Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

Mail-in ballots offer far more robust intimidation and coercion opportunities than are available in polling places.

Coercion is a concern in communities where there's a power imbalance in the home. Consider, for example, an overbearing husband coercing his wife to vote in a particular manner, or just taking her ballot and voting it himself (and coercing her to sign the back of the envelope.)

An option considered in one state (Utah?) was to allow mail-in voting, but the mailed ballot could be invalidated if you stopped into a polling place and voted. It adds some complexity but reduces the absolute chance of coercion.

In the current system people can intimidate you as much as they like but they can't follow you into a booth. They can't inspect your ballot after you've marked it.

Only you know who you actually voted for. That's the point.

Unless, of course, you are asked to provide evidence of your vote with the camera you are likely carrying with you into the polling booth.

I'd guess mail-in ballots increase participation at the expense of some coerced ballots. Surely the net outcome is positive. On top of that, it helps to remove the chance for the use of intimidation at the polling stations. I remember that being an issue last election.

A picture is no evidence. You could take a picture of a ballot but then put another one in the ballot box.

I would ask for video evidence.

Somebody else mentioned that some areas have a system where if you show up in person, your mailed ballot is invalidated. That seems like a good safeguard.

The bottom line for me is that I think the option of mailing ballots increases participation. There may be an increased number in coerced ballots as well, but I think the net result is postitive.

Filming yourself could easily be prohibited. In France, I'm pretty sure that the voting officer wouldn't let me put my ballot if I was filming myself doing it.

Canceling mailing or e-voting ballots when voting in person can be countered by requiring that the person hand over his ID card for the vote duration.

The idea that a vote might have been bought is a dangerous one. It's dangerous even if votes buying are not proven. I'm still not convinced about e-voting for this reason. There should be absolutely no doubt on the sincerity of a vote.

In most states in the U.S. filming or photographing yourself if technically prohibited, but rarely enforced.

> Unless, of course, you are asked to provide evidence of your vote with the camera you are likely carrying with you into the polling booth.

In most states this is illegal. In, GA, the SOS posted a reminder. (follied by the President's picture)

I was expecting that response. The only solution, then, is to ban all mail in ballots. Right now California, for example, has optional mail-in voting. Wouldn't you expect that anyone who can be coerced to vote some way could be coerced whether the mail-in voting is optional or mandatory?

I'm not arguing that mail in ballots don't have benefits that warranted the increase in coercion risk, I'm just arguing that mail in ballots cannot be viewed as a mitigation of coercion risk compared to the way US in-person polling stations are run since they exacerbate, rather than mitigate, that risk.

I've never not voted due to intimidation or coercion.

Long lines or inability to get to the polls on time has contributed to my not voting. Plus it's great to be able to sit with a ballot over the course of a night or two and really think about what you are going to choose. Being at the polls with people waiting behind you applies some pressure to pick the fastest option - ie choose all Democrats or all Republicans (the machine I was on had a shortcut button for that).

This is an excellent point. Also sometimes during an election, there are referendums or other races for positions that are overshadowed by the main race, e.g. Trump v Clinton, making it hard to make an informed decision on the spot like is possible when at home with access to a computer to research.

When I voted in Oregon, they mailed a newsprint book with the ballot that had a lot of text about each item with supporting and opposing groups contributing. You're right though that these days, a website would be a better way to do it.

Last election I voted in Texas as people voted quickly. It seems like they either are only voting for one or two races or they are just pressing the button that selects all Republican (I live in a red area) candidates.

I've never heard of a district that didn't make ballots publicly available some time before the election. If you don't know what is on the ballot before going to vote, it is your own fault.

Care to expand? Don't see how that could be the case.

Your vote and name are linked together when you mail in your ballot. Ergo, I could figure out how you voted if I were an unscrupulous postal or poll worker.

You wouldn't want your colleagues at Google knowing you voted for Trump now would you...?

With a mail-in ballot, it's possible for someone in a position to apply coercion/intimidation to compel you to complete, sign, and mail your ballot in their presence; ballot secrecy is a strong protection against intimidation/coercion, and mail-in ballots compromise that protection.

The privacy of the voting booth offers substantial protections to a voter. You might threaten or bribe me, but I can vote as I please, because you can't ever know how I actually voted. Many of these protections disappear if your ballot paper is delivered to your home and returned by post.

Husbands can coerce their wives into registering for a postal ballot and then vote on their behalf. Religious leaders can coerce their followers into registering for a postal ballot and handing it over to a chosen candidate. A corrupt care home worker could register dozens of residents for postal voting, then sell their ballot papers. Migrants with a poor grasp of the English language can be tricked into giving up their ballot paper. Poor people can be offered cash for their ballot paper. Postal ballots can be stolen from postboxes and sorting offices.

All of these frauds have taken place in the UK; local election results have been nullified on more than one occasion due to endemic fraud.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1156001...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4406575.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7302809.stm

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...

Given that, I wonder how has Oregon has managed to have such smooth elections.

While my intuition would be that incidents are fairly rare for social reasons, intimidation/coercion with postal ballots is essentially invisible, until and unless people come forward and complain (which intimidation and coercion itself can be deployed against.) So, even if it was common, the elections would look smooth by the things we usually look at.

It's also a precaution against future regressions: you want to design protections like this for the worst political climates, not the best, so you'll be ready if e.g. an employer starts thinking they can get away with abuse during a recession or a union leader decides desparate times warrant desparate measures.

It's much easier to prevent that kind of thing rather than repair the damage after the fact, similar to the problems we've seen with gerrymandering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com