WAPO: Vote BY Mail "proven to be fraud-free"

There is a piece in the WAPO today recommending Vote By Mail.
It was written by the Secretary of State of Oregon, where Vote By Mail is used.

The article makes some serious claims -
-"proven to be fraud-free"
-gave Oregon turnout that was "among the highest in the nation"
-is "about 30% less expensive than polling place elections"

A Better Way to Vote
By Bill Bradbury
Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page B07
SALEM, Ore. -- "This month, as controversies emerged in other parts of the
country over polling place problems and malfunctioning touch-screen
machines, we here in Oregon prepared to swear in a new crop of elected
officials with nary a question about the legitimacy of the count or the
functioning of our electoral process. We accomplished this with a turnout
on Nov. 7 that was, once again, among the highest in the nation. How? With
Vote by Mail....

The system has proven to be fraud-free..."

There's a huge difference between "we verify signatures" to "proven to be
fraud-free". Instead, the fraud happens unseen.

VBM is not free from fraud in the form of voter coercion.

VBM uses central count optical scanners - which means all of the eggs are in one basket for each county. More votes in one place = greater risk.

"With voting by mail, Oregon's turnout is consistently among the highest of
any state without same-day voter registration..."

Could the additional turnout really be due to more engaged votes?Or could it be that those same voters who didn't care enough to vote before, who don't watch or read the news, who don't participate in our government - those same "no shows" found that their ballot was worth something to them - maybe a pair of jeans, or $50.00 or a bottle of liquor or a 6 pack of beer?

All the bad guy needs to do is get the person to sign the form and then they can vote the ballot as they choose.

"Voting by mail is also a cost-effective way to run elections, costing
taxpayers about 30 percent less than polling-place elections."

Elections do cost alot of money. But if the best way to vote costs more, than
I am for the best way to vote. VBM lacks transparency and secrecy of the ballot.
I haven't see the cost reports, but I have to say transparency trumps the cost.

"80 percent of voters across the political spectrum prefer it to voting at polling places...
The foundation of our democracy rests upon the administration of free, fair and highly participatory elections.
It's critical that Americans have faith in the security of their vote. Here in Oregon, with voting by mail, we have achieved those things and been able to assure voters that their votes count."

Its important that voters have REASON to have faith in the security of their vote.
That means having a secret ballot and votes counted publicly.

Part of the VBM movement was an effort to starve off the touchscreen/DRE vendors.

Now with all of the blowback against touchscreens this year, we hardly need to sacrifice
precinct style voting. Once the precincts are eliminated, it would be very hard to get them
restored.

Precinct voting allows for us to cast our ballot secretly, have it counted publicly (to a degree that needs to continue to improve) and it reduces the risks to our votes by limiting the number of votes counted in one location.

Lets continue to work towards increased transparency and accountability,
and not solve our problems with another problem.

Lets not lose the gains we have made so far.