How should votes be tallied?

[Zeropoint]

I guess I can understand why people would have concerns about voting by mail. The fact remains, however, that we've been doing it that way here in Oregon for . . . well, as long as I've been a voter, at least, and I haven't heard about any major problems with it. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I am saying that we're really doing it and it's not that bad.

[maraxus2]

I am really uncomfortable with voting by mail. We need a secret ballot. There is too much potential for coercion. If I were 18 and we had vote by mail, my dad would be the type to say “Hey, we got our ballots. Let's fill them out together.” He would not have directly punished me for voting Democrat, but I would have gotten a long lecture about how I was a communist Nazi. I would have voted Republican just to avoid conflict. Then there is also vote buying which may have changed the results in the 1888 US Presidential election. Anyway, this is a derail. The topic was supposed to be about tallying, not elections in general.

No offense, but that sounds more like a problem with your pops being an asshole than with VBM ballots. Also, what does an 130 year-old election have to do with VBM today?

[Vendetta]

No offense, but that sounds more like a problem with your pops being an asshole than with VBM ballots. Also, what does an 130 year-old election have to do with VBM today?

The problem of assholes, particularly ones in positions of authority, is the one that private ballots was intended to solve.

[maraxus2]

No offense, but that sounds more like a problem with your pops being an asshole than with VBM ballots. Also, what does an 130 year-old election have to do with VBM today?

The problem of assholes, particularly ones in positions of authority, is the one that private ballots was intended to solve.

It's also just not an issue on any kind of a wide scale, and the benefits (to my mind anyway) far outweigh the downsides. Using a secret ballot instead of VBM isn't a solution in search of a problem, it's a problem in search of a problem.

People's individual votes basically don't matter. Setting asside whatever individual dipshits in positions of authority might say or do, there's just not that much evidence that voter intimidation in VBM elections is any kind of issue, much less a significant one.

[Vendetta]

People's individual votes basically don't matter. Setting asside whatever individual dipshits in positions of authority might say or do, there's just not that much evidence that voter intimidation in VBM elections is any kind of issue, much less a significant one.

Not right now, because secret ballots are almost always available for people who feel like they might be pressured to avoid the issue. Wide scale voter influencing absolutely was a problem before secret ballots became the norm, and I don't think it's wise to say that it couldn't happen again. Especially given the level of wealth and resource concentration our societies already have.

Postal votes should absolutely exist as an option, but the availability of assured secret ballots are a vital part of ensuring an election is fairly conducted.

[maraxus2]

Not right now, because secret ballots are almost always available for people who feel like they might be pressured to avoid the issue. Wide scale voter influencing absolutely was a problem before secret ballots became the norm, and I don't think it's wise to say that it couldn't happen again. Especially given the level of wealth and resource concentration our societies already have.

But there's no evidence of it happening in any significant way. Oregon has had entirely VBM elections for nearly 20 years with absolutely no problems and tons of upsides. The ballots are separated from their envelopes with the mailing address on it before they are counted, which makes it very difficult to know how someone voted.

Postal votes should absolutely exist as an option, but the availability of assured secret ballots are a vital part of ensuring an election is fairly conducted.

Except in the places that do entirely VBM, then it's very obviously not a vital part of ensuring an election is fairly conducted. Is there any suspicion about Oregon's votes over the last twenty years?

[blahface]

I am really uncomfortable with voting by mail. We need a secret ballot. There is too much potential for coercion. If I were 18 and we had vote by mail, my dad would be the type to say “Hey, we got our ballots. Let's fill them out together.” He would not have directly punished me for voting Democrat, but I would have gotten a long lecture about how I was a communist Nazi. I would have voted Republican just to avoid conflict. Then there is also vote buying which may have changed the results in the 1888 US Presidential election. Anyway, this is a derail. The topic was supposed to be about tallying, not elections in general.

No offense, but that sounds more like a problem with your pops being an asshole than with VBM ballots. Also, what does an 130 year-old election have to do with VBM today?

I brought it up because it very well could have been decided by selling votes and the mail in ballot allows for vote buying. Although, to be fair, it would be a lot easier to catch today than back then.

My point was with the scenario with my dad is that when you don't have a secret ballot, other people can influence your vote. It could just as well be a spouse with no malintent, but simply standing over a person can influence the way that person votes.

It can also be a problem with employers. In 2012, Massey Energy forced their Ohio employees to take an unpaid day off to attend an Ohio rally for Romney. I can imagine them having a workplace “ballot party” in which they fill out their ballots at work as a “social event”. Those workers aren't going to fill comfortable voting honest with people standing over them even if their employers don't directly tell them that they need to vote for a specific candidate.

[Gandalf]

Wouldn't that be some sort of criminal act?

[The Romulan Republic]

Wouldn't that be some sort of criminal act?

I believe it would be, yes.

You are not allowed to influence someone else's vote, which is why secret ballots exist.

[maraxus2]

I brought it up because it very well could have been decided by selling votes and the mail in ballot allows for vote buying. Although, to be fair, it would be a lot easier to catch today than back then.

Okay. Can you point to any examples that aren't 130 years old?

My point was with the scenario with my dad is that when you don't have a secret ballot, other people can influence your vote. It could just as well be a spouse with no malintent, but simply standing over a person can influence the way that person votes.

Yeah, and having a nutcase engaging in electioneering just outside of the 100-foot boundary around a polling place can influence the way a person votes. It's not a serious issue though, so who gives a shit?

It can also be a problem with employers. In 2012, Massey Energy forced their Ohio employees to take an unpaid day off to attend an Ohio rally for Romney. I can imagine them having a workplace “ballot party” in which they fill out their ballots at work as a “social event”. Those workers aren't going to fill comfortable voting honest with people standing over them even if their employers don't directly tell them that they need to vote for a specific candidate.

*Murray Energy, as Massey already dead by then.

Good luck with that. That "ballot party" you're imagining would, on its face, violate like three separate civil rights acts, and that's just for the Feds. Whatever doofus tried to do that would get sued by the US Attorney's office almost immediately, and they'd probably get slapped with an injunction almost immediately.

Again, this is a solution in search of a problem. We know that VBM produces solid outcomes (higher turnouts) with no significant downsides.

You are not allowed to influence someone else's vote, which is why secret ballots exist.

Except you are, which is why elections exist.