You've got mail ... or not

So far, I still haven't seen a convincing argument not to conduct a mail-in revote for Florida's Democratic primary*. Today's paper brings us an argument against (but, conspicuously, not one for) from Oregon, where mail-in voting has been conducted for years.

Oregon has the distinction of being the only state to do all of its voting by mail, and by all accounts the system is a success.

In 1998, voters approved doing away with polling places. In 2000, the state held its first primary and general presidential elections by mail.

The Oregon system has some critics. They include Lynn Snodgrass, a former Oregon state representative who believes she lost a race for secretary of state partly because of her opposition to the mandatory vote-by-mail program.

Snodgrass said people who vote at home are subject to pressure. A husband or wife might be forced to vote a certain way, she said. Or, she said, nursing home residents or college students might be urged by caregivers or classmates to vote for a certain candidate.

"My biggest problem is with the whole lack of privacy," she said.

According to the Oregon secretary of state, only a few instances of voter fraud have been reported since the state adopted voting by mail.

It's clear that most voters like the system.

In the 2004 presidential election, voter turnout in Oregon was about 70 percent, 10 percent higher than the national figure.

"We were fairly skeptical about vote-by-mail at first ... but the benefits far outweighed our concerns," said Marge Easley, president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon. Today, she said, "we're big proponents."

Along with getting more people to vote, the Oregon system gives voters more time to make decisions, Easley and other supporters say.

Oh, puh-leez, Ms. Snodgrass. Let's go over once again three main objections to mail-in voting:

1. It might disenfranchise voters.

How would mail-in voting disenfranchise voters more than not having an election at all? At least in Florida's case right now, that seems to be the choice: mail-in or nothing. In my mind, it's better to have a mail-in election than nothing -- even if you think mail-in disenfranchises some voters (and I do not believe that), how would it disenfranchise voters more than a standard election? Or, for that matter, no election at all, which would disenfranchise everyone?

2. It is subject to fraud.

One word: Diebold. Every election is open to fraud, and there are plenty of safeguards in Oregon's system that could be implemented here just as easily.

3. The Snodgrass argument: "people who vote at home are subject to [greater] pressure and less privacy."

How are you any more subject to pressure at home than in a standard polling place? How do you have less privacy? You could execute and send the ballot by yourself, if you were concerned about privacy. You would be as likely to have discussions at the polling place as you enter as you would at home. This argument is completely ridiculous.

Again, I fail to see any legitimate reason not to conduct a mail-in revote. There may be legal or logisitical obstacles, but the rationale advanced by opponents of the idea just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

---

* I admit that I have not had time to research state law on the subject, so for the purposes of this post, I will assume that mail-in primary elections are permissible under Florida law.