4 ms·

That article was 8 years old an deals mostly with people who vote absentee. States like Oregon and Washington have systems in place to make sure every ballot i

by donarb 6y ago

That article was 8 years old an deals mostly with people who vote absentee. States like Oregon and Washington have systems in place to make sure every ballot is counted. You get 18 days to send in your ballot, you can check online to see if your ballot has been received. If not, you have plenty of time to request a new one. Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 20 years. In that time they have sent out about 100M ballots with only 12 cases of voter fraud found.

GenerocUsername 6y ago
FOUND
pacala 6y ago
The ability to check one's ballot status implies that the ballot is tied to one's identity. How does the system guarantee vote secrecy? Edit. From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting Ballots packs are mailed to every registered voter 14 to 18 days before the election. When the ballot pack comes in the mail, it includes: An official ballot A secrecy envelope A ballot return envelope After filling out the ballot the voter then places the ballot in the secrecy envelope, then inside the return envelope and must then sign it in a space provided on the outside return envelope. This is then either mailed back through the US mail with first class postage, or dropped off at any County Elections Office or a designated dropsite. Ballots must be received in a County Elections Office or a designated dropsite by 8pm on Election Day (postmarks do not count). If the ballot arrives at the County Elections Office after 8pm on Election Day, it is not counted. Once received, an Elections Official at the elections office where the ballot is received will compare the signature on the ballot return envelope to the signature on the voter registration card to verify that the voter is registered to vote. Once verified, the secrecy envelope containing the actual ballot is removed and polled with the other ballots. Once the "polls" close at 8pm on Election Day, the ballots are removed from their secrecy envelopes and counted.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  “Vote secrecy” refers to the inability for an attacker to know who you voted for, not that you voted. Checking whether your vote was counted gives you an answer to the latter, not the former. In other words, it’s not possible to prove who you voted for after the fact unless you took pictures (or some other copy).
  - pacala 6y ago
    What keeps an attacker from: Open the ballot envelope and the secrecy envelope Note who you voted for Pack the secrecy envelope and the ballot envelope Use the vote information in whatever way they see fit ? Variation: Hey grandpa Joe, I'm here to help you vote Note who you voted for Help you pack the secrecy envelope and the ballot envelope Use the vote information in whatever way they see fit
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      I don’t know how other states do it, but I’m assuming you’re given a “ballot ID” that your vote is associated with (instead of your name). So if someone opened your vote-by-mail ballot, all they’d have is your ballot ID, so they wouldn’t know who voted for who. Also, what stops someone from doing that with the current voting system? We have computers do the counting with little to no oversight; They could easily be programmed to report people who “voted the wrong way.” With regards to your variation, that’s an inherent weakness of vote-by-mail, yes. There’s not much that can be done about that other than outlawing vote-by-mail.[^a] [^a]: Due to the way the Constitution is written, the power to decide the method of voting is not with the federal government. As such, the Tenth Amendment delegates that power to the states. Meaning, the power to require “secret ballots” rests with the states, and many do not have such requirements in their Constitutions. It also means that the federal government can’t outlaw vote-by-mail without a Constitutional amendment.
      - pacala 6y ago
        A political machine that can make use of the 'who did Joe voted for' information is likely to have access to the ballot id database and link 'ballot id 43abfd32' to Joe. On voting machines, good point. We should not use voting machines either.
taborj 6y ago
> Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 20 years. But here is what people seem to gloss over -- Yes, Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 40 years in fact. But it wasn't just done overnight. In fact, the process started before most here were born; in 1981 mail-in voting was allowed at the local level[0], and it wasn't until 6 years later that it was determined to be something Oregon would do every year. And it wasn't until 2000, nearly 20 years later, that presidential elections were included. What we're talking about for this election cycle is drastically and suddenly switching the method of voting, not phasing it in over 40 years like Oregon did. When you make a drastic change like that, the situation is ripe for failure and abuse, because the people and systems in place are not equipped to handle the situation. Frankly, they don't even know what they're getting into until they're into it, and a major election is not the time to find out that the whole system is messed up. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon
- plorkyeran 6y ago
  Fortunately California isn't going from zero to 100% vote-by-mail in one shot either. I've been voting by mail in California - including for presidential elections - for 15 years now, and it wasn't a new thing when I started.
- bruceb 6y ago
  Technology has also grown leaps and bounds since 1981. Oregon may have taken a long time as it was a leader. Charting the unknown. States enabling more mail in voting now have well established examples to follow. Its hardly "drastically" changing anything.
  - taborj 6y ago
    My day job is building healthcare interfaces. I've done more than my share of immunization registry interfaces, where we connect a clinic up to the state registry. If I've learned anything working with state governments, it's that they all think they know better than the other states. They'll all set off on their own paths, rather than duplicating the successes from other states. Only after a few annoying failures will they come to something akin to parity (in the case of immunization registries, it's the CDC's specification guidelines, which were there all along).

by donarb 6y ago

GenerocUsername 6y ago

FOUND

pacala 6y ago

The ability to check one's ballot status implies that the ballot is tied to one's identity. How does the system guarantee vote secrecy? Edit. From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting Ballots packs are mailed to every registered voter 14 to 18 days before the election. When the ballot pack comes in the mail, it includes: An official ballot A secrecy envelope A ballot return envelope After filling out the ballot the voter then places the ballot in the secrecy envelope, then inside the return envelope and must then sign it in a space provided on the outside return envelope. This is then either mailed back through the US mail with first class postage, or dropped off at any County Elections Office or a designated dropsite. Ballots must be received in a County Elections Office or a designated dropsite by 8pm on Election Day (postmarks do not count). If the ballot arrives at the County Elections Office after 8pm on Election Day, it is not counted. Once received, an Elections Official at the elections office where the ballot is received will compare the signature on the ballot return envelope to the signature on the voter registration card to verify that the voter is registered to vote. Once verified, the secrecy envelope containing the actual ballot is removed and polled with the other ballots. Once the "polls" close at 8pm on Election Day, the ballots are removed from their secrecy envelopes and counted.

colejohnson66 6y ago
“Vote secrecy” refers to the inability for an attacker to know who you voted for, not that you voted. Checking whether your vote was counted gives you an answer to the latter, not the former. In other words, it’s not possible to prove who you voted for after the fact unless you took pictures (or some other copy).
- pacala 6y ago
  What keeps an attacker from: Open the ballot envelope and the secrecy envelope Note who you voted for Pack the secrecy envelope and the ballot envelope Use the vote information in whatever way they see fit ? Variation: Hey grandpa Joe, I'm here to help you vote Note who you voted for Help you pack the secrecy envelope and the ballot envelope Use the vote information in whatever way they see fit
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    I don’t know how other states do it, but I’m assuming you’re given a “ballot ID” that your vote is associated with (instead of your name). So if someone opened your vote-by-mail ballot, all they’d have is your ballot ID, so they wouldn’t know who voted for who. Also, what stops someone from doing that with the current voting system? We have computers do the counting with little to no oversight; They could easily be programmed to report people who “voted the wrong way.” With regards to your variation, that’s an inherent weakness of vote-by-mail, yes. There’s not much that can be done about that other than outlawing vote-by-mail.[^a] [^a]: Due to the way the Constitution is written, the power to decide the method of voting is not with the federal government. As such, the Tenth Amendment delegates that power to the states. Meaning, the power to require “secret ballots” rests with the states, and many do not have such requirements in their Constitutions. It also means that the federal government can’t outlaw vote-by-mail without a Constitutional amendment.
    - pacala 6y ago
      A political machine that can make use of the 'who did Joe voted for' information is likely to have access to the ballot id database and link 'ballot id 43abfd32' to Joe. On voting machines, good point. We should not use voting machines either.

taborj 6y ago

> Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 20 years. But here is what people seem to gloss over -- Yes, Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 40 years in fact. But it wasn't just done overnight. In fact, the process started before most here were born; in 1981 mail-in voting was allowed at the local level[0], and it wasn't until 6 years later that it was determined to be something Oregon would do every year. And it wasn't until 2000, nearly 20 years later, that presidential elections were included. What we're talking about for this election cycle is drastically and suddenly switching the method of voting, not phasing it in over 40 years like Oregon did. When you make a drastic change like that, the situation is ripe for failure and abuse, because the people and systems in place are not equipped to handle the situation. Frankly, they don't even know what they're getting into until they're into it, and a major election is not the time to find out that the whole system is messed up. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

plorkyeran 6y ago
Fortunately California isn't going from zero to 100% vote-by-mail in one shot either. I've been voting by mail in California - including for presidential elections - for 15 years now, and it wasn't a new thing when I started.
bruceb 6y ago
Technology has also grown leaps and bounds since 1981. Oregon may have taken a long time as it was a leader. Charting the unknown. States enabling more mail in voting now have well established examples to follow. Its hardly "drastically" changing anything.
- taborj 6y ago
  My day job is building healthcare interfaces. I've done more than my share of immunization registry interfaces, where we connect a clinic up to the state registry. If I've learned anything working with state governments, it's that they all think they know better than the other states. They'll all set off on their own paths, rather than duplicating the successes from other states. Only after a few annoying failures will they come to something akin to parity (in the case of immunization registries, it's the CDC's specification guidelines, which were there all along).