3 ms·

The way Oregon handles this is any voter can always contact an elections office and report coercion, or modify their vote, or fix it if it is somehow not counta

The way Oregon handles this is any voter can always contact an elections office and report coercion, or modify their vote, or fix it if it is somehow not countable. That coercion is a crime. Given a time window to vote and mail, and a secrecy process where the validation of the vote is physically separated from the vote to be counted, secrecy is there. The real question is whether Oregon style processes are available. If they are, the election will be solid. On the back end, validation, counting are done in a secure place under camera. Election fraud is also a crime. Vote by mail works just fine when well implemented.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Of course it's a crime. The problem is criminals. If you don't show them your vote they break your kneecaps, if you don't vote the way they want they break your kneecaps, if you report them to the cops they break your kneecaps. So you vote the way they want and don't report it to the cops and without any other mechanism of detecting it they get away with it.
- ddingus 6y ago
  No, what you do is whatever you need to, then fix it later. Votes are cast over a period of a couple weeks and are distributed well in both time and space. It is very difficult to line up the needed criminals and have them lean on many people over a non trivial amount of time and space. And the criminals cannot really verify the vote cast. So, let's say they unionize. Break a lot of kneecaps over the next year? All that will come out and won't look pretty. By contrast, discouraging votes by forcing everyone to gather in one hard to miss group takes far fewer criminals. It all happens on one day too. The key thing is that distribution in time and space. The mechanics of coercion are very different. Nobody knows who has ballots, when and whether they have voted and or any number can report too. Criminals would be facing a high risk scenario and a high resource requirement.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Votes are cast over a period of a couple weeks and are distributed well in both time and space. How does this help you? It makes it easier because you can send one goon to a hundred people over the course of weeks instead of needing a hundred goons. Everybody knows ahead of time that this is going to happen and they'll be punished if they submit their ballot before the goon arrives to watch. > And the criminals cannot really verify the vote cast. What do you mean? They watch you put it into a mailbox. Or just take your ballot and mail it themselves. > So, let's say they unionize. Break a lot of kneecaps over the next year? That only happens if they fail. If they succeed you don't have to punish anybody. > All that will come out and won't look pretty. Assuming people who have just had a violence demonstration will be inclined to invite more for reporting it to the police. > By contrast, discouraging votes by forcing everyone to gather in one hard to miss group takes far fewer criminals. It all happens on one day too. Except that all happening in one place on one day is the advantage because it allows that day and that place to be secured by impartial monitors who ensure that nobody there is looking at anybody else's ballot.
- lsiebert 6y ago
  I can only assume you live in a place in gotham pre batman, or vice city, or maybe a third world nation with super corrupt police.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Secret ballots were devised in response to people historically doing things like this. Then they stopped happening because the countermeasures worked. If you take away the countermeasures, what then? Have criminals ceased to exist? Are the incentives somehow different now?
    - lsiebert 6y ago
      Three states exclusively use mail in ballots (starting with Oregon in 2000 I believe so at least 20 years), and if there is epidemic of criminal kneecapping going on, I feel like we'd have heard about it by now.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Absolutely we would have.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        BTW, I believe Oregon started VBM in 1996.
        lsiebert 6y ago
        Looks like they were voting on senators in 96, passed a measure in 98, and had their first all mail vote in 2000. Apparently it also saves a bunch of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Of course it's a crime. The problem is criminals. If you don't show them your vote they break your kneecaps, if you don't vote the way they want they break your kneecaps, if you report them to the cops they break your kneecaps. So you vote the way they want and don't report it to the cops and without any other mechanism of detecting it they get away with it.

ddingus 6y ago
No, what you do is whatever you need to, then fix it later. Votes are cast over a period of a couple weeks and are distributed well in both time and space. It is very difficult to line up the needed criminals and have them lean on many people over a non trivial amount of time and space. And the criminals cannot really verify the vote cast. So, let's say they unionize. Break a lot of kneecaps over the next year? All that will come out and won't look pretty. By contrast, discouraging votes by forcing everyone to gather in one hard to miss group takes far fewer criminals. It all happens on one day too. The key thing is that distribution in time and space. The mechanics of coercion are very different. Nobody knows who has ballots, when and whether they have voted and or any number can report too. Criminals would be facing a high risk scenario and a high resource requirement.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Votes are cast over a period of a couple weeks and are distributed well in both time and space. How does this help you? It makes it easier because you can send one goon to a hundred people over the course of weeks instead of needing a hundred goons. Everybody knows ahead of time that this is going to happen and they'll be punished if they submit their ballot before the goon arrives to watch. > And the criminals cannot really verify the vote cast. What do you mean? They watch you put it into a mailbox. Or just take your ballot and mail it themselves. > So, let's say they unionize. Break a lot of kneecaps over the next year? That only happens if they fail. If they succeed you don't have to punish anybody. > All that will come out and won't look pretty. Assuming people who have just had a violence demonstration will be inclined to invite more for reporting it to the police. > By contrast, discouraging votes by forcing everyone to gather in one hard to miss group takes far fewer criminals. It all happens on one day too. Except that all happening in one place on one day is the advantage because it allows that day and that place to be secured by impartial monitors who ensure that nobody there is looking at anybody else's ballot.
lsiebert 6y ago
I can only assume you live in a place in gotham pre batman, or vice city, or maybe a third world nation with super corrupt police.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Secret ballots were devised in response to people historically doing things like this. Then they stopped happening because the countermeasures worked. If you take away the countermeasures, what then? Have criminals ceased to exist? Are the incentives somehow different now?
  - lsiebert 6y ago
    Three states exclusively use mail in ballots (starting with Oregon in 2000 I believe so at least 20 years), and if there is epidemic of criminal kneecapping going on, I feel like we'd have heard about it by now.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Absolutely we would have.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      BTW, I believe Oregon started VBM in 1996.
      - lsiebert 6y ago
        Looks like they were voting on senators in 96, passed a measure in 98, and had their first all mail vote in 2000. Apparently it also saves a bunch of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon