Mail ballot experiment shows flaws
The editorial pages in Montana newspapers have been gushing with praise for the mail ballot elections run this week in some of Montana's largest municipalities. Election administrators too have been quick with their praise of the experiment and virtually silent on the glaring problems inherent with a mail ballot election.
One of the "glitches" was in returned ballots. According to the Billings Gazette, "More than 5,000 ballots - about 10 percent of the total - came back to the election office as undeliverable..." And recall the previous circus in Missoula where 11,000 - 26% - ballots came back to the elections office as undeliverable.
Most people we know have about as much confidence in the US Postal Service delivering 100% of the mail correctly as we have in Mike Kramer running a drug treatment center, so if there are tens of thousands of incorrectly addressed ballots in just two counties, how many were incorrectly delivered? In Lewis & Clark County - which had a mail ballot fiasco of it's own that has prompted a "re-do" in January (VBM is supposed to be cheaper, right?) - ballots were incorrectly forwarded by the Postal Service because the election administrator forgot to stamp "Do not Forward" on the envelopes. Ballots in Gallatin County were also forwarded.
With tens of thousands of ballots floating around in the mail, VBM is a dream come true for election fraud perpetrators. One of the tenets of the secure election system we have now is that ballots are always under the watchful eye of at least two election workers. VBM throws that security out the window and places that responsibility in the hands of postal workers, most of whom work alone.
Election administrators love VBM because it makes their jobs a lot easier. The pundits in the Montana media love it because it increases voter turnout. Those are both laudable goals, but they come at the price of election integrity, and with all the blunders in this year's elections, it's obvious that it's not a worthwhile tradeoff.
Carter
4 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
What makes this situation particularly troubleseome is the fact that the Statewide Voter Data base contains flawed information, The disc can be purchased from the Secretary of State's office for $1000 and it's laced with inaccuraceys. This information is compiled by the counties and is suppose to be purged at the state level. The copy I purchased is virtually unuseable in many instances so what guarantee do we have that if the addresses on that document aren't correct that ballots are being mailed to the right places. The one safeguard that is in place is the counties do have to match up signatures on the outside of the envelopes. I also wonder what keeps 'fraud' from taking place in situations like 'group homes' where a trusted caregiver could sit the clients down to help 'assist' them in voting their ballots, having them signed and returning them. Who's really doing the voting?
Ok - so VBM isn't flawless. But before tossing the baby out with the bath water, let's examine the main complaint here and see if the problem is really so horrific. I think it's fair to assume that the EAs now know to have the "Do Not Forward" statement printed on the ballots. Given that a certain number of people move out of any given district during an election cycle and there is no way to track them if they don't re-register, it is just as likely that those intent on perpetrating a fraud can do so the old-fashioned way by showing up at their old precinct and voting there. With VBM those people don't get a ballot and if they come in to the County office because they didn't get a ballot, they can be required to provide proof of residency.
Election integrity is a laudable goal - but it is just that - a goal. It has not been achieved yet with either VBM or traditional "in person" voting.
Put me down as one of the fervent supporters of VBM!
Auntie Lib - You're right, we do not have election integrity with either VBM or traditional voting. I'm arguing that elections are more secure with traditional voting. VBM swings the barn door wide open and introduces several new ways to commit voter fraud - ways that don't exist in our traditional elections.
Does anyone have any idea what the Secretary of State's position is on this issue? Being the Chief Election Administratior for the State of Montana I would think he would have something to say here.