Question? Aren't the Election Administrators in each county suppose to be working with the Secretary of State's office to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen?

In the hypothetical event that someone managed to work in the Secretary of State's office for the entire Brown years and not realize that the Secretary of State's office has no jurisdiction over city elections, that might explain why that individual is no longer working at the Secretary of State's office.

With all due respect Carter, I think that this is probably much ado about nothing. First of all, in a university town such as Missoula, 11,000 returned ballots is no big deal. Remember there's no requirement that you "unregister" when you move - whether it's across town or out of town. Given the big rush to register voters last fall before the election, I would think the number of people who don't live in the same place now is probably pretty high.

More importantly, when ballots are returned, they have to be signed on the outside of the return envelope. The signatures are then compared before the ballots are "accepted".

With the huge number of returns, my guess is that the post office did a super job of not delivering ballots to the wrong people and the few that may have gotten into the wrong hands will most likely be trashed by the recipients or, if fraudulently submitted, will be caught at the elections office.

Methinks you may be hollering before you've been hit on this one.

With all due respect Carter, I think that this is probably much ado about nothing. First of all, in a university town such as Missoula, 11,000 returned ballots is no big deal. Remember there's no requirement that you "unregister" when you move - whether it's across town or out of town. Given the big rush to register voters last fall before the election, I would think the number of people who don't live in the same place now is probably pretty high.

More importantly, when ballots are returned, they have to be signed on the outside of the return envelope. The signatures are then compared before the ballots are "accepted".

With the huge number of returns, my guess is that the post office did a super job of not delivering ballots to the wrong people and the few that may have gotten into the wrong hands will most likely be trashed by the recipients or, if fraudulently submitted, will be caught at the elections office.

Methinks you may be hollering before you've been hit on this one.

Thanks for your comment Auntie Lib, but I do believe that having an extra 11,000 ballots floating around is a really, really big deal. That is a lot that the post office returned, but how many were delivered to someone other than the addressee? You have no way of knowing.

I have zero confidence in the signature verification process, which relies entirely on individual objectivity. The bureaucrats who work in election offices usually approve questionable or borderline signatures because they're under under pressure to accept as many ballots as possible - having a high percentage of disqualified ballots doesn't look good for the elections office. Further, I don't trust the judgment of anyone who's stared at signatures on envelopes for hours on end.

The bottom line is that vote by mail is an open invitation to commit voter fraud, and the Missoula problems just underscore exactly how big a problem it could be.

Oh, goody! I sense a debate coming on...

Carter, there are not 11,000 ballots "floating around". The fact is that 11,000 ballots were RETURNED to the elections office. This is a good thing - not a problem. What it means is those 11,000 previously registered voters do not have ballots - so we know they aren't going to be committing any voter fraud. Me -1, You -0

Your second premise, that because so many ballots were returned therefore we must conclude that there are a significant number that were mis-delivered, is logically unsupportable. There is no causal relationship. I contend that because so many were returned there are fewer that were possibly delivered to the wrong people. Neither of us has proof either way. You -0, Me - 0.

Your third point regarding the comparison of signatures is also more smoke than fire. Any one who fraudulently uses someone else's ballot either knows that person really well (another member of the family) or has no idea who the person was. In the case of the latter, the odds of the signature on the ballot matching the one on file are miniscule. Family members probably do stand a greater chance of "forging" a reasonable likeness. However, as a bureaucrat who spends hours each day verifying signatures as part of my job (and no - I don't work in an election office), it's usually a no-brainer to figure out a forged one. Most people just aren't expert forgers! Additionally, the election officers have been taking training on handwriting analysis so they are even more able to spot potential forgeries. The fact that the ballots arrive over a period of time and don't have to be reviewed all at once further assures accuracy. Me - 1, You - 0

The processes for mail-in ballots have been refined over the years so that, in fact, mail-in voting is LESS vulnerable to fraud than "live" voting. It is at least partially because most people don't know how it works that they are not able to successfully circumvent the system even if they try.

Live voting with same day registration is the real problem area.

Mail-in voting is great. I used it for years in Oregon and I love it!!! It's like a new food - try it first - you might like it!

Auntie Lib,

Your points are well taken, but it just looks like we disagree on most of this. The fact that 11,000 were returned by the Post Office is a good thing, but the fact that the voter registration rolls have so many inactive voters underscores the point that VBM increases the potential for voter fraud.

Again, I don't think that using an objective procedure like signature verification is desirable in the election process. We're relying on hundreds of different individuals across the state to verify signatures, and all of them have different levels of accuracy. Different individuals will arrive at different conclusions on the sames set of signatures. We'll never have a 100% verifiable system for confirming voter identity (even picture ID is somewhat objective), but signature verification leaves an awful lot to be desired.

Finally, I don't see any way that vote by mail is less vulnerable to voter fraud compared with traditional balloting. Your point that people don't know how the system works and thus they won't be able to capitalize on its vulnerabilities is weak at best. With live voting, committing fraud must be premeditated and the perpetrator must put himself in a situation where he has to interact with other people to commit the fraud. VBM eliminates the premeditation (a ballot just shows up in your mailbox) and it is completely anonymous.

There is a delicate balance between voter convenience and election integrity. VBM does nothing but tip this balance way to far in favor of voter convenience.

Just a couple relevant points:

1) signature verification: Anyone who's ever worked on a political campaign ought to have some questions about the idea that we can verify who voted the ballot by the signature. Candidates rarely sign all their own letters, and no one ever notices.

2) I do know at least one person whose ballot got forwarded to them, in violation of the supposed rules against forwarding ballots. Any system that relies on 100% performance by the US Postal Service is not reliable enough for elections.

Auntie Lib, you're so smart you scare me! It's nice to know somebody out there 'gets it'! I wonder if 47 has ever heard of a little thing called the Statewide Voter Data Base, which is managed by the Secretary of State's Office. I believe that is the official instrument used to keep track of all the folks who VOTE whether it be city, county, state or national elections...........HELLO!

There's more to the story here. Two major themes:
A) We have no idea how much voter fraud is really going on in Montana because NO ONE is checking the people who registered same-day and voted in Montana to see if they voted in another state. There are volumes to be written on election fraud problems with same-day registration. More on that later.
B) The nonsense in the Bozeman Chronicle Sep. 27 about Brad Johnson seeking election reform is a load of bull. Johnson is no more an election reformer than he is a cowboy, despite his snazzy SK's that he wears everywhere.
These things require real work by serious people, not pretenders. The D's are trying to push mail-in balloting just like same-day registration so they can win more elections by STEALING them. And the guy minding the store is inclined to give them everything just so long as he comes out looking like a nice guy who might be Governor some day.
You don't have what it takes to be Governor, Brad. Do your job today and let tomorrow take care of itself.