[romwell]

>in person voting appears to have least drawbacks

Citation needed.

Specifically, what are the drawbacks of mail-in voting compared to in-person voting?

>Mail-in system is used in some countries

The US is one of those some countries.

And in the US, with a long history of voter disenfranchisement and an abysmally low voter turnouts, where the election day is always a workday, mail-in voting is absolutely the best system currently in use, by a long shot.

Its benefit of being actually available and removing many of the artificial barriers to voting that exist across the US far outweighs any disadvantages it may have over in-person voting.

These barriers include:

-people having difficulty to vote on a workday

-difficulty getting to the polls

-lack of polling places in "undesirable" neighborhoods (and super long lines as a result)

-varied ID laws

-etc

Not coincidentally, the party that openly aims to decrease voter turnout for their benefit also opposes mail-in voting.

Nobody says that in-person voting should not be available. But it absolutely should not (and rarely is) the only option.

Unfortunately, its availability across the US is limited through the efforts of the aforementioned political party.

[gus_massa]

Hi from Argentina:

> -people having difficulty to vote on a workday

We vote on Sunday.

> -difficulty getting to the polls

My poll station is half a mile away (or less). I can go walking or by bus that is free that day.

> -lack of polling places in "undesirable" neighborhoods (and super long lines as a result)

I vote in a school that has like 20 voting rooms. The waiting time is usually like 10 minutes. Last year in some rooms the waiting time was like 1 hour and people was angry. In that cases vote for the other party.

> -varied ID laws

Everyone has an ID here. It has a nominal cost, but if you ask nicely you can get it for free.

If the idiots here can organize an in-person voting election, anyone can.

[romwell]

Hi from the US.

You don't seem to understand that what you see as problems to be solved are seen as features by half of our politicians, who would rather have people not vote at all.

These are the vulnerabilities of in-person voting that mail-in voting does not have.

>If the idiots here can organize an in-person voting election, anyone can.

No, that's not the case. I can't organize elections in Texas because I'm not in charge of organizing elections in Texas.

And people in charge of elections in Texas make sure that urban neighborhoods (which are likely to vote for the other party) don't have enough polling places to go to.

Oh, and did you know it's common in the US to have churches as polling locations? It's especially great when you're voting on issues like separation of church and the state, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

[gus_massa]

> You don't seem to understand that what you see as problems to be solved are seen as features by half of our politicians, who would rather have people not vote at all.

I understand because we had the same problem until 1912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1enz_Pe%C3%B1a_Law that the problem was solved with secret obligatory in person elections. It was not easy. The 1930 were weird. All the last century was weird. This century is weird too, but at least elections are quite transparent.

> And people in charge of elections in Texas make sure that urban neighborhoods (which are likely to vote for the other party) don't have enough polling places to go to.

That's weird. I'm not sure how we ensure everyone has a good site to vote, because I expect some provinces to use all the dirty tricks that are barely legal. It's a good question. My guess is that elections are obligatory here (nobody really checks that, but there is a threat of a fee or something if you don't vote). So people wait outside the voting locations until they can vote, and if the queue is too long they get angry, and may start a small riot, and get the TV, and the federal government may decide to do something like investigating the local corruption.