I wasn't raging....I pointed out that there has been voter fraud in one of the least corrupt states in the country. If there have been 13 convictions in Oregon and who knows how many unknown cases...how many would there be in cities, counties and states in which vote fraud is a way of life.

 

Look at Eastern Kentucky where people were interviewed and were open about selling their votes...if paper ballots were mailed to everyone, you'd have people stealing them out of the mail filling them out and mailing them in. Or people going door to door to "Help" others fill out their ballots.

 

Any voting that doesn't take place in person is open to vote fraud of the highest magnitude.

Check the signatures on all disputed ballots against the signatures on file at the election office at the courthouse. How hard is that?

Check the signatures on all disputed ballots against the signatures on file at the election office at the courthouse. How hard is that?

 

I'll bet $100 my signature now doesn't match mine from 20 years ago...we'll need FBI and CSI counting ballots if that's the solution. It will make hanging chads look like a sprint.

 

That still wouldn't stop people going door to door "Helping" people fill out their ballots, as the rightful person could still sign it.

Check the signatures on all disputed ballots against the signatures on file at the election office at the courthouse. How hard is that?

 

So, I sign it, pass it off to you to fill out, boom. How hard is that? Seems a faulty method. Even you have to admit that. No oversight at all.

So, I sign it, pass it off to you to fill out, boom. How hard is that? Seems a faulty method. Even you have to admit that. No oversight at all.

So you and JD say mail balloting wouldn't work in KY even though it obviously works in other states? Why's that?

 

Here's a Denver Post story on what happened in Colorado earlier this month in big test of mail voting. Hint: GOP won big, more people voted, no problems. Maybe I need to rethink my advocacy of mail ballots given the lack of fraud benefitting Democrats in Colorado. (Just kidding.)

 

*****************************

 

While Colorado's 2014 election was primarily about the candidates and initiatives on the ballot, it was also a test of the state's all-mail ballot and vote center system.

 

Our verdict: It was a success.

 

Not only did Colorado buck a national trend of declining voter participation compared to the 2010 midterm election, there were no scandals involving voter fraud, which was a concern expressed by critics of mail balloting.

 

This year, roughly 2 million voters cast ballots, an increase over the 1.8 million in 2010.

 

That's a significant increase in participation. Of course, the number of registered voters increased by more than 350,000 during that time, too.

 

Also, it's difficult to give exact weight to other factors in turnout, such as the closeness of the contests and the success of get-out-the-vote efforts.

 

But even among states with high-interest races, Colorado fared well in turnout.

 

According to preliminary estimates by Michael P. McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida, Colorado had the fourth-highest voter turnout in the nation.

 

Whether or not your candidate or issue ultimately prevailed at the polls last week, that's a statistic to be proud of.

 

Interestingly, there was a lot of speculation at the time the legislature took on election reform that an all-mail ballot would favor Democratic candidates.

 

Given the mixed results at the polls and the beat-down that Democrats took in some races, that contention appears suspect — or at least it didn't seem to hold this time.

 

In fact, some argue that the all-mail format actually fueled a greater turnout among older voters, which tend to be more Republican.

 

Election systems should evolve with technology and the ways in which people live. This successful change should spur further innovation and participation in our democratic system.

 

— The Denver Post

See that's the difference between you and me..you think because the GOP won the elections I should support this type of voting.

 

I just think that this type of voting is ripe with opportunity for fraud...If you can't see that I don't know how to discuss it with you.

There is no legitimate reason in this day and age for Straight Ticket Voting Options or even for the ballots to note the political party of those running.

Why should we care the reason someone uses to cast a vote?

 

Why, indeed? If they're eligible to vote and do so, what's the big deal?

There is no legitimate reason in this day and age for Straight Ticket Voting Options or even for the ballots to note the political party of those running.

 

What's the harm? If a person believes in the philosophy of a party and would never consider the other party why not give him/her the option to a)vote all at once like he is going to anyway and b)see the party affiliation to make sure he's voting for "his" party? Absolutely no downside to this.

Whats the harm with removing Straight Ticket option?

Whats the harm with removing Straight Ticket option?

 

It's already there. No need to remove it.

Only 14 states have straight ticket option. Without googling it, were there more and that has since changed? Always just 14?

It's already there. No need to remove it.

 

So no reason to remove it other than it's already there...

Only 14 states have straight ticket option. Without googling it, were there more and that has since changed? Always just 14?

 

At least three states did away with it, and a fourth nearly did, during the 1990s. Two more states abolished it in 2006 and 2007, followed by Wisconsin in 2011...down to just 14 states that do it.

Straight Ticket Voting States

Whats the harm with removing Straight Ticket option?

 

Because there is no real benefit. Removing it won't get rid of straight ticket voters or change any voting behavior. No difference in checking one straight ticket box or checking only the boxes of one party. People can use whatever reason they want to vote for a candidate.