[flagged]
The only thing you can state with absolute certainty is that mail-in ballots can be subject to manipulation and that this manipulation can reach enough scale to affect results in elections where the margin is so narrow that a few hundred or a few thousand votes can determine who wins.
Simple example: We receive eight ballots. There's absolutely nothing to prevent me from filling out all eight of them as I see fit and mailing them. Nothing.
There's also nothing to prevent bad actors from destroying ballots in large quantities.
Again, do not mischaracterize my statements here. I am not asserting that any of this has happened. I am saying that mail-in ballots enable potentially serious manipulation and are insecure.
This is like saying that short passwords are insecure. Lots of people use them safely and never get hacked. We all know they are unsafe. The fact that they might not be insecure enough for the general public to understand the issue (because you don't have news every day showing how many thousands of people are getting hurt) is immaterial. The truth of the matter is independent of the perceived consequences. Short passwords are insecure. Mail-in ballots are insecure.
Around here (WA state), you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. If a bad actor destroys ballots in large quantities on their way to voters, many voters will notice and complain. If a bad actor destroys ballots in large quantities on their way to to the counting facility, some voters are likely to notice and complain.
Same goes if you return ballots for other people. Either the actual voter notices their ballot is missing or the vote counters notice they got two ballots from the same voter or a larger than usual number of bad signatures.
Is it foolproof? No. And there's usually no established procedure to cure a tampered election, either. But large scale tampering is likely to leave signs. And small scale tampering would only rarely make a difference in results.
In person voting might be more secure, but it takes a lot more people, and if you want an ID requirement, you need to figure out how to make ID acheivable for all the voters or it's really just a tool to disenfranchise people who have trouble getting ID. In the US, there is no blanket ID requirement, so there are a lot of eligible voters without ID.
We have essentially ~no voter fraud in the US, so the only reason to change it is because you want to prevent other people from voting for selfish reasons.
Just as there is nothing to prevent a person threatening or physically coercing 8 members of their household to vote as they direct.
This is hard to scale up into the hundreds.
WRT mail-in ballots, these are common place in Australia.
You post in a provided envelope to the AEC address, that outer envelope indentifies you against the voter rolls, just as you are identified when you attend a physical voting location.
The inner sealed envelope contains your voing slip - this is removed and passed on to the "votes from district" counting bucket .. just as all the voting slips from physical voting locations are.
In the checksumming of the election the same person being marked down as having voted multiple times, whether at various locations or by multiple mail in ballots, gets caught and investigated.
At this point voters are marked off against registration rolls and actual votes are anonymous.
This is important in an Australian election as no one should know that someone drew a crude suggestive image of their local member and submitted that.
The real downside of mail in voting is missing out on a sausage sizzle with others in your district at a voting location on voting day.
You are wrong. In person voting in the sanctity of the private voting booth prevents this.
The comment you responded to was about the scenario of someone getting a bunch of ballots and filling them out at home or making their household fill them out at home the way he or she might want to.
Until the other seven people try and cast votes.
Hint: They never see the ballots.
My point wasn't to paint a water-proof scenario. It is to illustrate just how unreliable and dangerous mail-in voting can be. There are other vectors for manipulation.
How does that work though? What's the root of trust identifying me as me to a government who, at most, has a written record somewhere of my birth, and definitely not enough information to tie that to any particular face or body.
Nearly every nation on earth does this. It's nothing new. We have the technology and the means. This isn't a problem.
Maybe the payout isn't worth it, but (a) empirically, people seem to be willing to spend a lot more than that per vote if necessary, and (b) it's not substantially harder or riskier to do that than to risk prison voting for a dead person or whatever else some fraudster might cook up; if we think this is an important system which people are trying to rig then the proposed cure just keeps honest people honest.
I encourage you to click the ‘Read’ tab to see the actual circumstances resulting in the convictions as most are for trying to game ballot signatures and have nothing to do with votes being cast. It just doesn’t happen because the system is secure.
Never once has anyone, outside of their expansive imagination, proven that voting by mail is not secure and effective.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57152/why-isnt-...
I have EXCELLENT, current news for you, comrade. Since then, I can point you to six States in the USA that have implemented mail-in voting that is demonstrable secure and gives far more people the ability to vote than mandatory in-person voting. Isn’t that simply wonderful to hear? And, to boot, lest you worry about volume, one of those States alone (sunny California) is nearly the same population as France was in 1975! So even having large populations vote entirely by mail is proven to be a non-issue! Phew, I’m glad we can stop trotting out fear mongering and speculative arguments of unproven inevitable doom to stupidly disenfranchise voters!
It seems obvious, no?
1: Vote in person, with ID
2: Mail ballots out, mail ballots in
Which will have more fraud?
[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2026/01/facing-trump-adm...
I have to admit, it's a bit disturbing that his reason for not doing it is because he might get "burned" or caught. How about...you know...because he believes in upholding democracy?
> He told me stories of various elections across the region where governments or specific political parties ask him to tilt the playing field in their favor by secretly altering the code. He has refused every single such requests because, as he put it, if you do for one side or the other, sooner or later you get burned (or worse) and it's over. He happens to be one of the honest and responsible players. That's not necessarily the case for others.
Just to be clear, if you are actually telling the truth you have a fundamental duty to reveal the company in question and who is making these requests, as doing so can constitute a felony in many countries across the world. So I recommend you telling us where this is happening.
Mail voting has routinely been proven to be extraordinarily difficult to exploit at scale. For as much feverish dedication there is to the idea of how terrible it is (for quite obviously partisan benefit) there is absolutely no evidence of any kind of substantial fraud. It's a right wing fever dream exercise in post hoc logic to justify depriving the 'right' people in our society of their vote. Simple as that.
Mail voting is common in many systems, it's convenient, and worst of all ... More people vote!! All of which is very dangerous to the power of a certain class of politicians.