After reading more about the system I got some more problems:
1. How can mail in ballot ensure anonymity of the ballot when signatures are needed to compare for the ballots being properly received?
2. With signature comparison being a necessary step in mail in ballot handling, if by chance someone's signature became a little too different from the one in record due to various factors, like shift in muscle function over time, wouldn't that reduce the chance of mail in ballot being accepted?

This may answer your questions https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee/mail-i ... ents,_2020
The standards vary from state to state. Some states/voting districts use special readers and software to compare ballot signatures to digitized signature records.

Your signature (and two witnesses) go on the "Affidavit". there is a "Secret Envelope" that holds the actual ballot and that goes into the Affidavit envelope. When the outside envelope (with address & stamp) is opened the signature is checked on the affidavit. If a match then that can be opened and the "Secret Ballot" envelope can be tossed into the pile of valid ballots. That is then opened in another area and the ballot is spread open and scanned.

It is a simple process as long as there are observers from both sides keeping an eye on things.

c933103 wrote:

1. How can mail in ballot ensure anonymity of the ballot when signatures are needed to compare for the ballots being properly received?

I have to ask, is true anonymity really truly required? In the UK, no ballot is actually secret - every ballot cast has a unique serial number, and that is linked to your name when you receive the ballot at the polling station. And no one in the UK cares - its never been an issue. We also seem to have significantly less issues with voting overall than the US - mail in ballots are common while fraud is extremely uncommon. No gerrymandering, no voter suppression, independent electoral commission etc etc.

At the end of the day, if whomever in power wants to punish people who didn't vote for them then there are easier ways to identify those demographics and deal with them as a group rather than individually seeking out ballots.

Thanka for answers.

moo wrote:

c933103 wrote:

1. How can mail in ballot ensure anonymity of the ballot when signatures are needed to compare for the ballots being properly received?

I have to ask, is true anonymity really truly required? In the UK, no ballot is actually secret - every ballot cast has a unique serial number, and that is linked to your name when you receive the ballot at the polling station. And no one in the UK cares - its never been an issue. We also seem to have significantly less issues with voting overall than the US - mail in ballots are common while fraud is extremely uncommon. No gerrymandering, no voter suppression, independent electoral commission etc etc.

At the end of the day, if whomever in power wants to punish people who didn't vote for them then there are easier ways to identify those demographics and deal with them as a group rather than individually seeking out ballots.

Yes, but the threat of "No new metro line extension for this constituency in the next decade" is much less direct and much less powerful as a threat than "Ten years jail for this person"
When the system is working, it's not too much of a concern, but it's these details that would help/slow ill-intended people when they try to break the system.

c933103 wrote:

moo wrote:

c933103 wrote:

1. How can mail in ballot ensure anonymity of the ballot when signatures are needed to compare for the ballots being properly received?

I have to ask, is true anonymity really truly required? In the UK, no ballot is actually secret - every ballot cast has a unique serial number, and that is linked to your name when you receive the ballot at the polling station. And no one in the UK cares - its never been an issue. We also seem to have significantly less issues with voting overall than the US - mail in ballots are common while fraud is extremely uncommon. No gerrymandering, no voter suppression, independent electoral commission etc etc.

At the end of the day, if whomever in power wants to punish people who didn't vote for them then there are easier ways to identify those demographics and deal with them as a group rather than individually seeking out ballots.

Yes, but the threat of "No new metro line extension for this constituency in the next decade" is much less direct and much less powerful as a threat than "Ten years jail for this person"
When the system is working, it's not too much of a concern, but it's these details that would help/slow ill-intended people when they try to break the system.

If you are that concerned about your elected representatives taking action against people who didnt vote for them, then you dont need ballot anonymity, you need a completely new political system.

moo wrote:

c933103 wrote:

moo wrote:

I have to ask, is true anonymity really truly required? In the UK, no ballot is actually secret - every ballot cast has a unique serial number, and that is linked to your name when you receive the ballot at the polling station. And no one in the UK cares - its never been an issue. We also seem to have significantly less issues with voting overall than the US - mail in ballots are common while fraud is extremely uncommon. No gerrymandering, no voter suppression, independent electoral commission etc etc.

At the end of the day, if whomever in power wants to punish people who didn't vote for them then there are easier ways to identify those demographics and deal with them as a group rather than individually seeking out ballots.

Yes, but the threat of "No new metro line extension for this constituency in the next decade" is much less direct and much less powerful as a threat than "Ten years jail for this person"
When the system is working, it's not too much of a concern, but it's these details that would help/slow ill-intended people when they try to break the system.

If you are that concerned about your elected representatives taking action against people who didnt vote for them, then you dont need ballot anonymity, you need a completely new political system.

Sure, but one is easier to have while another is harder
Also, sometimes voting for/against some candidates come with some social pressure. If a person's identity is assoxiated with their choice on ballot, they might not honestly reflect their desire on the ballot.

Tugger wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Yes, but the threat of "No new metro line extension for this constituency in the next decade" is much less direct and much less powerful as a threat than "Ten years jail for this person"
When the system is working, it's not too much of a concern, but it's these details that would help/slow ill-intended people when they try to break the system.

To my mind that is a mostly unreasonable fear. We would have to become like Putin's Russia or Venezuela or China for that to be a real fear.

Any "government" willing to go that far will be perfectly willing to apply such measures in a more fuzzy way and just go by the results of voting locations and where the people live going there.

But i disagree that the US would need to become anything to get there, gerrymandering is after all not that different: "Oh, you voted for the other party? Too bad, we have to lock you in a district to make sure that your vote doesn´t really count in the future.". Arguably that is much more effective that any sort of economic punishment, that tends to spur resistence.

best regards
Thomas

c933103 wrote:

After reading more about the system I got some more problems:
1. How can mail in ballot ensure anonymity of the ballot when signatures are needed to compare for the ballots being properly received?
2. With signature comparison being a necessary step in mail in ballot handling, if by chance someone's signature became a little too different from the one in record due to various factors, like shift in muscle function over time, wouldn't that reduce the chance of mail in ballot being accepted?

In the mail in ballot in WA State, your SELECTION on the ballot is anonymous/secret because it is placed in a secrecy envelope in the return envelope. Your signature is present, but so what? You actual choice is still secret.
Your envelope is scanned by handwriting machines that are pretty damn accurate, and if it looks hinky, it is placed aside for a human to verify as there is sampling that will eject X amount just for QA sampling as well. Either way if something is amiss with your ballot, legal or not you are contacted.

Michigan has the same process as most others are mentioned: You receive an envelope in the mail. Inside that envelope is the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is the secrecy envelope. Inside that is your ballot.

Fill out your ballot, then fold it back up and re-insert it into the secrecy sleeve as instructed (so that the tear-off tab with the ballot number is visible).

Put the secrecy sleeve with your ballot inside the return envelope and seal the return envelope.

Sign and date the return envelope where indicated.

Mail your ballot to your city/township clerk office or return it and drop it off directly.

JBo wrote:

Michigan has the same process as most others are mentioned: You receive an envelope in the mail. Inside that envelope is the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is the secrecy envelope. Inside that is your ballot.

Fill out your ballot, then fold it back up and re-insert it into the secrecy sleeve as instructed (so that the tear-off tab with the ballot number is visible).

Put the secrecy sleeve with your ballot inside the return envelope and seal the return envelope.

Sign and date the return envelope where indicated.

Mail your ballot to your city/township clerk office or return it and drop it off directly.

And how do you ensure secrecy from, say, an abusive husband that goes over your mail, or a cult leader, or a gang member canvasing your neighborhood for votes? You can't, voting in person is the only way to do that.

But then again, a big chunk of the U.S. believes it is OK to destroy people's lives for thinking different than them, and want to transform the U.S. into a single-party country, so perhaps ensuring ballot secrecy is not their number 1 (or even 1,000) concern.

Pyrex wrote:

JBo wrote:

Michigan has the same process as most others are mentioned: You receive an envelope in the mail. Inside that envelope is the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is the secrecy envelope. Inside that is your ballot.

Fill out your ballot, then fold it back up and re-insert it into the secrecy sleeve as instructed (so that the tear-off tab with the ballot number is visible).

Put the secrecy sleeve with your ballot inside the return envelope and seal the return envelope.

Sign and date the return envelope where indicated.

Mail your ballot to your city/township clerk office or return it and drop it off directly.

And how do you ensure secrecy from, say, an abusive husband that goes over your mail, or a cult leader, or a gang member canvasing your neighborhood for votes? You can't, voting in person is the only way to do that.

But then again, a big chunk of the U.S. believes it is OK to destroy people's lives for thinking different than them, and want to transform the U.S. into a single-party country, so perhaps ensuring ballot secrecy is not their number 1 (or even 1,000) concern.

So you quit the GOP finally eh?

The lack of consistency is phenomenal.

Abortion rights? No. Absolutely no exceptions, closed topic. Rape, medical reasons etc...invalid.

Vote by mail? Wellllllll there's a lot of nuance to it that must be taken into account. Let's investigate every possible reason why this might not be a good idea for the average citizen, but is perfectly acceptable for the president

Pyrex wrote:

JBo wrote:

Michigan has the same process as most others are mentioned: You receive an envelope in the mail. Inside that envelope is the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is the secrecy envelope. Inside that is your ballot.

Fill out your ballot, then fold it back up and re-insert it into the secrecy sleeve as instructed (so that the tear-off tab with the ballot number is visible).

Put the secrecy sleeve with your ballot inside the return envelope and seal the return envelope.

Sign and date the return envelope where indicated.

Mail your ballot to your city/township clerk office or return it and drop it off directly.

And how do you ensure secrecy from, say, an abusive husband that goes over your mail, or a cult leader, or a gang member canvasing your neighborhood for votes? You can't, voting in person is the only way to do that..

The flip side of that is an abused partner will still vote the way the abuser wants, whether it is in person voting or vote by mail. Same with cults. Although, I don't think cults and gang members have a really high priority on voting anyway. I have never seen any gang members canvassing a neighborhood looking for ballots or trying to get votes unless they were running for some office.

If people want in-person voting so much, why not make the space, time, and money for us to vote in person instead of saying "everyone must vote in person" and leave it at that? You know what it takes to vote in person, right? Poll workers, officials to drive around to pick up ballots, then there are IT people who have to be there if the touch screens fail, as they so often seem to do. Vote by mail eliminates all that. Your "nightmare" whataboutism scenario covers probably about 1000 votes per state or fewer.

Pyrex wrote:

JBo wrote:

Michigan has the same process as most others are mentioned: You receive an envelope in the mail. Inside that envelope is the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is the secrecy envelope. Inside that is your ballot.

Fill out your ballot, then fold it back up and re-insert it into the secrecy sleeve as instructed (so that the tear-off tab with the ballot number is visible).

Put the secrecy sleeve with your ballot inside the return envelope and seal the return envelope.

Sign and date the return envelope where indicated.

Mail your ballot to your city/township clerk office or return it and drop it off directly.

And how do you ensure secrecy from, say, an abusive husband that goes over your mail, or a cult leader, or a gang member canvasing your neighborhood for votes? You can't, voting in person is the only way to do that.

But then again, a big chunk of the U.S. believes it is OK to destroy people's lives for thinking different than them, and want to transform the U.S. into a single-party country, so perhaps ensuring ballot secrecy is not their number 1 (or even 1,000) concern.

How do you protect polling places form drive by shooters? Or someone showing up and going on a shooting spree? Or a meteorite hitting a packed polling place???????????????


Sheesh....any one living in fear of their life at home has MUCH bigger problems than a ballot..

seb146 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

JBo wrote:

Michigan has the same process as most others are mentioned: You receive an envelope in the mail. Inside that envelope is the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is the secrecy envelope. Inside that is your ballot.

Fill out your ballot, then fold it back up and re-insert it into the secrecy sleeve as instructed (so that the tear-off tab with the ballot number is visible).

Put the secrecy sleeve with your ballot inside the return envelope and seal the return envelope.

Sign and date the return envelope where indicated.

Mail your ballot to your city/township clerk office or return it and drop it off directly.

And how do you ensure secrecy from, say, an abusive husband that goes over your mail, or a cult leader, or a gang member canvasing your neighborhood for votes? You can't, voting in person is the only way to do that..

The flip side of that is an abused partner will still vote the way the abuser wants, whether it is in person voting or vote by mail. Same with cults. Although, I don't think cults and gang members have a really high priority on voting anyway. I have never seen any gang members canvassing a neighborhood looking for ballots or trying to get votes unless they were running for some office.

If people want in-person voting so much, why not make the space, time, and money for us to vote in person instead of saying "everyone must vote in person" and leave it at that? You know what it takes to vote in person, right? Poll workers, officials to drive around to pick up ballots, then there are IT people who have to be there if the touch screens fail, as they so often seem to do. Vote by mail eliminates all that. Your "nightmare" whataboutism scenario covers probably about 1000 votes per state or fewer.

I assume that, in the in persom voting process, the process when voter select candidate should be secret and not visible to anyone else?
That's why I also.question why US have touchscreen voting. The system itself might be storing those data anonymously but who can tell for sure?

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

And how do you ensure secrecy from, say, an abusive husband that goes over your mail, or a cult leader, or a gang member canvasing your neighborhood for votes? You can't, voting in person is the only way to do that..

The flip side of that is an abused partner will still vote the way the abuser wants, whether it is in person voting or vote by mail. Same with cults. Although, I don't think cults and gang members have a really high priority on voting anyway. I have never seen any gang members canvassing a neighborhood looking for ballots or trying to get votes unless they were running for some office.

If people want in-person voting so much, why not make the space, time, and money for us to vote in person instead of saying "everyone must vote in person" and leave it at that? You know what it takes to vote in person, right? Poll workers, officials to drive around to pick up ballots, then there are IT people who have to be there if the touch screens fail, as they so often seem to do. Vote by mail eliminates all that. Your "nightmare" whataboutism scenario covers probably about 1000 votes per state or fewer.

I assume that, in the in persom voting process, the process when voter select candidate should be secret and not visible to anyone else?
That's why I also.question why US have touchscreen voting. The system itself might be storing those data anonymously but who can tell for sure?

We were shown years ago that the touch screen voting is easily hacked. Many people complained but the DEMOCRATS showed how easily it is hacked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... king-risks
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/14/hacker ... m-nirvana/

The first presidential election I voted in was 1992, We had paper ballots with the #2 pencils and fill in the circle completely. No hacking. And we still have the same ballots. Vote by mail with no hacking. Just fill in the circle completely with a #2 pencil. They have re-calibrated the Scantrons to read blue or black ink. So, paper ballots with which medium you choose. Pencil or pen. Vote. A vote. One person, one vote. The way the Constitution (Republicans love the Constitution, right?) intended. All of that data can be purged from the system.

That's another thing: Republicans purge the "system" when they know voters can not do anything about it. Republicans still say they love democracy and the Constitution but do anything and everything they can to stop voting and democracy and the Constitution. Voter purges come days before the cut off for registration. Voter purges are done in Democratic registered areas. Voter purges are done in minority areas by Republicans. They don't purge the system when it is convenient for Americans. Only when it is convenient for Republicans.

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The flip side of that is an abused partner will still vote the way the abuser wants, whether it is in person voting or vote by mail. Same with cults. Although, I don't think cults and gang members have a really high priority on voting anyway. I have never seen any gang members canvassing a neighborhood looking for ballots or trying to get votes unless they were running for some office.

If people want in-person voting so much, why not make the space, time, and money for us to vote in person instead of saying "everyone must vote in person" and leave it at that? You know what it takes to vote in person, right? Poll workers, officials to drive around to pick up ballots, then there are IT people who have to be there if the touch screens fail, as they so often seem to do. Vote by mail eliminates all that. Your "nightmare" whataboutism scenario covers probably about 1000 votes per state or fewer.

I assume that, in the in persom voting process, the process when voter select candidate should be secret and not visible to anyone else?
That's why I also.question why US have touchscreen voting. The system itself might be storing those data anonymously but who can tell for sure?

We were shown years ago that the touch screen voting is easily hacked. Many people complained but the DEMOCRATS showed how easily it is hacked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... king-risks
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/14/hacker ... m-nirvana/

The first presidential election I voted in was 1992, We had paper ballots with the #2 pencils and fill in the circle completely. No hacking. And we still have the same ballots. Vote by mail with no hacking. Just fill in the circle completely with a #2 pencil. They have re-calibrated the Scantrons to read blue or black ink. So, paper ballots with which medium you choose. Pencil or pen. Vote. A vote. One person, one vote. The way the Constitution (Republicans love the Constitution, right?) intended. All of that data can be purged from the system.

That's another thing: Republicans purge the "system" when they know voters can not do anything about it. Republicans still say they love democracy and the Constitution but do anything and everything they can to stop voting and democracy and the Constitution. Voter purges come days before the cut off for registration. Voter purges are done in Democratic registered areas. Voter purges are done in minority areas by Republicans. They don't purge the system when it is convenient for Americans. Only when it is convenient for Republicans.

Is touchscreen voting not adopted in democrats controlled area the? If they're adopted, why?

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I assume that, in the in persom voting process, the process when voter select candidate should be secret and not visible to anyone else?
That's why I also.question why US have touchscreen voting. The system itself might be storing those data anonymously but who can tell for sure?

We were shown years ago that the touch screen voting is easily hacked. Many people complained but the DEMOCRATS showed how easily it is hacked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... king-risks
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/14/hacker ... m-nirvana/

The first presidential election I voted in was 1992, We had paper ballots with the #2 pencils and fill in the circle completely. No hacking. And we still have the same ballots. Vote by mail with no hacking. Just fill in the circle completely with a #2 pencil. They have re-calibrated the Scantrons to read blue or black ink. So, paper ballots with which medium you choose. Pencil or pen. Vote. A vote. One person, one vote. The way the Constitution (Republicans love the Constitution, right?) intended. All of that data can be purged from the system.

That's another thing: Republicans purge the "system" when they know voters can not do anything about it. Republicans still say they love democracy and the Constitution but do anything and everything they can to stop voting and democracy and the Constitution. Voter purges come days before the cut off for registration. Voter purges are done in Democratic registered areas. Voter purges are done in minority areas by Republicans. They don't purge the system when it is convenient for Americans. Only when it is convenient for Republicans.

Is touchscreen voting not adopted in democrats controlled area the? If they're adopted, why?

Touch screen voting is mainly in Republican controlled states to "save money" and "speed the process" of voting. People started complaining their votes were switched and former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean showed America just how easy it is to hack the machines and steal elections.

Voting is set up by the states. Each state has to select representatives to the Electoral College. Our whole presidential election system is convoluted. But, each state must vote on who their Electoral College representatives will vote for in December. The general state vote happens in November. This was agreed on back in the 1700s.

When talking about the US, it is important to always remember that we do NOT have a national system for almost anything, and voting is one.

We have 50 different sets of state laws that control things like voting and each one is a little different. And in most states, local counties have their own variations on how the state laws are administered. From most of my first 35 years of life, I was the only one in my small town voting absentee, due to my service in the US Navy. I was never home on election day. Back in the 70's there were some very strict, repressive restrictions on voting. Every election, the folks in charge of the election would sit around a large table and count the ballots. After the ballots cast that day were counted, they would open the absentee ballot box they received from the county. Then open and add the absentee ballot totals to the polling place.

I had one guy I knew in high school ask me why I had voted against him about a year before in the race for County Sheriff, which he won. I always knew he would end up at the county jail, just did not expect him to be on the outside of the bars running the place. But he had changed since I lived at home, and turned out to be a pretty good sheriff. The Lord works miracles, and making him a good sheriff was one..

With the number of expected absentee ballots, they better start counting as they come in or we won’t know who won for days.

DL717 wrote:

With the number of expected absentee ballots, they better start counting as they come in or we won’t know who won for days.

After seeing how political parties behave these days, I think it would be hilarious to see them in limbo for weeks about who won each state and each senate/congressional race

DL717 wrote:

With the number of expected absentee ballots, they better start counting as they come in or we won’t know who won for days.

I think Oregon state law says no ballots can be counted until election day. So, if I were to receive and fill out and return my ballot today, it will not be opened and counted until November 3. It has been that way since mail in only started here. We also have the wrinkle that one of our counties is an hour ahead of the rest of the state. Large in area, small in population, so counting ballots is not a stressful thing there but I still find it interesting.