The 28 million ballots in question aren't "missing"; they're ballots that were mailed to voters and weren't used.
In some cases the voters in question likely didn't bother voting (common in local elections) or simply forgot (I've done this when I accidentally stacked other mail on top of a ballot and then didn't find it again until too late). In other cases, voters may have moved and failed to update their voter registration. This situation isn't unusual or alarming, and the opportunities for fraud aren't nearly as plentiful as the article tries to imply.
The article cites a 2008 report by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project as recommending that states abolish absentee voting due to fraud concerns, but that report contains only a single paragraph proposing a theoretical _potential_ for fraud due to "unsecured" mail channels. It provides no evidence that this is common or has even occurred, and in fact devotes significantly more space to discussing the inconvenience of mail-in punch-card ballots with Styrofoam backings — something I had never heard of despite having voted by mail for almost two decades.
The article also cites a 2008 Reed College study, which again raises theoretical concerns about fraud but offers no substantive evidence that it's an issue, and in fact states that "A report commissioned by the federal Election Assistance Commission, authored by Tova Wang and Jed Seberov, concluded, on the basis of interviews with experts in the area, that there was little evidence of voter fraud."
everyone can only vote once
Every jurisdiction I'm aware of in the USA does ballot reconciliation, to detect double voting. Some are using electronic poll books, updated in near real time, to help prevent it.
USPS's UAA (undelivered as addressed) rate for first class mail is ~1%. Both ways. Something for postal ballot advocates to consider. Make sure your jurisdictions have online ballot trackers.
These "improvements" are anything but.
If we value the integrity of our elections, we need to minimize the amount of metadata generated.
You need:
- a small pollbook of legal voters
- a location for those voters to obtain and secretly mark a paper ballot
- a means to cast that ballot and tally that polling place's numbers
- a chain of custody for all ballots that protects the election's legitimacy
Elections, and the political power that they grant, demand that we curb our natural tendency to over-engineer systems.
The more shiny, spiffy gadgets and doo-dads we apply to this process, the greater the harm its legitimacy.
If you want, I can flog this dead horse all the way down to glue.
But then how do you get more poor and minority folks to vote? These are the people harmed by not having mail in (or more appropriately called "time free" voting.
Don't we want more participation? Especially by those who find current rules end in a trade-off of wages for the ability to vote?
I opposed going all vote by mail.
Inspection of the actual gear and procedures shows postal balloting is worse than touchscreens, election integrity wise.
Sadly, I lost. Too much money is involved for me alone to stop this gravy train.
I did get some minor concessions from my election administrators, so that auditing and recounts would remain feasible, as required by our laws.
> This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason.
More philosophically, when one's voting agency is shared with another person, as is the case in ballot harvesting, the opportunity for abuse multiplies. This is why most states have outlawed ballot harvesting.
Consider: I come to your door with a ballot. You had not thought about voting because you didn't particularly care about the candidates, but I am an agent for candidate A and because I got to you before the agent for candidate B, I convince you - good salesman that I am - to vote for someone you wouldn't have otherwise.
Thus the voting process become less about what the voters themselves think or care about and more about which candidate has the most resources to send agents out to ballot harvest.
The corruption that such practices invite completely undermine the voting process and it is only with a blatant disregard for the voting process - a fixation on power above principle - that a state would allow such practices.
No, the reason is that Trump is a historically unpopular person and President. Blaming "ballot harvesting" is hilarious on the order of claiming Russia altered vote totals.
The article makes a similar point regarding the loss of Orange County Republicans, despite the fact that their prior strength has been eroded for years based on the OC's demographic trends, the vilification of refugees in a region with a vibrant Vietnamese community, and the elimination of the SALT deduction. The article is partisan hand-wringing, pure and simple.