions have contingency plans for natural disasters on Election Day. Those plans are a nightmare for elections officials (just ask them) and they mostly involve postponing the election. Tillamook's turnout was pretty consistent with the rest of the state despite a declared state of emergency. Yes, this is a success, and attributable to VBM.

As to voter fraud, let's start by noting that the recent report (kept mostly under wraps by the current administration until after the election) by the federal Election Assistance Commission found that vote fraud (the manipulation of individual votes) is a miniscule problem compared to broader election problems (problems with touch-screen machines, voter harassment/intimidation at the polls, etc.)

Also, in Oregon, the penalty for forging, buying, or otherwise manipulating a single ballot is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $125,000 fine. This means that in order to impact even the closest election for the smallest office on the ballot by buying, stealing, intimidating or forging sigs on ballots, one would have to risk a prison terms amounting to multiple life sentences.

How bad do you want that single state leg seat?

The Vote By Mail Project supports the strong deterrent of harsh penalties for election fraud with regard to absentee ballots.

As to Secretary of State Bradbury, he is speaking for his office, but also for the preferences of over 80% of the citizens of Oregon who have indicated that they prefer VBM to polling place elections.

There is also the little issue of trust, in that no one on any side who has any connection to Oregon politics has in any way called the results of even the closest races into question. Yes, procedures are everything, and we seem to have terrific procedural safeguards in place here - but the lack of challenges or even charges of significant fraud here speaks volumes for the soundness of our election system.

That's all for now. Hope everyone at Blue Oregon has a great holiday!

Adam J. Smith Executive Director Vote By Mail Project

The only flaw in Vote By mail is that we have to supply the Stamp. Is there a way to give us an envelope with our ballot that will be delivered to the county elections office without us supplying postage?? Other than that, it a great thing to have - keeps the riff raff out of the process.

Hey hackquestions -

Why do you hate Oregon's freedom so much?

Can't we just have...

vbm - same day registration w/ polling places? Would that make you happy. I really want to make you happy, you don't seem very happy. and in politics, we need shiny happy people, holidng hands - k?

toodles,

m dillah

"the nattering nabobs"

It is refreshing to see BlueOregon recycle a phrase Pat Buchanan wrote for Spiro Agnew. How ecumenical of us.

Askquestions1st,

There's nothing I enjoy more than your explosive logorrhea. Keep the lunacy and self-contradiction coming!

Kari -

Thanks for what I recognize is an attempt to offer constructive criticism. It is appreciated. Sadly, and I say this regrettably as a Democrat talking about a Democratic elected official, I am not confusing anything here. I fully understand the difference between electioneering and advocacy, and I am talking precisely about possible improper advocacy for two reasons:

First, constitutionally the SOS is an Administrative office. That is different from a Legislative office or an Executive office, the holders of which have law-making and policy-making duties, respectively, and therefore arguably in their official capacity are entitled to engage in advocacy about the laws or policies they favor. In contrast, the state constitution precisely spells out the duties of the SOS precisely in Article VI. As an Adminstrative officer, the SOS has no inherent policy or law-making duties, nor is he given any implicit or explicit authority to use his office for advocacy, and particularly not on a national issue outside the state of Oregon, unless he has been specifically authorized to do so by the legislature.

Second, as you correctly point out, there is no open issue about VBM in Oregon on which the SOS office has been asked for relevant information in the scope of his administrative duties. Therefore, if he has expended any public dollars to engage in advocacy, and particularly on a national scale, and the legislature did not specifically authorize the expenditure of dollars for that purpose, a pretty good argument can be made that he may have committed an actionable ethics violation. And it would be the most transparent of deceits to claim the kind of comments he made misrepresenting the facts about VBM (mainly by omission), and demeaning the substantive criticisms of VBM opponents is anything close to an appropriate statement about VBM adminstrative matters.

If the SOS wants to claim this is within the scope of his rights as a politician who wants to make VBM a plank in his platform for whatever office he wants to run for next, fine. Someone just needs to confirm he didn't use any public resources, including submitting the op ed to the Post on government letterhead or from a government email address, in service of what essentially would be his own personal political career. It is undeniable that it is of valid public interest to know if this is simply his position as a politician and a partisan in the matter, rather than a statement in his official capacity as the SOS.

It is also telling about the advocates of VBM like "Adam J. Smith" that they offer exactly the wrong defense of Bradbury here by claiming:

As to Secretary of State Bradbury, he is speaking for his office, but also for the preferences of over 80% of the citizens of Oregon who have indicated that they prefer VBM to polling place elections.

With friends like that actually helping make the case of possible impropriety, elected officials don't need any enemies.

In this last election we saw that voters were tired of corruption by government officials who seemed to have the lost the ability to think clearly and discern the difference between the obligations of one's office from one's personal goals and beliefs. There is more than enough on the record, and now evidence that the question has been publicly raised, for the Government Standards and Practices Commission to open up a preliminary investigation to determine whether Bradbury used public resources and, if that proves to be the case, whether such use was in the scope of his constitutionally authorized administrative duties or any additional legislatively mandated duties. And it certainly appears they may want to start by asking Adam J Smith what else he may know about the matter.

Let's hope the alternative press including this blog, the mainstream press, and the GSPC actually stand for defending ethics in government as they claim to and will do their jobs to answer the legitimate questions about the involvement of the SOS in this op ed that now confront us.

Kari -

You, like a lot of folks, seem to have a problem in not representing positions contrary to yours accurately when you respond. To serious readers it can be unclear whether that is the result of a genuine inability to understanding complex arguments, or simply plain intellectual disingenousness.

So let me make one thing clear: I didn't say he didn't have a right to pen an op ed as a personal political act as you try to misrepresent my comments here. What I asked is if he has a legal right, and if it is ethical, to do that in his official capacity as a constitutional Administrative official using state resources. Big difference. Is it important distinction clear to you now?

Just because Tom McCall took a certain position doesn't make it true, ethical, or moral. In fact, that is exactly what we are debating here. One can take the position as an elected official that one has the right to act and speak in a certain way as a leader that challenges legal constraints and social norms. Some good political advice, though, is that one had better pick issues in which one is defending important values on which to do that. I hardly think VBM rises to that level. I personally think that says there was something essentially immature in the approach of Tom McCall, at least as interpreted the social and legal framework in which his almost cultish following carried out his views, and perhaps in their shared personal interpretation of more widely held values. The end result was a reactionary new majority who had very different ideas what constitutes "quality of the life" and Measure 37. Have you come to grips with that political and social reality yet?

I could go through any number of big and small issues in our state and national history which irrefutably demonstrate that just because the majority of people want something at the time doesn't make it right. I know it is a strange concept to a lot of childish folks who believe that just because they want it is justification enough. And frankly, in states where folks have a lot more knowledge about the mechanics and social role of elections, not too mention experience with hotly contested races, Bradury's juvenile and snide op ed made us look once again like loopy provincial rubes who can't be taken too seriously. Not people who have a good idea. I personally don't think that is in the publc interest. Beyond that I think it is important for the public to know whether representing us with such a sophmoric performance is in the scope of the duties with which we charge our public officials. If it is fine, but it is an embarrassment nonetheless.

By the way - what is that state that you've talked so highly about before that has precinct-place, same-day registration, paper ballot elections, and where the exit polls accurately called the result of a close election? They look a whole lot less like provincial clowns than we do, courtesy of our SOS.

hackquestions -

you are talking about Montana.

Bam, you spanked those VBM advocates. (note: this is sarcasm)

On the same line of logic you are using. I wonder if you are a pedophile? I've read that they spend time on the internet and in chat rooms. So, it seems to suggest that you are a pedophile. I have no evidence to support this, but I'd like to know. Could we have a journalist look into that? If not, maybe you just appear to be one.

Finally, a SOS from a vote by mail state advocating for vote by mail seems appropriate to me. With all of the federal activity around HAVA, I think that there are some very good reasons to be strident in the defense of our state's system.

On more thing - people vote, polling places and mailed ballots don't. We just make it easier here, and I think that is a good thing. It is the most important right we have as an American, yet some would expect that we make it harder to do than buy a handgun or get a hunting license.

So, where do you fit? Should it be harder to vote or should we make it as easy as possible?

Were you the "democrat" who was featured on Robyn Brown(?)'s materials in Corvallis? I seem to remember that handle from the story.

Well, paul's right about focusing on the question but, askquesitons started it...

Anyhow, I can't say that there is an easy way to answer what vote by mail means to turn out. What i do know is that it is much better for campaigning. Assuming that campaigning is the driver of turnout, then one could make the leap that vbm is good for turnout.

Also, we have only had 2 all vote by mail presidential races. The political make up of our state and nation is changing. We've gotten much more non-affiliated voters in the mix now than in years past.

In theory we should be doing worse now than in 1990 but, for some reason (vbm?) we are still a very high voting state.

Just my two cents.

A question particularly for Paul as somebody with particular background in this arena. Do you have an opinion as to whether vote by mail or Election day registration has a greater impact on increasing voter turnout? (albeit perhaps in just targeted ways as you note) This question recognizes of course that this topic isn't an either/or in Oregon where vote by mail has been adopted. But do you think this is a question worth considering in states considering moving to vote by mail? If the goal is increased turnout, which strategy is best suited to meet that goal?

I was intrigued by a recent Oregonian editorial in support of election day registration aka EDR. Folks may also be interested in this recent opinion piece on Montana's maiden effort: http://www.demos.org/democracydispatches/article.cfm?type=2&id=0659CAB7-3FF4-6C82-5004D7641A4348C1

I recently gave a speech at a debate tournment on the merits of VBM and got first place so here our some of my agruments.

1) No fraud. I did vote reg work people must write down drivers liceisne number or part of Social secuirty number. They must sign it, then the evonople they return the ballot in they must sign. The signutures must match up for the ballot to be counted. The oregonian reported and I forgot the number that oregon has never had a reported claim of fraud with VBN. Lets not forget the florida county that at one point gave Al Gore -14,000 votes. 2) Voter turnout. VBM is a very easy way to vote the ballot is mailed to you you fill it out, and grasp you have two weeks to do that. You put it mail with a stamp or you can drop it off at one of many drop out sites. Part of the reason why Oregon had if I remember correctly the highest youth voter turnout in Oregon. Now if the stamp was given for free the turnout could be higher because for some people going to the drop box or buying a stamp is much hassle for them. 3) More informed voter. Imgaine in a place where most of the voters dont know the candidates for non federal races or non statewide races and go the polling place and learn for the first time the candidates and make a uninformed vote. Its a place called america where that happens in most states. In oregon you have two weeks to fill out your ballot learn about the candidates. You get a voters pamplhet sent to you that gives information on ballot measures and candidates.

For the reasons that VBM has no fruad, voter turnout goes up, and you get a more informed voter I strongly support VBM

(my speech was a little more detailed but because it was a heres your topic now you have 30 minutes to prepare with no computer I didnt write on my computer and dont feel like typing it up)

There are at least two legitimate issues that have been raised here:

1) Is Oregon's high percentage of registered voters who vote because more people vote or because VBM helps clean up the voter roles, reducing the number of registered voters.

2) Are VBM ballots private? There have been rumors of Republican churches where everyone gets together to pray and decide how God wants them all to vote. People then fill out there ballots together and they are collected by someone to be dropped off. Those could just be aggressive get out the vote efforts, but they could easily turn into something more sinister.

3) Oregon has good turnout for states without same day registration, but why doesn't Oregon have same day registration? The answer is because the Rajneeshes tried to stuff the ballot box in Antelope back in the 80's by recruiting people to move there just to vote. It seems like abolishing same day registration was a huge overreaction. The legislature ought to restore the simple idea that people should be able to register and vote at the same time - right up to election day.

Ross Williams point #2 is something that should not be overllooked. In weighing the pliuses and minuses of any voting scheme compared to another, VBM proponents frequenly do not give any thought to the reality that some of the downsides of VBM are much more detrimental to society than the few pluses of VBM. The point Ross raises is of such overriding importance to a secular society that it allone negates any pluses of VBM.

As proof of that one only needs to look at the fact that every state prohibits electioneering within some radius of any place that ballots are cast for well-established reasons. At the bottom line, VBM advocates demonstrate they have no understanding of the reason this iis fundamental to the very basis of our electoral system. As a result, we here in Oregon make complete fools of ourselves in front of the nation by posting signs prohibiting electioneering in front of ballot drop-off locations where virtually no one actually marks their ballots. Yet we have absolutely no meainingful prohibitiions - because they are impossible to enforce - against situations in which people take their ballots to a place where there can be unfettered electioneering at the time they actually mark their ballots. And this does not even touch upon the fact that we almost certainly have a high incidence of family members marking ballots for other family members.

I submit that in their heart of hearts, VBM advocates really don't even see a problem with either of these situations.

Kari -

I'll just reiterate that the Governor, as an executive officer, has policy-making authority and the consitutional right to advocate for his policies. The SOS, as an administrative officer, has no policy-making authority and no constitutional right to use the resources of his office for advocacy unless the legislature has explicitly authorized him to do so.

I don't have to file anything with the GPSC at this point. Because they have the legal authority and moral obligaton to investigate possible ethical violations on their own initiative, as they did in the Kelley Wirth case, the SOS has put every one of the Commisision members in a position where their personal integrity and the credilibity of the GPSC is on the line. I am fairly confident the GPSC is aware of the situation by this point, and we shall see if the press does their job to hold the agency accountable.

every state prohibits electioneering within some radius of any place that ballots are cast for well-established reasons

I don't think that is true. I have worked elections where people passed out literature to voters as they went into the polling place.

we almost certainly have a high incidence of family members marking ballots for other family members.

I doubt there is a "high incidence" at all.

Which really brings us to the central issue. Some people see voting as a quasi-religious experience, like taking communion. But voting is really about selecting our leaders. The election process is invariably less than perfect, the question is whether it is good enough. The question is do we get the leaders we voted for?

An occasional ineligible person voting does not destroy the integrity of an election. For instance, non-citizens used to be eligible to vote in many states. Its not the end of the earth if one votes now. But clearly in 2000 we didn't get the President most of us voted for. That is a problem.

So are vote by mail elections more susceptible to fraud or abuse than those at the polls. I don't think they are. In fact, to the contrary, when taken as a whole I think there are a lot fewer problems that could effect the outcome of an election than there are with requiring people to all go to the polls on a specific day.

On the other hand, I do think the kind of event I described above should not be legal. The point is to keep honest people honest. So I think something as simple as the voter certifying when they sign the envelope that they have voted in private and not shown their completed ballot to anyone else would solve the problem.

Ross -

I too have live in states where the radius is small. The distance is up to state courts because states are charged with setting the manner of voting. When I last looked at this in the context of another First Amendment question I was involved in, no state allowed electioneering within some distance of the voting booth, nor did any state allow electioneering in a precinct-place environment in which the voter actually was in possession of a live ballot. That is the precise version of what I was saying (with fewer words in the hope people read things with some perspective), because it is more than lore that the privacy of the ballot box, away from any kind of peer pressure, affords people the true freedom to vote as they choose is the true promise of our system.

I think you'd have to agree that in real life, outside the bounds of making an academic point, the effect of a stranger handing you a piece of paper or otherwise trying to convince you how to vote is irrelevant compared to the pressure a person can feel from a family member, or a person you like and whose respect you want. Human nature and family life being what it is, I also think we recognize that we have good reason to suspect that the incidence of family members marking other family member's ballots, or influencing how other family members vote at the time the ballot is marked in a way that would be impossible in a polling place election, is much higher than you argue here without any counter-evidence.

So are vote by mail elections more susceptible to fraud or abuse than those at the polls. I don't think they are. In fact, to the contrary, when taken as a whole I think there are a lot fewer problems that could effect the outcome of an election than there are with requiring people to all go to the polls on a specific day.

Unfortunately, there is no basis in reality to substantiate what you honestly acknowledge is a belief when it comes to the properly run polling place elections that exist in more jurisdictions than not. The bizarre problems of the last few years in which we upended the entire process are anomalies in the 200+ years of the republic. It is an unfortunate and peculiar human conceit that people feel what they have personally witnessed, in our times through the distorted lense of our infotainment media, is by far more representative of reality than all the accumulated facts of history.

So I think something as simple as the voter certifying when they sign the envelope that they have voted in private and not shown their completed ballot to anyone else would solve the problem.

In reality this is all but meaningless. It does show how folks disconnect from reality when they start mentally manipulating a position in a debate and feel they have to defend a point. Let's be frank that we all feel that what we do in any environment we control is "private", and we resent the state telling us what we can do, and who we do it with, in private (within some communally accepted bounds of course). And your solution completely overlooks the protection the privacy of the voting booth provides for people to vote as they would like. If VBM supporters honestly believe that doesn't matter, it is certainly within the realm of possibility they really don't have as much depth of experience or wisdom about what is good for the republic as they believe.

All -

No one here has addressed the common situation in precinct-place election where a person doesn't vote in a particular contest because they don't know enough about the choices or care enough about the race, but might vote in a VBM situation where they are receiving suggestion of someone they "trust" as they are marking their ballot. VBM supporters don't think that matters. I would argue that that in reality this also is a case where one person is allowing someone else to vote for them, and it matters a lot to the republic. As does endorsing the notion that this is not such a big deal. Not only because not all relationships of "trust" are created equal, but because it also says something about the value the republic puts on voters casting votes based on their own judgement. Anyone recognize themselves in either role in this scenario? Shocked or angry at being confronted at a reasoned argument rooted in well-founded principles that there can be dishonor in either role?

What is interesting to me is how VBM critics such as myself are in total agreement with one supposed goal of free, inclusive, and fair elections that VBM supporters espouse. But whereas critics such as myself focus on how that that goal is better accomplished by reforming precinct-place elections than by VBM, VBM supporters continue to make weak and easily refutable throw-away arguments in on those issues in defense of VBM.

In particular this includes the issue of voter inclusion, where I argue that VBM, through aggressive purging of voter rolls and a laborious system for getting access to a ballot that starts with an excluded voter having to recognize 3 weeks in advance of an election that he or she has to go through steps to even get a ballot rather than just showing up at a polling place, by design functions to exclude voters who don't fit a certain norm that has nothing to do with being eligible to exercise the franchise. And VBM supporters give no indication that that the fact the system functions in this way is undesireable or unintentional.

I submit that VBM supporters would better help the country actually achieve the goal of free, inclusive, and fair elections if they would just get behind efforts to make true reform of precinct-place elections that the new Congress has promised to undertake a reality. Not only is the hill to climb lower because the vast majority well recognizes the core value and importance of (well-run) precinct-place elections in our system, good arguments have been made by several here and in other threads on this blog about the greater benefits this would bring to the republic. So why don't they?

At the bottom line, this debate has had little to do with building a better election system based on the function elections are intended to play in our republic or the facts about the performance of VBM in Oregon. VBM supporters have other values when it comes to voting than the principles on which our system of polling place elections has been based from the founding of the republic:

1) Devaluing the protection of the privacy of the voting booth.

2) Believing that the system should function best for people who fit a certain norm which includes valuing their own convenience over the common good. That includes placing extra expenses and time demands on campaigns even as we say we want to make it easier for folks with fewer resources to run.

3) Devaluing the importance of pacing a campaign to reach an peak on election day plays in our representative democracy. And devaluing the importance of people withholding judgement until all of the facts about a candidate or an issue are on the table.

4) As the embarrasing and sophmoric public concluding comment in the op ed by our SOS shows, devaluing the important civic ritual of the nation physically coming together on election day in community to do the business of the nation.

5) And finally, believing their values are so superior to the value some of us place on elected officials being faithful to their oath, that we now have the situation where the SOS not has publicly made unfactual statements in contradiction to his role as an administrative officer charged with being a functionary who is supposed to simply carry out certain administrative tasks and report factually about performance of those tasks. As a result, there is now a fair and reasonable question on the table if he used state resources to advance the values of VBM supporters, and perhaps in effect for his own personal use to advance his political career, and if he is legally authorized to do so.

So let's be honest and acknowledge that it this debate is about a clash of what people value in our electoral system. Not the smoke and mirrors arguments about the supposed advantages to the republic of VBM --- outside the unproven communal benefit from the increased personal convenience of a certain group of course --- which only have existence and gain false weight in the unreal world of these pages (and perhaps high school debates) that VBM supporters continue to trot out.

The bizarre problems of the last few years in which we upended the entire process are anomalies in the 200+ years of the republic.

No they aren't. Vote fraud has been a part of elections for a very long time, but there is no evidence that vote by mail, with the confirmation of the person's address and signature, is more susceptible to fraud than any other voting procedure. It is certainly less susceptible than absentee ballots sent to an address outside the jurisdiction where the person is voting.

devaluing the importance of people withholding judgement until all of the facts about a candidate or an issue are on the table.

But all the facts aren't on the table even on an election day. There are facts that come out after everyone has voted. And on election day, different voters will have actually been exposed to different information in any case. So what is the value of people all making the judgement at the same time?

I also think it is far easier to make informed decisions sitting down at the kitchen table, than in a rush at the voting booth where you have no ability to access information to help inform your vote and there is a line of people waiting for you to finish.

Kari -

It does not appear to be clear that VBM improves voter participation, it may simply do a better job of purging voter registration lists of people who had moved and were no longer eligible to vote. Without those non-voters on the registration lists the same number of those remaining on the list who vote is a higher percentage of the registered voters. Even if the improved percentages are in part caused by more people voting, VBM does not work as well for increasing voter participation as same day registration.

Kari -

Sorry, unless you are willing to say that "VBM increases turnout in low profile elections, etc., and it has not shown to increase participation", rather than "VBM increases turnout" you are playing word games and not being fair to the facts. That VBM supporters may like to engage in the kind of sophistry that, despite these "nonconsequential" nuances, they are "right" that "VBM increases turnout" I think illustrates well why one should be extremely skeptical of the judgement and claims of VBM supporters.

Ross -

While I think you have made a lot of important comments, here but you have not been fair in your quotes to the substance fo the comments I made:

No they aren't. Vote fraud has been a part of elections for a very long time, but there is no evidence that vote by mail, with the confirmation of the person's address and signature, is more susceptible to fraud than any other voting procedure. It is certainly less susceptible than absentee ballots sent to an address outside the jurisdiction where the person is voting.

First, in the sentence before the one you quote from my comment, I wrote

Unfortunately, there is no basis in reality to substantiate what you honestly acknowledge is a belief when it comes to the properly run polling place elections that exist in more jurisdictions than not.

When we once again get back to reality, when one talks about the total number of precincts and the total number of voters voting, the incidents of fraud before the advent of electronic voting machines has not been shown to be that significant, nor to have the unknown dimensions, that we have had in the last 8 years and with the advent of electronic voting machines. There are celebrated cases, of course, but the perception of the history is distorted by the fact those cases have been relatively rare and relatively celebrated.

And I simply don't understand the logical or the factual basis for your claim: It is certainly less susceptible than absentee ballots sent to an address outside the jurisdiction where the person is voting.

but all the facts aren't on the table even on an election day.

One of the problems with this medium is that one assumes readers are going to read with a certain amount of depth and honesty, and that people frequently pounce on imprecision when they do not have room to argue on substance. I suppose what I should have said is "as many of the facts are on the table as possible" as I was thinking. I think you will agree there is the potential there will be more facts on the table on election day than there are the day before. And there is the potential they are more facts on the table on the day before election day than two days before election days, etc. such that there is the potential there are more facts on the table on election day than the first day people can vote in a VBM election when the mail-in ballots arrive. That is of significant value in a representative democracy where we agree to live with the consequences of our vote for two, four, or six years, or until such time someone advances a new initiative, rather than dissolve our government on a moments notice, or worse, when we don't like something.

And again, to be precise, to remove the opportunties for critics to make arguments that are really distractions from substance (ie. argue about reality): Despite the fact that people may have been exposed to different information based on personal habits, there is the potential that more people have been exposed to more facts on election day than on the first day they could vote in a VBM election on the day the ballots arrive.

I also think it is far easier to make informed decisions sitting down at the kitchen table, than in a rush at the voting booth where you have no ability to access information to help inform your vote and there is a line of people waiting for you to finish.

I agree with the basic thrust of your point. As I've pointed out many times before in response to this argument, this is an irrelevant argument in support of VBM because there is no reason you have to do this with a live ballot in your hand. Some jurisdictions I've lived in the county sends out fascimile ballots for voters to study before they go to the voting booth, in others the newspapers published fascimile ballots. One can do exactly what you describe with the fascimile ballot and carry that into the voting booth if one desires.

Since it seems a lot of folks here have seem to have very limited civics and historical knowledge, you may or may not find it interesting that the jurisdictions I have lived in all apparently dropped the restriction that you couldn't take anything into the voting booth with you only around the time I cast my first couple of votes. I can remember being taught in high school government classes that you could not take any printed materials into the voting booth, and it was a crime to take a live ballot outside the polling place.

That ought to give you some idea just how divergent VBM is from some very long held principles about the privacy and protection of the voting booth. And why some VBM activists really are arguing for values that are in strong contradiction to those that have informed our elections from the founding of the republic. Not that I agree with all of those historical values, just that VBM activists prove their lack of substance by simply claiming that is all irrelevant. It's actually kind of sad that in the religious certainty of their cause, they have so little understanding of how little they know. History didn't start the day they decided they were aware enough to work on VBM because they liked it, and charlatan politicians like Phi Keisling who decided to misuse their office and engage in political activism to give us such a poor result are nothing new. Too bad our current SOS has the poor judgement to follow in the same misguided tradition.

Some jurisdictions I've lived in the county sends out fascimile ballots for voters to study before they go to the voting booth, in others the newspapers published fascimile ballots. One can do exactly what you describe with the fascimile ballot and carry that into the voting booth if one desires.

The key word in all of that is some. Because in VBM you always have that option of knowing all the candidates before casting your vote to argue that in polling place voting you get that to you must be able to prove slovency. In essence you must agrue that with polling place voting you always get that oppunitity.

Onto the whole privacy issue. In Oregon we have a secret ballot. The ballot doesnt contain your name and the person counting it didnt see the name on your evenople therefore no knows for sure who you voted for. In electronic polling place voting people can search the computer and know exactly who you voted for. If people want to vote in privacy under VBM they can fill out the ballot when they are alone or go the the county elections office where they offer you the ability to vote in a somewhat booth so you can get a feeling of privacy.

17yearoldwithanopinion -

The key word in all of that is some.

In the real world, the infinitely narrow academic argument that (b)ecause in VBM you always have that option of knowing all the candidates before casting your vote. To argue that in polling place voting you get that to you must be able to prove slovency. (I'm not sure what "slovency" is). In essence you must agrue that with polling place voting you always get that oppunitity, hardly rises to level of a meaningful point in favor of VBM.

First, it is not a secret until one is given a ballot who the candidates and what the issues are. We do have things called "filing" and "campaigning" for that reason. And there is no deductive link between the fact that some voters chose to remain ignorant of the candidates and issues and a conclusion that VBM is the only, much less a good, way to solve this. If the people of a state feel it is important that the government provide affirmative advance notice of the candidates and issues, they can pass laws that require that a fascimile ballot be sent out three weeks in advance.

In reality, I suspect that between government mailings and the newspapers, voters in every jurisdiction in this country have reasonable advance notice of what is on their ballot from a trusted source. If they chose to pay attention.

Although the states have the right under the U.S. Constitution to set the manner of elections (which this might arguably fall under), the Feds can help them to do the right thing in standard fashion by providing financial assistance to states which conduct polling place elections, with same day registration, and mail out fascimile ballots three weeks in advance to all postal customers. And to denying assistance to states which don't conform to this manifestly sensible approach, as I hope they would do to Oregon if we childishly refuse to conduct our elections in accordance with those sensible conditions. (My spouse convinces me, though, that with VBM Oregon just really is leading the way in being more self-absorbed and lazy than the rest of the American public, and far be it from modern elected officials to get in the way of slovenly voter behavior. That is really something for which to take pride in our state and region, isn't it?)

In electronic polling place voting people can search the computer and know exactly who you voted for.

I'm opposed to electronic machines which don't print out a paper copy that becomes the actual ballot cast by the voter. But that's beside the point in rebutting your argument.

Frankly, I have no idea why you believe what you say. But with electronic machines as they are currently designed for our system, it just isn't true. Beyond that, if you are worried that the state would track your individual vote on an electronic machine, why do you think the state would be honorable enough to separate your ballot in the inner envelope from the outer envelope with your name on it before taking note of how you voted?

If you think a third party could and would search the machine, than you should simply favor what I first mentioned: If a state wants to use electronic voting aids, those aids could only used for marking anonymous hard copy ballots, not casting votes or taulating results, and would have no recording or communication capability beyond any temporary capabilities needed to actually mark the ballot.

askquestions1st-

By slovency I meant it must be universeral or in other terms all the time. I have an older brother who always votes but never reads the local newspapers, because he dislikes them all. He knows who the major candidates are and thats it. Lots of people who read the news and know whats happening dont know the candidates for small races. My parents always vote and never got any infromation from any candidate for judge. They only got to know the candidates when the ballot came. You say when need to make ways to make sure all voters get info before voting well with VBM you get that so VBM actually is a solution to your qualms.

BTW you were upset that Bradbury spent work time on an op-ed piece. Bradbury isnt at his work all the time he couldve very easily wrote the article while at home on his off time. People do do that. I always write blueoregon stuff while at home never while at school even though I could probably do that since Blueoregon isnt a blocked website in all likelyhood. So before you accuse him of committing ethical violations make sure you actually know he was writting the op-ed piece from his office during work hours.

17yearoldwithanopinion -

Frankly, if someone can't be motivated to pay attention unless he or she has a live ballot in his or her hand, and he or she wouldn't even pay attention to a fascimile ballot in a voter's pamphlet that he or she would receive at the same time as that live ballot, is nothing more than a commentary on his or her personal shortcomings. When offered as an argument justifying throwing out well-established electoral procedures and safeguards, it is just yet another version of the same tired, self-centered argument which has been demonstrated to be the only thing that VBM is about. It pre-supposes that personal convenience, with all the poor personal habits that includes, is the primary value to be served, rather than placing greatest value on what best serves the principles of our representative democracy.

The fact is that the burden is on VBM supporters to prove that the essential principles of our electoral democracy are best served by procedures which focus on bending over backwards to make people like that vote, rather than by procedures which place no importance on whether people who behave in such an irresponsible way vote. Of course most VBM supporters don't even go that far, and in a sense are even more egotistical in that they mainly support VBM because it bends over backwards for people who fit the narrow norm in which they sit at the center. Really quite the opposite of standing up for principle and bearing some burden in doing it. VBM supporters have dishonorably avoided that responsibility because they well know that the appeal to self-centeredness always works best if you can make it.

We don't know yet if Bradbury used public resources to do this. This is a question for the GPSC and a test of the personal integrity of each commission member at this point. The entire point is that there is a difference between private citizens and Bradbury. The SOS is an elected, administrative constitutional officer whose responsibilities and rights are limited to those spelled out in the constitution or as directed by the legislature from time to time. Since this clearly is not included in his administrative duties as explicitly spelled out in the constitution, it is up to the GPSC to determine if he used public resources and whether that use was directed by the legislature.

The fact is that the burden is on VBM supporters to prove that the essential principles of our electoral democracy are best served by procedures which focus on bending over backwards to make people like that vote, rather than by procedures which place no importance on whether people who behave in such an irresponsible way vote.

Actually this is no burden at all. Some of the basic principals of our electoral democracy are government of, by and for the people. All the people, not just the people who pass someone's test to show they aren't "irresponsible".

But that misses the issue. Nothing requires people be informed to vote under any system of voting. The question is what system makes it easier for them to make informed decisions. I think vote by mail does. Since its easier to be informed its much more likely people will be better informed. Presumably, that means we get better decisions and better government.

So whether vote by mail creates more participation, it almost certainly provides better participation. What's wrong with that?

Actually this is no burden at all. Some of the basic principals of our electoral democracy are government of, by and for the people. All the people, not just the people who pass someone's test to show they aren't "irresponsible".

Actually, this is one of those irrelevant tautologies that avoids the substance of the comment. Right now VBM supporters are in the minority in the country. For them to be successful in making VBM the way the majority votes requires that they convince the majority to enact VBM. And if the majority holds different values and rejects VBM, it has nothing to do with your rather remark about passing someone's test to show they aren't irresponsible. That's the function of the debate going on here.

Appeals to ignorant populism, while frequently successful, are susceptible to value judgements about their merit, even though that is supremely unfashionable right now and particularly in this most provincial corner of the country. Just as right wing whackjobs temporarily convinced a majority to support an illegal war by appealing to their self-centered nature, I have no doubt VBM supporters will convince majorities in some states to embrace VBM. It is perfectly proper and intellectually valid, not to mention morally incumbent on anyone who actually cares about the republic, to critically analyze whether VBM is actually consistent with other values and principles that VBM supporters profess to espouse, and non-supporters espouse with more sincerity and intellectual depth, about what is good for the republic. Regardless of whether that is popular or in keeping with the false passive-aggressive "niceness" of the NW. It may be that the best service to the republic that can be done is to make arguments which will help the rest of the country recognize they should let only Oregonians and Washingtons drown in our poor civic behavior.

Also unsubstantiated didactic comments like: Nothing requires people be informed to vote under any system of voting. The question is what system makes it easier for them to make informed decisions. I think vote by mail does. are simply meaningless as argument. There has been no evidence submitted here, nor on the record anywere, that its easier to be informed its much more likely people will be better informed. And I challenge anyone to provide a valid argument that anything about VBM makes for a better informed electorate in any meaningful way.

Since you and VBM activists have abjectly failed to prove anything remotely close to the benign interpretation of your personal assertion that: So whether vote by mail creates more participation, it almost certainly provides better participation, there is little that needs to be said in direct response to your question: What's wrong with that?. Except that the evidence suggests you may be right about a more malignant interpretation of that statement and in particular of what "better participation" is. And I should note here that I'm unsure what you personally support because your limited arguments here against VBM would suggest that you deceive yourself as to your own real values if you still support VBM out of baseless beliefs which stand in direct contradiction to your own logical arguments. You seem like a far more critical thinker than that. We have already seen, and you seem to acknowledge, that there is reasonable question: Does VBM in fact have a structural exclusionary tendency which appears to cause the set of eligible voters who actually participate in elections to converge to a relative narrow segment of the population? If that is the case how counterproductive, or least unproductive, has this aspect of VBM been for our state? (I'd bet there is dissertation topic for a PhD student in Poli Sci lurking in those questions.)

So far at least, we sure have been successful at fixing our schools, providing higher education opportunities for anyone who is capable of taking advantage of them, running our health care system, maintaining our state transportation infrastructure, and providing a sound tax base for meeting these and the rest of the challenges ahead, as a result of VBM which encourages everyone to value their own self-centered convenience first, and which arguably has a structural tendency to effectively disenfranchise a bigger set of voters than well-run polling-place elections, haven't we? In this bluest of "blue" states in which we collectively hold social values which affirmatively embrace each of these goals, it doesn't look so far like VBM has enabled us to make wise decisions in terms of empowering people who are competent at leading us to achieve to them, does it? (And another PhD dissertation in those questions, at least to the extent of comparing achieved goals to inferred and professed values. Poli Sci profs: Responsible citizens would desperately love to know the answers to the questions raised in these last two paragraphs, even if the funding agencies, the people of this state, and most certainly religiously fervent VBM supporters wouldn't.)

Some replies to Ask Questions 1st:

"No one here has addressed the common situation in precinct-place election where a person doesn't vote in a particular contest because they don't know enough about the choices or care enough about the race, but might vote in a VBM situation where they are receiving suggestion of someone they 'trust' as they are marking their ballot. VBM supporters don't think that matters. I would argue that that in reality this also is a case where one person is allowing someone else to vote for them, and it matters a lot to the republic. As does endorsing the notion that this is not such a big deal. Not only because not all relationships of 'trust' are created equal, but because it also says something about the value the republic puts on voters casting votes based on their own judgement."

My spouse and I have always discussed our votes with each other. Commonly one of us asks the other about relatively obscure races, such as for judgeships. BFD. In what way does this possibly compromise the integrity of our votes? I appreciate AQ1's point about not all relationships of trust being equal, but that's hardly restricted to voting, is it? I would be perfectly happy to reconsider my support for vote-by-mail if AQ1 or anyone else can convincingly demonstrate that people are being coerced into voting a particular way by spouses, friends, co-workers, or whomever; until convincing evidence of such coercion is produced, I will regard this particular objection by AQ1 to be a bit of patronizing nonsense.

Vote by mail "by design functions to exclude voters who don't fit a certain norm that has nothing to do with being eligible to exercise the franchise. And VBM supporters give no indication that that the fact the system functions in this way is undesireable or unintentional."

Be specific, AQ1. What exactly is this "certain norm" and who is being excluded? I see black, brown and white, male and female, people in jeans and people in suits, dropping their ballots at my neighborhood ballot drop (a public library). Who exactly is being excluded? For whose benefit does AQ1 allege the system was set up?

"The bizarre problems of the last few years in which we upended the entire process are anomalies in the 200+ years of the republic."

Last few years? Ever heard of, say, the Hayes-Tilden (s)election of 1876?

"Believing that the system should function best for people who fit a certain norm which includes valuing their own convenience over the common good. That includes placing extra expenses and time demands on campaigns even as we say we want to make it easier for folks with fewer resources to run."

Again, here's this claim about the system being rigged for people "who fit a certain norm" (which AQ1 never specifies).

"Devaluing the importance of pacing a campaign to reach an peak on election day plays in our representative democracy. And devaluing the importance of people withholding judgement until all of the facts about a candidate or an issue are on the table.

In my experience, actual electoral campaigns are different than the one depicted in Citizen Kane. If AQ1 truly believes VBM fails because people can fill out their ballots ahead of time, how can he support even old-fashioned absentee ballots? Could it be that there are people who could not make it to the polls on a Tuesday--a work day for the vast majority of voters--without jumping through all sorts of hoops? Suppose one has kids to feed and get to school, and so on? What does AQ1 think: that those responsibilities magically evaporate on voting day?

"...devaluing the important civic ritual of the nation physically coming together on election day in community to do the business of the nation.

This claim about a quasi-sacred civic ritual is absurd. My experience of going to the polling place in California, Washington and pre-VBM Oregon was this: queueing with a bunch of people I didn't know and would never see again, and having my named checked again the registration rolls by seniors who seemed to regard poll work as a chance to schmooze and make a few dollars in the process.

If we want election day to be a day for the nation to collectively go to the polls, then election day has to be a national holiday. This is done in other countries. I observed this while living in Chile in 2000. Municipal elections were held on a single day throughout the country; the day was a national day off for everyone.

Since you and VBM activists have abjectly failed to prove anything remotely close to the benign interpretation of your personal assertion that: So whether vote by mail creates more participation, it almost certainly provides better participation

Um I think I proved it earlier. Voters phamplet giving everyone a chance to know all candidates before filling in ballot. Time to do research on candidates. I think thats a pretty good amount of evidence.

Looks like the only thing being proven here is that many people arguing here, including this last poster, are hopelessly clueless about the simplest facts, much less the deeper aspects, of what VBM actually is:

Um I think I proved it earlier. Voters phamplet giving everyone a chance to know all candidates before filling in ballot. Time to do research on candidates. I think thats a pretty good amount of evidence.

Does anybody care to confirm to the author of this unfortunate comment that the voter pamphlet has nothing to do with VBM, and that Oregon voters got voter pamphlets as long established provision of our election laws when we voted a polling places, and long before the state went to VBM? As have Washington voters for long before the state largely switched to VBM this past election?

Also, does anyone want to confirm that I in fact made precisely the argument one doesn't need a real ballot to do all these things including candidate research? Not the least reason for which, as I also argued, is because the voter pamphlet can include a fascimile of the ballot if someone wanted to argue that it was important that voters be provided with exactly the information on a live ballot in exactly the same form as they will find it on their actual ballot in a polling place election?

Once again, zero evidence in support of VBM. Sadly, plenty of evidence that misguided and misinformed VBM supporters themselves are the strongest evidence against VBM.

lin qiao -

I would be perfectly happy to reconsider my support for vote-by-mail if AQ1 or anyone else can convincingly demonstrate that people are being coerced into voting a particular way by spouses, friends, co-workers, or whomever; until convincing evidence of such coercion is produced, I will regard this particular objection by AQ1 to be a bit of patronizing nonsense.

First, in the real world, rather than the simplistic world you apparently inhabit, we all well recognize that the privacy and power issues around the marital relationship are complicated. No one argues that there is any interest by the state in interfering in what people talk about in the privacy of any personal relationship. And that's why it has long been recognized that we afford the privacy and protection of the polling place for individuals to vote --- or not --- solely according to the dictates of their conscience and independent of what they may have discussed in the confines of their personal relationships. Ever notice how in a lot of baby boomer and older generation marriages spouses are registered in different parties? And don't even discuss politics? Or are you too uninformed to know how common that is?

Furthermore, there are lot of folks who don't live in the tragically small little world you apparently inhabit who could tell you a lot about personal and social relationships of many types of unequal power. And about what you don't know about how even things like not being able to vote without having a judgement expressed by somebody else is just one more petty type of disempowerment. Really quite disrespectful of you, but also sadly typical of a lot of left-coasters and VBM supporters, to dismiss that which conflicts with your worldview and experience as trivial or uncommon.

Finally, you are typical of the level of either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty being spouted here by misrepresenting that I presented the problem of undesireable or improper influence as always being "coercive", rather than as whether this is in the best interest of the republic. Again representative of the inherently self-centered focus of VBM supporters, though, I must say. There are plenty of people who like being told how to vote, for various reasons, and as I argued previously that is effectively giving someone else more than one vote. It has not been shown by you or other VBM supporters why placing voters in a situation where they must cast their vote without, at that moment, asking or being told how to vote by someone else --- and may of their own choice not vote for a particular race or issue as a result --- is an undesireable thing.

So I, like any reasonable person, are happy for you that you apparently live in your own special little world where these issues are largely irrelevant. You're certainly free to exhibit how poorly informed you are. Or perhaps how you, as you effectively demonstrate, really most like VBM because it is about catering to folks like you who fit into a pathetically small norm. But it is height of arrogance and intellectually dishonesty for you to try to poison the well with vacuous comments about "patronizing nonsense" when you are incapable of even fairly representing, much less rebutting, the actual arguments made.

This claim about a quasi-sacred civic ritual is absurd. My experience of going to the polling place in California, Washington and pre-VBM Oregon was this: queueing with a bunch of people I didn't know and would never see again, and having my named checked again the registration rolls by seniors who seemed to regard poll work as a chance to schmooze and make a few dollars in the process.

First, let me say that this snideness of this comment really does credit to VBM cause. How do you know what working at the polls means to those who take the time out of their personal lives to do it? And what do you know about what they may have done in their lives for their country --- like perhaps served in the armed forces, or been a spouse who also served by having to say goodbye and wait in fear as their spouse left to serve? Or maybe they didn't serve, but feel this was at least something they could do for society since voting is our first responsibility as citizens?

My hat's off to you for demonstrating so perfectly why some VBM supporters have so little to offer. I'd like to ask all of you VBM supporters here who have so much to say whether you want to publicly associate yourself with this comment?

If we want election day to be a day for the nation to collectively go to the polls, then election day has to be a national holiday. This is done in other countries. I observed this while living in Chile in 2000.

Once again we see the either dishonest or uncritical thinking skills of some VBM supporters. Without assessing whether polling place elections in Washington, Oregon, or California embody the governing values the founders intended, and referring just to your comments against polling place elections and for VBM, no one argued that the reason to have polling place elections over VBM elections is the way polling place elections are conducted in some jurisdictions that have not done a good job at them. That is a good reason to argue for improving how polling place elections are done, particularly in view of what has happened in the last 8 years or so. And those places that have done polling place elections well are the obvious places for other jurisdictions to look for good examples how to improve their elections.

And I'm all for a national voting day holiday, as people who really care about elections have advocated for at least the last 40 years or so in my memory alone. This is about as opposite to what VBM supporters advocate, as one can imagine of course. As I argued, VBM supporters who really care about elections would do much more for the country by instead putting their effort behind this and other reforms to polling place elections. Apparently, though, some smart aleck VBM supporters would rather use arguments like this as a disingenuous throw-away to justify their failure to get behind positive reforms.

As noted in the previous comment, the mix of cluelessness, snideness, and intellectually dishonesty of VBM supporters frequently provide the best arguments against VBM. Thanks for proving that once again.

AQ1 keeps claiming that vote-by-mail was designed for the convenience of an unnamed, un-described, yet evidently all-powerful group, and that it effectively disenfranchises everyone else. In his retort to my comments, he made this sort of claim over and over. Yet he never managed to say who exactly comprises this mysterious group that VBM was allegedly designed for. I ask AQ1 once again to tell us precisely who this mysterious group is made up of. Be specific, AQ1. What exactly is the "certain norm" favored by vote-by-mail, and who does vote-by-mail exclude? Again: I see black, brown and white, male and female, people in jeans and people in suits, dropping their ballots at my neighborhood ballot drop (a public library). Who exactly is being excluded? For whose benefit does AQ1 allege the system was set up?

As for the rest of AQ1's retort, he's all worked up because I fail to share his sense of the sacred about the polling place, and managed to use the following terms to describe me personally:

"the simplistic world that you apparently inhabit" "the tragically small world that you apparently inhabit" "stupidity or intellectual dishonesty" "inherently self-centered" "poorly informed" "folks like you who fit into a pathetically small norm" "My hat's off to you for demonstrating so perfectly why some VBM supporters have so little to offer" "dishonest or uncritical thinking skills" "And I'm all for a national voting day holiday, as people who really care about elections have advocated for at least the last 40 years or so in my memory alone. This is about as opposite to what VBM supporters advocate, as one can imagine of course." [Actually I implied my support for exactly this.] "mix of cluelessness, snideness, and intellectually dishonesty "

Once again, we see how VBM supporters frame their arguments by being either intellectually lazy or dishonest in blatantly mischaracterizing what was discussed in considerable depth earlier in this thread:

AQ1 keeps claiming that vote-by-mail was designed for the convenience of an unnamed, un-described, yet evidently all-powerful group,

The structural characteristics of VBM that cause the pool of voters who participate in an election to converge to a group of voters who share certain behavioral characteristics, and by design discourages irregular voters through aggressive purging of the voter roles and a higher level of action to get back on the roles starting with recognizing three weeks in advance of election day that they didn't receive a ballot, has been fully discussed. As has the fact that their silence on this issue is at least highly suggestive that the values of VBM supporters are such that they don't have any problems with these properties of VBM. Indeed, Adam J. Smith who has a prominent role in the VBM Project in sum expressed approval of them. Obviously lin qiao doesn't have the time to read and truly comprehend the full discussion of these matters that has gone before spouting off.

So that we see false allegations about claims that weren't made: For whose benefit does AQ1 allege the system was set up?, are at best a demonstration that people like lin qiao only give attention to (and misrepresent) what furthers their position, and at worst are an attempt to poison the well.

And once again, a VBM supporter unintentionally demonstrates just how ludicrious VBM is:

dropping their ballots at my neighborhood ballot drop (a public library)

We have already amply discussed how any of the voter awareness efforts inaccurately attributed to VBM can just as easily be done for polling place elections (and were before VBM). We have also noted how supplying voters supplied with fascimile ballots gives them as much time and opportunity to discuss their options before casting a vote. And we have already heard comments like that just quoted by people in support of VBM which almost inconsquentially characterize VBM as including significant numbers of voters venturing to the "polling place" to deposit their ballots.

So what exactly is it VBM supporters are actually arguing for in VBM?

Clearly, the chance to be lazy and self-indulged citizens by having someone hand deliver a ballot to them at home so they can mark it at their personal convenience --- or at least not to have to inconvience themselves to do their civic duty --- rather than spending some time to pick up a ballot and mark it at a polling place a couple of times every few years. They refuse to debate, and frequently make snide and unfounded comments as lin qiao has, what the costs are to the system and the republic are of the self-centered consumerist values they demand be imposed on our voting systems place on the system discussed in the preceeding 50+ comments in this thread that lin qiao seems to have not studied.

And here's a news flash for lin qiao: I described accurately and fairly, within the accepted norms of political debate, the picture you painted of yourself as a VBM supporter. Do you have anything to say on the substance of the issue, or do you simply want to whine about these reflections back to you because you recognized how unflattering a picture you presented of yourself as a VBM supporter and VBM?

In particular, do you want to publicly apologize to elections workers (since even with VBM we still have a lot of civic-minded citizens who give their time as election workers each election) for how you characterized them and their motives on the basis of far less information that you provided here about your views of VBM?

paul -

I know that you least of all want a statement of appreciation from me.

But I still want to say you have done yourself considerable credit as a professor for the educational effort about VBM you have made in this and the many previous Blue Oregon threads on this topic. You also have brought credit to yourself for the manner in how you've done that in response to some really silly comments, as well as in response to the good questions from others.

As I read your comments and the responses, I am most struck by the decline in civic knowledge (and critical thinking skills) amongst otherwise obviously very intelligent people, and how frustrating that could be to someone who has dedicated their life to educating people. And how frustrating it could be to hold back at times what you might say if you weren't in the role you have.

Your job is by far harder than those of us private citizens who really are just slogging it out as expendable bit players in a day-to-day political fight.

The least we can do is thank you and acknowledge the substantive leadership you provide as an educator and acknowledged expert on voter behavior.

Finally, I'm wondering if you have any views on how unique the constitutional structure of our state is, in that, unlike the federal government and several other states I know of, we have four constitutionally defined branches of government: The Legislative Department (Article IV), the Executive Department (Article V), the Judicial Department (Article VII), and the Administrative Department (Article VI)?

So, according to AQ1, vote by mail was at worst designed to disenfranchise or at least discourage "irregular voters", and to reward the "lazy and self-indulged"; or at best, it has had that effect and people such as yours truly are secretly applauding this outcome. Glad we finally got there through all the insults.

Again, AQ1's terms applied to me personally:

"the simplistic world that you apparently inhabit" "the tragically small world that you apparently inhabit" "stupidity or intellectual dishonesty" "inherently self-centered" "poorly informed" "folks like you who fit into a pathetically small norm" "My hat's off to you for demonstrating so perfectly why some VBM supporters have so little to offer" "dishonest or uncritical thinking skills" "mix of cluelessness, snideness, and intellectually dishonesty" "lazy and self-indulged"

Oops, forgot this. Apropos AQ1's laundry list of insults directed towards me--he also made personally insulting remarks about Bill Bradbury and others posting here--he wrote as justification:

"I described [you] accurately and fairly, within the accepted norms of political debate...."

Good gawd. These are the accepted norms where exactly? I know that the fine art of invective has a devoted coterie of practitioners, but I hope never to join them.

Thanks go to lin qiao who for throwing the spotlight back on the important questions about Bill Bradbury's role in the WAPO op-ed.

So let's recap for the GPSC:

1) DId Bill Bradbury use state resources of any type to write the op ed that appeared under his name?

2) If he did, is that within the constitutional constraints of the SOS in Article VI of the Oregon state constitution, where under Article VI the SOS is defined as an Administrative officer that is a functionary with no executive or legislative authority, no policy making or law making authority, and no advocacy authority except such as might be assigned in law by the legislature?

Having read this entire thread I must first say that AQ1 does his effort to discredit the VBM system a great disservice by focusing attention consistently on his vision of the lazy voter benefits by and caused by VBM.

My answer to his two questions concerning Bill Bradbury is 1)I sure hope he used the resources of the state to write the op ed that appeared under his name. I want by SOS to advocate for the Oregon system as any Administrative Officer would advocate for the office and organization they administer. 2) Yes advocacy is within his constitutional duties. Advocacy was in 1859 and is today a part of administration and anyone who cannot see that has clearly never been charged with administrative duties.

I have no illusion however that AQ1 will see this response as anything other than another intellectually lazy supporter of VBM.

daniel -

Just because you make didactic assertions about what you believe the role of the SOS is, doesn't make it so.

Let's be perfectly clear: Bradbury was not advocating for the resources to do his job as SOS, or in support of the people he administers, as would be required by your blustering argument about the qualities of a good administrator. I'm wondering if you have read Article VI which says his duties are limited to:

Section 2. Duties of Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall keep a fair record of the official acts of the Legislative Assembly, and Executive Department of the State; and shall when required lay the same, and all matters relative thereto before either branch of the Legislative Assembly. He shall be by virtue of his office, Auditor of public Accounts, and shall perform such other duties as shall be assigned him by law.

In Oregon, he is literally what his title states and the dictionary defines as:

secretary - a person, usually an official, who is in charge of the records, correspondence, minutes of meetings, and related affairs of an organization, company, association, etc.

He doesn't even have anything to do with conducting or the manner of elections at all. That's the role of county officials. The sole connection the SOS has with elections is tabulating and memorializing records related to elections provided to him by others. So the only advocacy he is entitled to do under your own argument, and unless otherwise explicitly authorized by law, is that which has to do with making sure he can do the best job being a record keeper that he possibly can. Period.

If he doesn't like the fact those are the terms of the job, he should quit. And the GSPC should discipline him appropriately if indeed he violates the terms of the job, as you appparently wish he would do. Funny how we always feel it is others who are unethical and corrupt, never us.

So frankly, I wouldn't characterize what you've demonstrated here as "intellectually lazy" because it really doesn't evidence much knowledge of the facts. I would characterize it as really just saying you want what you want, regardless of whether critical analyses raise serious questions whether it is good for the republic, and in utter selfish disregard for the rule of law we supposedly agree to when we sign on as voters.

AQ1 writes: The SOS, as an administrative officer, has no policy-making authority and no constitutional right to use the resources of his office for advocacy unless the legislature has explicitly authorized him to do so.

The Secretary of State's office lobbys the Legislature on a regular basis, and has a lobbyist on staff. That's advocacy, by definition.

Nothing wrong with that. I can't imagine Paul would dispute this either.

JB Eads -

A reasonable assumption, at least in view of the constraints of Article VI, is that if the SOS has a lobbyist to lobby the Oregon legislature, the lobbyist and the subject matter about which the lobbyist may lobby the legislature --- presumably limited to only those things that the SOS requires to fulfill his administrative obligations --- would have been approved by the legislature as required.

That type of adminstrative activity before the legislature are quite different from the national political activity that we are talking about here as unauthorized "advocacy". Are you really unable to understand that fundamental difference?

I know I as a citizen and taxpayer don't want any elected official using his office for political purposes beyond that allowed by law, and particularly for purposes that conflict with my values. Just as I'm assured that all of you VBM supporters would not want the SOS advocating nationally on an issue, say .... against VBM just because he personally opposed it, in the absence of any constitutional or legal right to do so, now would you?

And remember, in Oregon the SOS has no direct role in conducting voting, only in tabulating and certifying elections-related records provided to the office by the counties. Ever notice how the SOS has no voting results to report until the counties have provided them to him days after an election? Why do you think that is?

That said, you put a new issue on the table for the GSPC in the context of this matter: Given the apparent history of SOS's to go beyond the bounds of their offices for their own political careers, the GSPC should also confirm that the lobbying activities of the SOS are within the constitutional and legal bounds of the office.

By the way. the GSPC want to take note that Bill Bradbury exhibits a pattern of engaging in national advocacy if they find problems with the recent WAPO op ed:

Vote-by-Mail: The Real Winner Is Democracy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40032-2004Dec31.html

There is the core of AQ1's anger toward Bill Bradbury. Bradbury is advocating for position that conflict with HIS values. This goes hand in hand with his distain for VBM because it encourages all those voters who have positions that conflict with HIS values to actually vote (and no I am not arguing that VBM increases turn out - only that it may very well change the composition of the voters who are a part of that turn out).

The fact is that Bradbury represents the values of a vast majority of Oregonians when he advocates for VBM nationally.

Being in the minority is never fun. Sorry AQ1, but screaming into a box canyon will only result in hearing your own echo.

daniel -

Unfortunately, the question for the GSPC is whether Bill Bradbury is entitled to do what you so enthusiastically embrace:

The fact is that Bradbury represents the values of a vast majority of Oregonians when he advocates for VBM nationally.

Why do you endorse what may be a violation of his oath of office? Do you believe in not following the law just because it doesn't suit you? Since in advocating for VBM you are not doing what can even be remotely defined as defending noble principles, or even the franchise as daniel goes on to prove, do any other of you VBM supporters want to go on record as sharing that view?

And daniel you admitting that if the manner in which an election is conducted biases the turnout, that you have no problem with that? Do you approve then of all the documented attempts to bias the turnout by the right wing engaged in the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections? How do you square that view with the ideals of our country that everybody should have an equal opportunity to vote and be treated fairly?

And by the way daniel, you once again demonstrate the trademark intellectual dishonesty of many VBM supporters with your comment in misrepresenting what I argued previously as demonstrating

distain for VBM because it encourages all those voters who have positions that conflict with HIS values to actually vote

First, how would you know whether my values conflict with those of the people who actually turnout on the winning side of the matters we actually vote on? Since this is a blue state, I'm a progressive Democrat, and most of the time my side wins, I'm happy with the results in most cases.

Second, VBM does not encourage people with certain values to turn out, as you so dishonestly characterize the facts. It favors people based on other characteristics that have nothing to do with making sure as many people exercise their franchise as possible. Rather it favors those who for whatever reason vote frequently regardless of the voting method, and it is structurally designed to passively disenfranchise infrequent voters regardless of the reason someone is an infrequent voter.

What I am most interested in is how all you "progressive" VBM supporters feel about how daniel represents YOUR supposed values? Are you proud of that he puts out his lack of concern that while VBM does not increase turnout, it may very well change the composition of the voters who are a part of that turn out)?

And BIll Bradbury, are you pleased that daniel is confirming that you shamelessly advocate for a biased system in direct contradiction to your oath to insure that elections are carried out in a manner that provides fair and uniform opportunities for all citizens to vote?

daniel, as noted previously on this thread, with friends and VBM supporters like you, Bill Bradbury doesn't need enemies.

No daniel, it has nothing to do with whether I have the same values as the winning side in most contests, or about being in the minority when it comes to VBM. It has everything to do with character and integrity, clearly something that your argument strongly suggests you lack. And maybe, distressingly, more Oregonians lack that I ever dreaded thinking.

Are you proud of that?

Democrats love VBM because illegal non-citizens and the dead can vote without proof of citizenship! Secular Progressives only believe in the Resurrection at voting time! I wonder why there are no conservatives and their lawyers screaming about the close elections in 5 states. I’d bet my life that if it were the other way around the Democrats would be crying and winning. The Conservative Republicans are like the Parents and the Democrats are like the children who if they can’t get their way they cry and holler about it. The democrats are truly the emotional illogical children in our nation. They will scream and even cheat like they did in Washing State until they win or either yells election fraud. Babies, Babies, Marxist Babies!!

More ad hominem insults from AQ1 (who calls himself "a progressive Democrat"), this time for Daniel:

"...you are not doing what can even be remotely defined as defending noble principles..."

"...you once again demonstrate the trademark intellectual dishonesty of many VBM supporters..."

"...character and integrity, clearly something that your argument strongly suggests you lack."

I'm going to make a suggestion: AQ1 may find a more receptive audience for his criticisms if he lays off the insults.

Vote by mail is the new voting snake oil., and it is being sold as the solution to touch screen voting machine problems, while in fact the very same people supported the touch screens in the first place.

Many instances of fraud are documented using vote by mail. And many of them are very recent, including a mayor pleading guilty to forging absentee ballots, a caretaker forcing the disabled to vote how she wanted, and hawaii union employees being forced to hand in absentee ballots for review.

Vote by Mail is not a secure system.

For links to that backup every statement I have made above please visit: http://novbm.wordpress.com It is a blog dedicated to bursting the myth that vote by mail is good for Democracy.

"Vote by mail is not a secure system."

I just had a look at the website linked in the previous comment. It in fact has little to do with vote by mail. What it is, rather, is a blanket condemnation of all forms of absentee voting, replete with allegations of fraud.

I would appreciate hearing from VBM opponents whether they oppose all voting that does not involve a polling place. Cuz gawd knows that absentee voting is quite a popular option. My understanding from my colleagues at my workplace in Vancouver, for instance, is that about 25% of all Washingtonians regularly vote by absentee ballot. Apparently Washingtonians are allowed to choose to be in essence permanent absentee voters.

AQ1:

Just wanted to let you know that I did not respond to your last blast of name calling air because I had moved on to other more important matters. I do note that no other blogger - liberal or otherwise - jumped up to attack my positions concerning VBM or Bill Bradbury despite your oh so delicious call to action.

Keep paddling up stream, my friend.

daniel

In Response to Lin Qiao,

The website is in fact dedicated to opposing Vote By Mail. Absentee ballots share similar problems, as they are the same system on a small scale. So your comment that the website has "very little to do with VBM" makes "very little sense".

There's a new book out studying this VBM and absentee ballot problem in detail: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/17/opinion/main2195790.shtml

It's a pretty good book, but since I haven't had a tenured professorship to fall back on, writing a blog about the subject seemed the way to go.

And as for "allegation of fraud". That's also false. The fraud is documented. When a mayor admits to forging absentee ballots in open court in Appalacia, that's not an "allegation"... it's simply fact.

Vote By Mail is not a secret ballot, and is very useful for vote fraud and electioneering purposes. I will keep blogging about the subject as long as other people keep ignoring it and acting like Vote By Mail is good for Democracy. It's not. It's a fallacy.

Fraud has occurred regularly, in many states and countries that use Vote By Mail. Just look at England lately. Case after case of "proven fraud".

<h2>I am not interested in allegations. Though I do link to many "op-eds". Anyway, thanks for reading.</h2>