[historia_novae]

It's very understandable for prevent frauds. The last election in the US was disputed and disputable in the first place because of how easy it is to cheat.

> Compare that to the US where you can email your vote in a lot of states if you live overseas... and it becomes clear that access to vote is just not a priority for France.

That's not true. As a former expat, the only annoying thing is establishing a proxy since it can only be done during "tournées consulaires" dedicated for it, that are of course very rare. I feel the election is fairer without possible easy way to hack-in votes.

[specialist]

What do you mean by fraud?

By voters? Every investigation of postal ballots have shown it to be very rare. Most problems are simple mistakes.

By administrators? Postal balloting is neither more or less prone to cheating than the other electronic voting and tabulation systems. Meaning terrible.

Typically, the vulnerable parts are voter registration (eg caging, purges), signature verification, ballot scanning ahead of election day, and adjudication.

--

I opposed my state and county switching to all postal balloting.

My #1 concern was that it'd disenfranchise more people (eg USPS loses/misdelivers ~1% of all ballots, some ~40k voters have their signatures challenged every election), resulting in reduced turnout and long-term participation.

On this I was proven wrong. Turnout increased.

Another concern is that postal balloting enables ballot chasing. Which increases the cost of campaigning as well as leads to voter fatigue and alienation.

This appears to be true.

But as long as turnout remains higher, the tradeoff seems worthwhile.

[TeeMassive]

> What do you mean by fraud? By voters? Every investigation of postal ballots have shown it to be very rare. Most problems are simple mistakes.

Any investigation claiming to have a way to measure fraud is a fraud in itself because it is impossible to measure with any ounce of certainty something based on intent and made in secrecy. Also the norm to contest an election is not to show that there was enough fraud but merely to show that the number of irregular ballots is greater than the margin of victory, proving fraud is irrelevant.

The problem with mail-in voting and other early methods is that it greatly increases the attack surface and is impossible to verify the whole process by normal citizens.The fact that nearly half of the US electorate doubted the results is reason enough to never do that again.

[specialist]

How many elections have you observed? Do you know where your county's central count (tabulation) is done? What mfg and vendors does your county use? Have you worked an election? Have you attended any canvasing boards and certification meetings?

> Any investigation claiming ...

Because there never was nor can be Truth? Then why even bother?

> The problem with mail-in voting...

Preaching to the choir.

> ...is impossible to verify the whole process by normal citizens.

Correct. But this Truth in no way minimizes the numerous other legitimate concerns with election administration in the USA.

> ... nearly half of the US electorate doubted

Everyone deserves confidence in our elections. We all have concerns. And democracy is not a team sport. We all lose when elections are not free and fair.

I'd be far more sympathetic to your concerns if I had any reason to believe they were sincere. Which you could begin to demonstrate by acknowledging, and perhaps even agreeing with, some of the other concerns.

[TeeMassive]

> How many elections have you observed? Do you know where your county's central count (tabulation) is done? What mfg and vendors does your county use? Have you worked an election? Have you attended any canvasing boards and certification meetings?

As a citizen it's on my government to prove that the electoral process is transparent and fair, not the other way around. I know they are, in Canada, because I can see my vote in the box and I can see the people who will count them, which happen to be my neighbors, and I could also volunteer to count the vote and the parties can send their own people so supervise the counting (and plan to do the next election btw). With all of this I can verify and trust the process. The same can't said with mass mail-in voting.

> Because there never was nor can be Truth? Then why even bother?

Strawman, didn't say that

> Preaching to the choir.

Not an argument

> > ...is impossible to verify the whole process by normal citizens.

> Correct. But this Truth in no way minimizes the numerous other legitimate concerns with election administration in the USA.

I didn't say the other concerns were invalid, or even talked about them.

> Everyone deserves confidence in our elections. We all have concerns. And democracy is not a team sport. We all lose when elections are not free and fair.

Truism.

> I'd be far more sympathetic to your concerns if I had any reason to believe they were sincere.

Not an argument. Also you're on the Internet, you can only judge arguments on their face value.

[specialist]

I apologize for assuming you're from USA.

> With all of this I can verify and trust the process.

Emphatic agreement.

Gold standard (for US's FPTP form of voting) remains Austalian Ballot using paper ballots, cast at poll sites, tabulated on-site the moment polls close.

Future upgrades will be approval voting for executive positions and proportional representation for assemblies.

Far future upgrades will be strategic use of participatory democracy. Like BC's citizen's assembly and Oregon citizen's juries. (Not to be confused with direct democracy, like our Progressive Era processes for initiatives and referendums.)

[Ekaros]

Yeah, and the same population who believed in that fraudulent election would likely cities any other country if they did it same way... It is insane that that sort of voting is allowed in any sort western democracy...

[TeeMassive]

In most countries mail-in voting is only allowed with a permission and only for certain reasons.