“Going postal – an election game changer.”
by David Anderson

This election is very much a “turn out” election, but its entire structure has raised questions and damaging allegations from both parties. There’s an answer to these questions and allegations. It is a dynamic change which can actually have a profound effect on the outcome. It is an answer to all the shouts and questions about “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation” on the right, and disenfranchisement and similar complaints on the left.

That answer is greater participation in Postal Voting. Let’s start with practicalities – there is a lack of knowledge about the viability of this option, as well as some misunderstanding of its requirements. These differ, depending on jurisdiction. In some places one needs no reason to vote by post; Oregon is advanced in this regard because in 1998 they began postal only voting. It is a popular system with bipartisan support, has increased turnout, and in Oregon one doesn’t even need a stamp. It is also available in other states as an option, with a recent call to introduce it as the default way to vote in Wisconsin.

In many other places it is just as simple but comes down to a mental calculation: If to the best of honest belief one might be unable to vote on the actual day, through absence or illness, or as a caregiver, then one can use the mail. Make reservations ahead though. Contrary to widely held opinion we don’t need a medical certificate, nor a paid-up plane reservation. Or a note from our parents.

It isn’t gaming the system, it isn’t voter fraud, and it is not unethical. It is merely a voter’s personal calculation, their prediction for the mid-distant future that there is a chance they may not be able to vote – in person – on the day. Then the voter goes online, has a ballot mailed home, votes by pen or pencil, and snail mails it back.

In the young, sexy, social media world there’s a feeling that in the echo chamber, the number of “likes” on Facebook actually equates to real votes. For Millennials it seems actually registering and turning up to vote is an abstraction. Their low turnout in the 2010 and 2014 midterms tend to this point. Goodness – two of Mr. Trump’s own children didn’t even register in time for the Republican primaries . A more loudly blasted object lesson than that is hard to imagine.

Pursuant to the above, and the fact this is said to be a “turn out” election, the dynamic of getting as many people to vote this way can actually have a profound impact on the result.
It is also an answer to, or at least a partial defense against “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation” on the right, and disenfranchisement and similar complaints on the left. Postal voting is an effective defense against any political shenanigans which could occur physically at the polling places. This is no small controversy. In 2008 Fox News reported Black Panther type intimidation of white voters.

This election the hilariously unpredictable Mr. Trump threatens “certain people” will be voting “10 times” and has brought into question the honesty and integrity of the entire system. In fairness it must be noted there is no evidence of these practices and actual voter fraud is vanishingly rare, effectively zero. But a person can’t be intimidated if their vote was sent by the U.S. Post weeks in advance. And nobody can vote ten times via postal voting.

From the opposite perspective, “going postal” is also a partial work-around the Republican’s nationally coordinated disenfranchisement campaign, particularly against minorities. A slew of voter ID laws, and even the shutting down of many rural ID issuing state offices, are testimony to this strategy. It appears the GOP’s intention is to win elections by disenfranchising entire demographics hostile to them, particularly in the South. To quote The “Family Guy” on Florida; “Black votes go straight into the trash there” – a reference to the 2000 election.

The battlegrounds in 2016 may be within the grassy geography of Ohio or Pennsylvania, but the second flank of both parties’ strategy must be a project of greater voter participation.

To postal vote, of course, one must be registered already, and so the entire action needs a lead time. The ballot envelope has to arrive, the voter has to sign, and send it back with a stamp, then it needs to be received at the counting station. The lead time is longer than many peoples’ predictive abilities regarding their health or presence at the polling place, so it may be better to be safe than sorry. Postal voting requires thinking and acting ahead. Perhaps now to be safe.

There is another important plus – Attempting to register and order a ballot online now also can alert a voter as to any pre-existing problems with their registration. There might be a problem that can still be fixed. Discovering such a problem on November 8th results in a non-vote.

Postal voting is a more reliable and convenient way to ensure one votes; rain on the day, overcrowding, polling station computer problems, sick kids, menacing Black Panthers, and other risks to one’s vote are not what postal voting is designed to be used to avoid, but they cease to be problems if one does vote that way. Early voting is equally as efficient, but far from universal as an option.

Yet most people don’t consider it, and both campaigns are weak on selling it. Which is strange because increasing awareness of this option, this electoral “life hack” would be a better use of campaign funds than more millions wasted on rehashing the same TV messages directed at the dozen or so remaining “undecideds” in America. Big picture structural improvements must be made to make the system more trustworthy and safe in the long term, but to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld; You go to the polls with the system you have, not the system you’d like.

Without trying to drum up business for the USPS, in such a divisive election as this, fraught with allegations from all sides, a stamp on an envelope dropped the old blue post box is the closest we can get to a clean, fair, inclusive result.

David Anderson is an Australian-American (retired) attorney in New York City with a background in venture capital, criminal defense, and M.& A. He writes for counterpunch.org and themoderatevoice.com and consults for an M.& A. firm.