There is no actual reason for vote by mail to be less secure, other than the desire of the people who run it to behave fraudulently. An outside party should vet the process.

For example - there has to be a list of people to whom the ballots would be mailed. A simple scrutiny of people >100 years of age would be an easy task (exclusionary criterion). Cross-checking the list against DMV records for licenses given/renewed within the last [10 years] should show people who are probably actual residents (inclusionary criterion). I assume that each ballot has a unique ballot id code so that only one vote can be cast per code (no xeroxed ballots - common sense criterion).

Voting by mail has the potential for being more honest than booth voting, with the notable exception that a bully could force his/her family members to all vote a given way, which cannot happen in a booth - but I think that is rare. You will never get perfect honesty, but I think that we can do a lot better than we are doing now. Corporations may have this system already scoped out, for stock votes.

Jan

More "fundamental transformation" from this character. I don't trust it. When he says it will remove the money from politics you can be sure of just the opposite. It will be more Soros and Heinz money to get the "young and racially diverse" non-voters to the polls.With all that is attached.

Thinking about that, davidmcnab, George Soros funds all of the leftist organizations that got His Immaculant voted in. Like ACORN and its misbegotten offspring. And this bantha-dung is already meddling with the 2016 election.

Australia has had compulsory voting for over a century, and nobody there is bullied by authorities to vote in any given way. I have been employed at the polling stations, and the integrity of the system is very high. No electronic voting machines to conveniently mis-count the vote.
And Australian conservative parties still manage to win most of the time.

HAH! That is a good way to state it, allosaur! I think His Holy Immaculant would have a big surprise coming if voting were required, I don't see any way for these "Democrats" would be able to stand up to a vast majority of right-thinking voters over the small percentage of people who think they are liberal.

Voters are fickle. It all comes down to who ever comes up with the messages voters want to hear will get their vote. Liberal OR Conservative. Explain how in the world President Reagan won not only a first term against the liberals but a second term as well.

If the government can have such a power will they stop there? Does it matter?
Joseph Stalin — 'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.'

Z, my initial reaction exactly when I first saw it.

Also don't forget that most of these non-voters are poor and "marginalized" (whatever THAT means) and will have be picked up and driven to the polls (preferably on buses driven by union drivers on overtime), given some re-education first in a camp run by Bill Ayers, AND most of all have their meager incomes supplemented in some way. It's only fair, after all.

At least he did point out, I believe in the account I read that that pesky thing called The Constitution might get in the way of this brilliant plan, but hey, no big deal.

It's just another thing to change the subject and take you mind off the important issues. What happened in Benghazi, Mexican Gun Running, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.............

I also live in Oregon, and now we have mandatory (almost) voter registration, done partially through the DMV. So we just barely defeated a bill that would provide automatic drivers licenses for non-citizens (aka illegal aliens). And now this!

It would actually be a law I'd be in favor of if and only if, NoTA was the default vote. Then it becomes a strategy game for the major parties. Do they run a weak candidate in the 'mandatory' general election hoping NoTA will remove the opposition and then try to face off in the following special election? It would certainly change the political landscape as we know it.

This one will be ok with him (them) for the wealthy to buy their way out of. The only penalties will apply to the downtrodden.

Would be largely ineffective, since we have a tradition of the ruling party rigging the electoral rolls to exclude huge numbers of people in demographic groups likely to vote against it.

Amen to that!!

What voter's booth? I live in Oregon and we have vote-by-mail, which has led to some questionable vote handling practices and "surprising" outcomes. Couple that with the recent news of a significant number of people who are age 112 or older (ahem), and you can see what our Dear Leader's next "request" will be - nationwide vote-by-mail. We're sunk at that point, my friends...

Actually, it would be great as long as NoTA (None of The Above) was *ALWAYS* on the ballot!

Imagine the politicos facing a career ending election *every* term... Life would be wonderful!

In true Obummer form perhaps benevolent loss of three fingers, the pinky, the one next to it, and the index,...so when he was humiliated he could politely wave to his/her politically correct friends!

Attach voting to the annual IRS bash (penalty tax for failure to appear), or to ObamaCaresLess enrollment. Makes more cents. Of course, punch a hole each year in the national ID card. Oops, that's not right. Of course, there must be viable candidates (living or dead). Shouldn't we vote on his proposition??? Oh, yes, you'll have to check the race, age, income brackets, ethnicity blocks, too. Yes, it sure would be transformative. Dictatorships thrive on it, so do megalomaniacs.

So, in time, 3 kids vote both Mom and Dad's paychecks goes to Disneyland vs. the Mortgage?

Typical Barack Fantasyland...!

I wouldn't have any problems with requiring people to vote, IF:

1) Only citizens were allowed to vote, and ID was required.
2) Voters had to also pass a basic civics test on the Constitution.
3) Any politicians caught lying were immediately jailed, forced to vacate their positions, and barred from any future government or government contractor position.
4) Only legal voters could provide campaign contributions.

And that's just for starters.

Yes, and that means the election clerk will be sure to cast votes in the names of the dead and the moved-out. Guaranteed Democratic votes.

Ha. Good one!

Jan

Uh. I am missing this logic. How can 'ticking your name off a list when you show your ID' be the same as 'crawling into the booth with you to see how you vote'?

We have had other discussions in the Gulch about the positive effects that showing an ID and proving that you are a (unique) citizen would have on the honesty of the voting process. I think that 'mandatory voting' is different than 'directed voting'.

I am against mandatory voting the same way I am against the EPA controlling your barbeque grill: The government should stay out of the personal life of the individual. Leave Us Alone.

Jan

Obama ALWAYS has a hidden agenda. I never listen to their reasons for wanting things. I look to the hidden agendas. In this case, it would hasten our demise into socialism and support for the democratic party. Its pretty transparent what he wants.

Russia also comes to mind. Vote the way your told will be next.