7 ms·

My home state of Washington exclusively uses mail-in ballots. (There are dropboxes if you can't afford a stamp.) Our voter participation rate in the 2012 electi

My home state of Washington exclusively uses mail-in ballots. (There are dropboxes if you can't afford a stamp.) Our voter participation rate in the 2012 election was about 60% of voting-age population, compared to about 55% listed for the same year in the article. The 2014 election participation rate was just under 40%, which is quite a bit higher than the 30% listed for California, but still very low. You can't make this any easier, and half the state still does not vote. My Washington statistics come from: http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voter-participation.aspx http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voter-participation.aspx

count 10y ago
You could easily make it easier and engage younger folks: make it a Tinder style app. Swipe right on the president you want to match with!
- M2Ys4U 10y ago
  You might get a few more "young" people participating, but electronic voting is such an absolutely terrible idea.
  - Aloha 10y ago
    I dont think electronic voting on its face is an inherently bad idea - but I've yet to see a proposal I like very much. Electronic Collection of votes seems very logical, if you then immediately generate a paper record (like a punched card) of the results of that particular ballot. Those paper results could then be tabulated and compared to the electronic results.
    - superuser2 10y ago
      At which point you have used the electronic voting system as a very expensive pencil.
      - duaneb 10y ago
        That's reductive. There are many reasons to prefer electronic voting: increased visibility into whether your vote actually counts, a paper trail that is not subject to human error, and (YES, this is important) convenience. There's really no reason every citizen shouldn't vote, but electronic voting would certainly reduce voter suppression and (IMHO) increase confidence in the process. I'd certainly be happier with a cryptography-oriented process rather than one relying on humans, which can be reliable en masse, but are also easily fooled.
        superuser2 10y ago
        How do you get a paper trail and convenience at the same time? Either you're at a polling place (so convenience is the same) or you're at home and you need to transport your receipt to some kind of counting facility (just like voting a paper ballot by mail). >increase confidence in the process >increased visibility into whether your vote actually counts IMO this is exactly wrong. We've had a LONG time to figure out how to count paper ballots by hand in ways that are resilient to fraud. Each ballot (and its corresponding tally mark) is handled in view of observers representing the opposing candidates. If there is something fishy about the count, at least one of the people who observed the counting process has the information and incentives necessary to attract more scrutiny. >would certainly reduce voter suppression Only if people do it from home, in which case there is no paper trail. Unless you mail in the paper trail, in which case you may as well have mailed in your ballot.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      My state does it the other way around. We mark paper ballots with a pen and then stick them into an electronic tabulator. Fast results, strong paper trail, failure of the electronic part of the system doesn't hamper voting.
      - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        What state is that? The paper trail and ability of independent audit is crucial.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Michigan. But there are 18 states that use such a system. https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  What about third parties and independent candidates? Such an app would just serve to strengthen the two party duopoly and propogate the fallacy that there are only two sides to every issue.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Tinder essentially does approval voting (swipe right to approve of a candidate, swipe left to disapprove). That should, in theory, make things easier for third party candidates.
JackFr 10y ago
> My home state of Washington exclusively uses mail-in ballots. While I understand that voting booths are farm from perfect, moving exclusively to mail-in ballots seems to me to trade convenience for security, robustness and and auditability. When I go to a polling station, I am relatively well assured that my vote is actually being tabulated, and that I have at least asserted who I am, and that no one has voted in my place. I don't know what safeguards the mail-in ballots have, presumably there are some but I don't think it's a panacea. In fact, I would say if your participation rate went much higher I would be suspicious.
- hatsix 10y ago
  I've had a ballot returned to me because my signature didn't match my on-file signature close enough. You mail in two sealed envelopes... You sign the inner one, which is discarded once verified. You get a barcode with your ballot that you can use to verify that your ballot was counted. I remember reading a big 'voting transparency' page years ago, but I can't find anything today that documents everything. So, knowing that signatures are checked feels good, even if it's a random sampling, they'd be able to gauge whether deeper auditing is required. Fraud would require intercepting mail, which means: A) Intercepting received ballots. B) Intercepting sent ballots. For A: Ballots are delivered across the state in a very tight window. Prior to the ballots, voting pamphlets are sent to everyone, telling them when to expect their ballot. It is assumed that any meddling with the ballots on a large enough scale to affect the election would be reported well before the election. For B: Fraud would occur in three ways: Trashing the ballots, modifying the ballots, replacing the ballots. Trashing would be identifiable by concerned citizens monitoring that their ballot was counted. Modifying would be identifiable by the security envelope that was signed by the individual. Replacing would be identifiable by matching signatures. There certainly is an opportunity for Fraud, but the organization to pull off an attack that is wide-scale enough change an election would be big enough that it would likely set off other alarms.
  - jharger 10y ago
    What about buying or coercing votes? Seems like a purely mail-in system would enable both. One benefit of polling places is that it's very difficult (if not impossible) to tell who anyone voted for.
SmellTheGlove 10y ago
Compulsory voting is a thing in some places. I wouldn't be against it. Yeah the uninformed vote will factor, but I think it's reeeallly important that people vote. EDIT: I actually like Belgium's model - you don't have to vote, but you do need to show up at the polls and register attendance. You can abstain if you'd like.
- rogerdpack 10y ago
  what's the penalty for not?
  - sverige 10y ago
    In Soviet Union, non-voter sent to gulag.
- nixos 10y ago
  Why should apathetic people vote? They'd presumably vote for the candidate who spent the most on ads. If anything, I'd prefer a fair voting test, where the person pulling the lever has to have _some_ kind of background knowledge.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Background knowledge like: how to read and write English! Or are we administering these tests verbally and written in every language on earth?
    - nixos 10y ago
      In the same languages the ballots are written
      - mirkules 10y ago
        I believe ethanbond is alluding to the literacy tests that were instituted in order to vote prior to the federal 1965 Voting Rights Act. The tests were predominant in the South and were designed so that nonwhites would fail them. Here is a sample: http://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf http://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf The instructions alone made my head spin. More from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/voting_literacy.html http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/voting_literacy.html
tomjen3 10y ago
That is probably because Washingtonians are smart enough to realize voting is pointless bullshit. Why take the trouble to choose between two people who are both going to screw you over?
- Finnucane 10y ago
  If voting makes no difference, the Republicans wouldn't be trying so hard to keep people from being able to do it.
  - back_beyond 10y ago
    And Democrats wouldn't be trying to import voters! </another unsubstantiated comment>
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -- done." "I think we probably had a better election. Think about this: We cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. You know, a lot of people lost sight of that. He won, he beat McCain by 10 percent. He only beat Romney by 5 percent. I think that, probably, voter ID helped a bit in that." 2 Pennsylvania GOP officials (Mike Turzai and Rob Gleason). There you go, it's substantiated!
      - sverige 10y ago
        How do we know the 5% wasn't fewer fraudulent votes?
        jrock08 10y ago
        Because voter impersonation (which is the only thing voter id laws catch) is incredibly rare. [1] [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/st...
    - 10y ago

count 10y ago

You could easily make it easier and engage younger folks: make it a Tinder style app. Swipe right on the president you want to match with!

M2Ys4U 10y ago
You might get a few more "young" people participating, but electronic voting is such an absolutely terrible idea.
- Aloha 10y ago
  I dont think electronic voting on its face is an inherently bad idea - but I've yet to see a proposal I like very much. Electronic Collection of votes seems very logical, if you then immediately generate a paper record (like a punched card) of the results of that particular ballot. Those paper results could then be tabulated and compared to the electronic results.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    At which point you have used the electronic voting system as a very expensive pencil.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      That's reductive. There are many reasons to prefer electronic voting: increased visibility into whether your vote actually counts, a paper trail that is not subject to human error, and (YES, this is important) convenience. There's really no reason every citizen shouldn't vote, but electronic voting would certainly reduce voter suppression and (IMHO) increase confidence in the process. I'd certainly be happier with a cryptography-oriented process rather than one relying on humans, which can be reliable en masse, but are also easily fooled.
      - superuser2 10y ago
        How do you get a paper trail and convenience at the same time? Either you're at a polling place (so convenience is the same) or you're at home and you need to transport your receipt to some kind of counting facility (just like voting a paper ballot by mail). >increase confidence in the process >increased visibility into whether your vote actually counts IMO this is exactly wrong. We've had a LONG time to figure out how to count paper ballots by hand in ways that are resilient to fraud. Each ballot (and its corresponding tally mark) is handled in view of observers representing the opposing candidates. If there is something fishy about the count, at least one of the people who observed the counting process has the information and incentives necessary to attract more scrutiny. >would certainly reduce voter suppression Only if people do it from home, in which case there is no paper trail. Unless you mail in the paper trail, in which case you may as well have mailed in your ballot.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    My state does it the other way around. We mark paper ballots with a pen and then stick them into an electronic tabulator. Fast results, strong paper trail, failure of the electronic part of the system doesn't hamper voting.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      What state is that? The paper trail and ability of independent audit is crucial.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Michigan. But there are 18 states that use such a system. https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state
em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
What about third parties and independent candidates? Such an app would just serve to strengthen the two party duopoly and propogate the fallacy that there are only two sides to every issue.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Tinder essentially does approval voting (swipe right to approve of a candidate, swipe left to disapprove). That should, in theory, make things easier for third party candidates.

JackFr 10y ago

> My home state of Washington exclusively uses mail-in ballots. While I understand that voting booths are farm from perfect, moving exclusively to mail-in ballots seems to me to trade convenience for security, robustness and and auditability. When I go to a polling station, I am relatively well assured that my vote is actually being tabulated, and that I have at least asserted who I am, and that no one has voted in my place. I don't know what safeguards the mail-in ballots have, presumably there are some but I don't think it's a panacea. In fact, I would say if your participation rate went much higher I would be suspicious.

hatsix 10y ago
I've had a ballot returned to me because my signature didn't match my on-file signature close enough. You mail in two sealed envelopes... You sign the inner one, which is discarded once verified. You get a barcode with your ballot that you can use to verify that your ballot was counted. I remember reading a big 'voting transparency' page years ago, but I can't find anything today that documents everything. So, knowing that signatures are checked feels good, even if it's a random sampling, they'd be able to gauge whether deeper auditing is required. Fraud would require intercepting mail, which means: A) Intercepting received ballots. B) Intercepting sent ballots. For A: Ballots are delivered across the state in a very tight window. Prior to the ballots, voting pamphlets are sent to everyone, telling them when to expect their ballot. It is assumed that any meddling with the ballots on a large enough scale to affect the election would be reported well before the election. For B: Fraud would occur in three ways: Trashing the ballots, modifying the ballots, replacing the ballots. Trashing would be identifiable by concerned citizens monitoring that their ballot was counted. Modifying would be identifiable by the security envelope that was signed by the individual. Replacing would be identifiable by matching signatures. There certainly is an opportunity for Fraud, but the organization to pull off an attack that is wide-scale enough change an election would be big enough that it would likely set off other alarms.
- jharger 10y ago
  What about buying or coercing votes? Seems like a purely mail-in system would enable both. One benefit of polling places is that it's very difficult (if not impossible) to tell who anyone voted for.

SmellTheGlove 10y ago

Compulsory voting is a thing in some places. I wouldn't be against it. Yeah the uninformed vote will factor, but I think it's reeeallly important that people vote. EDIT: I actually like Belgium's model - you don't have to vote, but you do need to show up at the polls and register attendance. You can abstain if you'd like.

rogerdpack 10y ago
what's the penalty for not?
- sverige 10y ago
  In Soviet Union, non-voter sent to gulag.
nixos 10y ago
Why should apathetic people vote? They'd presumably vote for the candidate who spent the most on ads. If anything, I'd prefer a fair voting test, where the person pulling the lever has to have _some_ kind of background knowledge.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Background knowledge like: how to read and write English! Or are we administering these tests verbally and written in every language on earth?
  - nixos 10y ago
    In the same languages the ballots are written
    - mirkules 10y ago
      I believe ethanbond is alluding to the literacy tests that were instituted in order to vote prior to the federal 1965 Voting Rights Act. The tests were predominant in the South and were designed so that nonwhites would fail them. Here is a sample: http://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf http://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf The instructions alone made my head spin. More from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/voting_literacy.html http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/voting_literacy.html

tomjen3 10y ago

That is probably because Washingtonians are smart enough to realize voting is pointless bullshit. Why take the trouble to choose between two people who are both going to screw you over?

Finnucane 10y ago
If voting makes no difference, the Republicans wouldn't be trying so hard to keep people from being able to do it.
- back_beyond 10y ago
  And Democrats wouldn't be trying to import voters! </another unsubstantiated comment>
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -- done." "I think we probably had a better election. Think about this: We cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. You know, a lot of people lost sight of that. He won, he beat McCain by 10 percent. He only beat Romney by 5 percent. I think that, probably, voter ID helped a bit in that." 2 Pennsylvania GOP officials (Mike Turzai and Rob Gleason). There you go, it's substantiated!
    - sverige 10y ago
      How do we know the 5% wasn't fewer fraudulent votes?
      - jrock08 10y ago
        Because voter impersonation (which is the only thing voter id laws catch) is incredibly rare. [1] [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/st...
  - 10y ago