A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.
Vote by mail cheerleader Phil Keisling, a former Secretary of State for Oregon, which votes only by mail, is at it again, this time with a screed in the Washington Monthly. Keisling, who must be much beloved by the U.S. Postal Service, thinks everyone should vote by mail. So do a lot of Democrats.
The usual argument is that switching to vote by mail increases voter turnout. That’s true in traditionally low turnout elections, such as school and municipal elections. But a better cure for low turnout is moving these elections to the standard primary and general elections in even numbered years.
I looked at Oregon’s recent voting history, found no evidence that it’s true for the turnout of the voting eligible population in Oregon for general elections in Presidential and midterm years.
At the WM, blogger Martin Longman gave Keisling’s article a loving review. What follows is adapted from my response to Longman, which was not universally well received (one Stalinist accused me of repeating Republican talking points):
I’ve voted in every election beginning in 1968. I’ve always voted in person, always at my precinct’s poll, and always on election day.
In the polling booth, I’m assured of privacy and no intimidation. As I stand in line waiting for my turn, the presence of the people around me reminds me that my vote affects everyone, and that I should take that into account when making my choices.
My memory is average, but I’ve never had any trouble memorizing the candidates and issues. Marking my ballot never takes long. And if I want, I can use a cheat sheet. So can most people.
I do not accept the argument that switching to a vote by mail system increased turnout in Oregon’s primary and general elections in Presidential and midterm years. The turnout of registered voters does show a light improvement, but registered voter turnout is the wrong metric for assessing the effect of voting by mail. The right metric is the turnout of the voting eligible population. When I plotted that, no improvement in turnout was visible.
I don’t believe in early voting. It’s intellectually lazy, and an abdication of one’s duty to learn as much as possible before voting.
I do believe that several days of polling starting with the Saturday before Election Day makes sense, as do expanded voting hours and more polls. Disabled voters should be able to cast mail ballots if voting at the polling station presents unreasonable difficulties. And absentee ballots should be available for those who will genuinely be out of town on the days for voting.
Some disabled voters, of course, make voting in person a point of pride. I’ve shared polling queues with men and women on crutches, in wheelchairs, even carrying oxygen packs. They enjoy the ritual, and don’t want to be condemned to voting alone at their kitchen tables.
I believe that voting in person strengthens a voter’s sense of community. Voting alone at home weakens that sense of community.
Many Democrats don’t trust a lot of their voters to show up at the polls. That’s why Democrats support early voting, absentee voting, mail voting. They want to bank votes and make their get out the vote operations easier.
Even if the state in which I current live, Montana, makes the mistake of converting to voting by mail, I won’t return my ballot by mail. I’ll deliver it in person on election day.
My advice: read Keisling’s polemic, then vote in person on election day. Going postal is not the way to conduct an election.