By John C. Lesher
I’ve been screaming at the talking heads on TV for the past several weeks and, since no one in a TV studio has been responding to me, perhaps a blog will get some form of feedback.
The fuss about the alleged failures of the Post Office and the certain collapse of democracy occasioned by mail-in balloting has me a bit hot under the collar. There are some real issues here, but for the most part innocent misconceptions and outright lies are the rule. Politicians will be politicians and Democrats are falsely claiming the sky is falling because of Post Office attempts to take a multi-billion dollar money loser and make it more business-like; the President sows unreasoned fear of massive fraud in vote-counting and of stolen elections. Let’s back up, take a deep breath and review objective facts.
The Post Office’s own statistics indicate that the United States Postal Service handles 750 million pieces of mail every day and that 189 million of those deliveries are first class mail. The first class part is important because any ballots sent by state governments to individual voters are in first class envelopes. Numerous articles in almost any paper you can read repeat ad nauseam that the several states that have decided to conduct balloting this November solely by mail, or by a combination of mail and polling place availability, will produce anywhere from 50 to 80 million first class ballot envelopes.
Those envelopes will begin to be delivered to voters approximately one month before the November Election Day, depending on the requirements of state law. Voters can cast their ballots at any time after receipt. The only caveat regarding a return deadline is that the returned ballots must be postmarked by a certain date if the ballot is to be counted. State law determines each state’s deadline date.
Do The Math
Let’s do some numbers: 189 million pieces per day for 30 days equals a Post Office that handles routinely over five and a half billion first class envelopes in the month before the election. How many of the outside estimate of 80 million ballots will be returned is anyone’s guess and when they will be returned is also an unknown. Even If we assume that the higher estimate of 80 million is correct and that every one of those ballots is mailed back in the 10 days before Election Day, the addition to the Post Office volume is very modest; more realistic assumptions concerning volume and timing produce an effect on the Post Office that is simply not concerning. This is a false issue.
Once the ballots are in the mail, the real fun begins. The President’s mantra of distrust regarding election results, based in significant part on claims that vote counts will be riddled with fraud, has no statistical back-up, but does raise some legitimate issues. Massive fraud is not one of them.
Before starting on the concept of mail-in fraud, I wish to make it unequivocally clear that I favor mail-in voting. My doctoral dissertation involved a two-year study of certain aspects of America’s electoral system. One disturbing reality of our democracy is that we vote at rates that are the lowest of all liberal democracies. We tend to sit on the couch and let the other guy spend the time and make the effort to vote. In my opinion voting by mail will greatly increase the percentage of participation in an election by the public. All you have to do is fill out the form and put it in a mail slot (and you have 30 days in which to do so). The envelope doesn’t even require a stamp. No more excuses about needing time off from work or “it was today?? really??”
The issue of mail-in ballot fraud is a canard. de Tocqueville in his volumes On Democracy in America marveled at how there always seemed to be an election somewhere in America for some purpose. That widespread distribution of voting activity is our greatest protection against fraud. Every state, county, electoral district, town and ward has volunteers counting ballots, verifying signatures and overseeing the process. There are simply too many people involved in too many scattered locations to have fraud on a massive scale. Yes, fraud can and will occur--your local small town alderman could be elected by stealing some votes-- but truly significant vote manipulation sufficient to throw an election is hard to fathom on a district, state or national level. The thousands of citizens participating in the process insure probity, not to mention the fact that Democrats will check on Republicans without mercy and visa-versa.
That said, we cannot ignore some crucial issues regarding greatly expanded mail-in voting. There are many legitimate questions regarding ballot security and verification, but the salient concept is that of time. Americans are used to instant gratification in many things, one of which is the results of an election. “Who won last night” is a standard breakfast question the morning after the polls close. Unfortunately, we must accept the fact that mail-in voting tabulations cannot be accomplished in as timely a manner as we would like and this could lead to mistrust in government and deep suspicion concerning the issue of fraud. Large-scale fraud will not be there, but the lingering doubts of accurate election results will grow and fester as each day passes without an official tally or a concession by a candidate. This could be a conspiracy theorist’s paradise, but why?
Unlike the systems in almost all jurisdictions where a machine tally of votes is immediately available for verification, paper mail-in ballots must be handled individually: postmark date verified; authorized signature checked; vote-by-vote manual tabulation of each candidate and each office on the ballot, etc. Counting will take many days after Election Day, perhaps weeks. It is a potential train wreck in the making. I for one do not see our elected officials preparing for this. They all seem to accept the fact that some level of fraud could occur and that election results will be released far more slowly than in the past, but I see no public announcement as to how these situations will be addressed.
A suggestion: let’s have two Election Days—the first would be a deadline date for mail-in ballots that would be, say, two weeks prior to the first Tuesday in November. This will give election commissions time to count the mail-ins and insure their legitimacy. The second date would remain as is in November and voters would go to polling places. The obvious problem with this suggestion is the potential influence on an election if leaks occurred regarding the mail-in counts. My suggestion is not perfect, but if mail-in voting is to grow it must be accomplished by some system that assures the electorate of an honest result in a timely manner.