Reading the comments to that story, it's amusing that some people think that Oregon hasn't already considered -- and answer -- the objections they raise.

>Really simple solution: They can mail these ballots when they arrive at the post office with a picture ID.

No need. The ballot goes directly to the person's house, and voters sign the envelope. And yes, the signature is actually checked.

>Democrats love mail-in ballots because they can decide to count those votes or not depending on where they came from.

Voters can easily tell if their ballot has been received (they keep records of such things -- the last election I did so online, iirc), and request a new one if it is lost.

>Hee-hee, like he does with having to have ID, I can't wait for Keith Ellison to start wailing that having to buy stamps to vote, disenfranchises the poor.

There are county drop boxes that don't require a stamp, and you can submit them directly to the county elections office.

>This has voter fraud writen all over it

No more fraud than absentee ballot, and probably less, since there is a single uniform standard for all ballots. The one study I remember showed fraud was tiny (like single digits -- number of ballots, not percent -- iirc). Of course, Oregonians are more honest than people from other states, but still....

Hmm, can't see the second page of comments, so I'll stop there. If anyone is interested in how Oregon actually does it, here is the actual procedure: Vote by Mail Procedure Manual (caution, PDF). The system works very well.

Hmm, I may have mis-remembered. According to here, there were 62 double votes, and 1,057 signature verification issues in 2004.

GAT_00:

Is the fastest mode of land transportation still by horse?

If you live in Atlanta- yes it is.

Marcus Aurelius: When the GOP says "voter fraud", what they really mean is "heavy democratic turnout".

Pretty much this.

Republicans can't move their war on the middle class and poor if those people actually vote.

Well, to be fair, how can you tell if the voter is a minority if all you see is an envelope?

Until election day is a national paid holiday in this country, I'll never believe either party is truly in to the concept of democracy.

Can we compromise and just hold elections on Saturdays? The only reason they're on Tuesdays now is because voting happened at the county seat and people needed to be in their home town for Sunday church, and transportation was slow.

It's on Tuesdays to accommodate 18th Century farmers. Let's accommodate 21st Century 9-5 workers instead, yeah?

/vote by mail on top of that would be nice too

They're against increased turnout in all states, aren't they? Though it may not matter much in states like Wyoming, where they hardly have any people in the first place.

Just you wait! Soon, black panthers will be hanging around your mailbox when you go to send in your ballot just like they did in Philadelphia! Is that what you want? Thugs cavorting in our cul-de-sacs to the cacophony of rap music?

If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal. It's all a dog and pony show.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: There has never been a single case of the GOP fighting "voter fraud" that didn't translate directly to suppressing Democratic voters.

I can't believe even the most independent of farkers could even try to claim otherwise.

The article doesn't mention Republicans at all...

EWreckedSean: The article doesn't mention Republicans at all...

God damnit, you are actually right. Look, subby....

TDS_you_are_not_helping.jpg

SC_has_plenty_of_examples.jpg

Rapmaster2000: Just you wait! Soon, black panthers will be hanging around your mailbox when you go to send in your ballot just like they did in Philadelphia! Is that what you want? Thugs cavorting in our cul-de-sacs to the cacophony of rap music?




Hey, it could work...

/hot like blue tops in Hamsterdam

Marcus Aurelius: When the GOP says "voter fraud", what they really mean is "heavy democratic turnout".

from rural areas with large percentages of elderly people? Hmm...

Number of times "republican" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "conservative" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "GOP" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "right" was mentioned in the article: 1 (at the bottom, as part of "rights reserved").

Nice troll subby, caught quite a few.

skullkrusher: from rural areas with large percentages of elderly people? Hmm...

Then wouldn't the GOP be all for it then?
Because risk of fraud has always been a horseshiat justification.

Minority rules, 99 percenters drools!

watson.t.hamster: the article

youmustbenewhere.jpg

Headso: LouDobbsAwaaaay: There has never been a single case of the GOP fighting "voter fraud" that didn't translate directly to suppressing Democratic voters.

I can't believe even the most independent of farkers could even try to claim otherwise.

What you actually mean is "Every time a story about it comes up that's what I think it's about. Everybody who thinks like me agrees. Must be true." Top notch political analysis there.

watson.t.hamster: Number of times "republican" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "conservative" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "GOP" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "right" was mentioned in the article: 1 (at the bottom, as part of "rights reserved").

Nice troll subby, caught quite a few.

He's not wrong, though. Republicans are doing all they can to make voting more difficult in every state that they can.

tomcatadam: skullkrusher: from rural areas with large percentages of elderly people? Hmm...

Then wouldn't the GOP be all for it then?
Because risk of fraud has always been a horseshiat justification.

There is zero mention of the GOP being against it in the article. Subby just made that part up.

"Others saw it as an erosion of the quintessential civic experience of gathering to vote."

Yep, nothing like having to find the time to get off work and then travel back to your local precinct and wait in crappy weather.

Republicans sure do hate democracy.

EWreckedSean: There is zero mention of the GOP being against it in the article. Subby just made that part up.

Oh, I know. I'm actually asking, wouldn't the GOP be for this?

They've been more or less trying to limit voter options across the United States. Whether their reasonings are justified or not is another discussion entirely.

It seems to me that voting requires a certain amount of effort by design. That way people who care vote, people who don't, don't.

Oregon has been covered in detail. I have friends (all Republicans or Neo-cons) that are convinced voting by mail is 20-30% fraud here. Never have any real numbers, studies or justification. Just opinions based on their candidates losing.

It works and it saves money.

habitual_masticator: It seems to me that voting requires a certain amount of effort by design. That way people who care vote, people who don't, don't.

Bad design.

Are they saying Dems are lazy far more inclined to mail it in?

Job creators are more likely to have the freedom to take the time off and get out there to pull the lever.

We have vote by mail here in King County, WA and I love it. Before I'd typically only drag myself down to the polling booth every 4 years, but with vote by mail I now participate every year so I'm a lot more involved at a local level. I also like how I can take my time and peruse all the voter guides online so I can make an informed choice on more obscure candidates like the Port Commissioner. It's really the best way to vote.

/Voting yes on 1183
//Mainly because of the "vote no for the children" ads
///Without the scaremongering by the opposition I might have voted no because 1183 is not the best plan for privatizing liquor sales

tomcatadam: EWreckedSean: There is zero mention of the GOP being against it in the article. Subby just made that part up.

Oh, I know. I'm actually asking, wouldn't the GOP be for this?

They've been more or less trying to limit voter options across the United States. Whether their reasonings are justified or not is another discussion entirely.

As was pointed out, this happens there in rural districts with large elderly populations. I don't see why they would be opposed to it.

sprawl15: Well, to be fair, how can you tell if the voter is a minority if all you see is an envelope?

The envelope is white.
That could mean anything!

Here is a statement about the new voter laws made by the state Senator from my city here in Florida.

During Florida's legislative debate on the new law, a Republican senator argued that it should not be easy or convenient to vote. Voting "is a hard fought privilage. This is something people died for." said Senator Michael Bennett of Bradenton, the chamber's president pro tempore. "Why should we make it easier?"

Chew on that one for awhile.

beerrun: Here is a statement about the new voter laws made by the state Senator from my city here in Florida.

During Florida's legislative debate on the new law, a Republican senator argued that it should not be easy or convenient to vote. Voting "is a hard fought privilage. This is something people died for." said Senator Michael Bennett of Bradenton, the chamber's president pro tempore. "Why should we make it easier?"

Chew on that one for awhile.

People fought hard for it, and you're going to take it away? How does that work in whatever lump he has on top of his shoulders?

FarkedOver: If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal. It's all a dog and pony show.

Great Emma Goldman.
Correct as usual.

Alphax: watson.t.hamster: Number of times "republican" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "conservative" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "GOP" was mentioned in the article: 0
Number of times "right" was mentioned in the article: 1 (at the bottom, as part of "rights reserved").

Nice troll subby, caught quite a few.

He's not wrong, though. Republicans are doing all they can to make voting more difficult in every state that they can.

So it's fair to blame republicans because even though no republicans have actually taken a stand on this you think it's the kind of thing they would take a stand on.