The risk of fraud is only one concern being addressed. This system could prevent several possible problems at once.

The biggest improvement is tracking and accountability. Both the outgoing ballot envelope and the return envelope would have unique barcodes, giving election officials much better information about where each ballot is in the system and whether it was delivered or returned.

It would make the process operate more like traditional absentee voting in terms of identifying and tracking the ballots being mailed. States would decide who is eligible to vote and to receive a mailed ballot, and they would have to identify those voters and associate the ballot envelopes with them.

That also addresses the scenario I've talked about the most, which is a large number of ballots being lost or mishandled at one time. With individual tracking, officials would be much better able to determine which voters were affected and allow replacement ballots to be sent to the right people, possibly without the voter even being aware there had been a problem.

The intent is for this to become a nationwide USPS requirement for federal elections using mailed ballots, so that all states using the Postal Service would be operating under the same basic tracking requirements.

Like I've said repeatedly, about a month before the 2020 election I read how the expanded mail-in ballot system was going to work due to COVID and saw the makings of a calamity. There were too many potential bottlenecks and way too much human handling without adequate tracking and accountability to ensure valid ballots got where they were supposed to go to be counted.

One of the two injunctions has already been lifted by the US Supreme Court. The USPS rule is still blocked by the remaining injunction, and we're waiting to see whether that one is lifted as well.

Hopefully this solution will get a chance to be used.

(did I get the details correct? Someone correct me if I didn't)

Doc,

"U.S. Constitution, States and Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 " Constitution.congress.gov"

I'm only asking if I got the process details correct.

Just setting the constitutional question aside for a moment, what do you have against the policy itself?

I think it's a great idea.

This is an upgrade to voting by mail.

This voting method would use modern tracking technology instead of the Pony Express.

Doc,

I see you can't have an intelligent conversation.

Just political rantings.

Doc,

The states would still conduct their own elections and determine who is eligible to vote.

The USPS rule would establish uniform tracking and accountability standards only for federal ballots going through the Postal Service.

Not every state applies the same safeguards to voting by mail. This rule would provide greater assurance of fairness by ensuring that ballots going through USPS are subject to the same tracking and accountability standards in every state.

Laura,

"Who knew that following the Constitution was political ranting?"

Apparently, the English comprehension skills in this thread are lacking.

Plainly, I am asking about the merits of the new processes for handling mailed ballots.

That sentence seems to be going over some heads here.

Jpw,

"Just STFU and stop acting as if wiping your ass with the constitution is "intelligent.""

I am wondering what others "think" (the operative word here) about how the ballots would be handled under these new policies.

It seems pretty fair to me. It would provide better tracking and accountability while helping identify ballots that were lost, delayed or otherwise unaccounted for.

Would solve a lot of problems (except the constitution problem people want to exploit so states will be able to cheat)

Dan,

"Mailed ballots are tracked, serialized, watermarked, and more. Your ignorance on the subject is no reason to suppress 1000x the number of possible fraudulent votes."

Not uniformly across all states.

And even the ones that do, it would not provide the same level of tracking as the new proposed systems.

Dan,

"And what problems has that caused to date?"

I suspect similar questions have been asked as voting rights have evolved.

Laura,

"Let's get down to brass tacks shall we. It's just Republicans trying to gum up the system in their favor is all this is. Nothing more than that."

I'm sorry you think keeping more accurate records is gumming up the system.

Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards of transparent tracking voter eligibility and ballot integrity.

And Democrats want something else.

Dan,

You really are obsessed with fraud.

Try looking beyond your nose and see there is a lot more to be concerned with than just fraud.

Dan,

"Meanwhile, giving someone else in the chain a responsibility INCREASES the chances for inaccuracy."

This "responsibility" will not be given to people.

It will be software and computers and of course, AI.

Dan,

"representation to go with the taxation."

I think that's a whole different thread.

Brass,

"Why is implementation eight weeks before an election....you have to agree that's a recipe for disaster"

Yes..it could be.

We're just talking about mailing them out and people mailing them back. Eight weeks is still enough time. Probably.

As I understand it, the USPS has their part in place.

Now it's just waiting on the Supreme Court and I'm not counting on them actually deciding soon.

Hopefully states are working on their lists.

Dan,

"more links in the chain is almost never a good idea."

In automated accounting systems, when you consider all the hardware, software, networking and formatted data, you'd be shocked how many "links" data moves along. It's been a long gradual process the last 50+ years. Systems building on systems...again and again. Passing knowledge along to the next person to add more "links".

I put more trust in computer systems to track information that I do people.

Dan,

"And anybody who's ever copied a video onto a second format and noticed the new video isn't quite as good as the original"

Analog video can degrade when it's copied.

Digital data doesn't work that way.

If you copy the data from one diskette to another successfully, the copied data is identical to the original.

It doesn't become slightly less accurate because it was copied.

Dan,

If you make 1000 copies of a cd, they'll all be identical.

Just ask the Chinese. They've known that for years.

Donner,

"Sowing doubt in our free and fair elections is the objective.
Mission accomplished."

Is that directed at me?

If so, I'm flattered.

Just suppose...

One hundred years ago, a school was established with 50 classrooms.

When the school was founded, bylaws were written explaining how the school would operate.

One unusual feature of the school was that the students would elect the principal. The principal served for four years, and then the students voted again.

Here was their system.

Each classroom held its own election. Two candidates ran for principal, and each student in each classroom would vote for one of them.

Then, each classroom would select one person to oversee the voting and count the ballots. We'll call that person the "collector".

After the votes were counted, instead of telling the Main office the total votes, one vote would be cast for whichever candidate got the most votes in that classroom for the next principal.

That means each election a total of 50 votes"one for each classroom"would be given to the Main office, and whichever person got the most votes was the new principal for the next four years.

There was another important provision in the bylaws.

To prevent the students from being swayed by any outside influence, such as the people running for the position of principal, each classroom was autonomous under the bylaws.

The Main office had very limited authority over how each classroom conducted its election.

This was supposed to protect the classroom from outside influence, but as time went on it was discovered that this arrangement created another problem.

Every classroom was responsible for conducting its own election, determining who was eligible to vote, counting its votes, and delivering its final result to the Main office by the "collector".

For about 75 years, this arrangement worked quite well.

All of the classrooms functioned smoothly, holding elections and turning in their single vote every four years.

What ended up happening over time is that the classrooms functioned autonomously, but they also functioned with limited oversight from the Main office and little visibility into what other classrooms were doing.

They began making more of their own rules and setting different standards on things such as who could vote.

It was noticed in a couple of the classrooms that there were people in the rooms who weren't enrolled students.

Why were they there?

It was also noticed that occasionally people would appear in the room who had graduated years ago.

Students began talking among themselves.

"Who are these extra people?"

Then came the more troubling question.

"Are they voting?"

It was suspected that they were, but with the classrooms being autonomous, it was difficult for anyone outside that classroom to know exactly what was happening.

The Main office and other classrooms thought it strange that these people were there, but the bylaws were clear.

You couldn't interfere with another classroom's handling of its election.

Over time, the differences became more pronounced.

A system that had been designed to protect the integrity of the election for the next principal was beginning to reveal a weakness of its own.

The checks and balances between the classrooms and the Main office were limited, and the classrooms had broad independence in administering their elections.

There were growing suspicions that some people who were not eligible were nevertheless voting.

(end part 1)

(part 2)

Eventually, the Main office had heard enough about this to start asking questions.

They were told,

"Leave us alone. Stick to the bylaws. Our classroom controls its own election."

Now confidence in the elections declined.

Anger and frustration began spreading throughout the school.

The stability of the school itself was becoming a concern.

Then, one particular year, the current principal looked at the situation and said,

"We have a problem that the people who wrote these bylaws 100 years ago might not have anticipated."

The system was built on the assumption that each classroom would hold elections and only legitimate, eligible students would vote.

But now some classrooms are using their broad authority to establish standards that differed considerably from those in other classrooms.

So now the Main office was bound to accept these election results but had very little ability to independently verify how those results had been produced.

The principal proposed a solution.

The Main office couldn't simply take over or audit the classroom elections under the bylaws, but the Main office believed it had authority to establish rules governing how the "collector" performed his own job.

The Main office instructed the "collector" to only accept ballots associated with people whose names appeared on a list that each classroom would prepare before the election.

That list would contain the students the classroom itself had determined were enrolled and eligible to vote.

This did not have the "collector" determining whether someone was legally entitled to vote.

The classroom had already made that decision by listing names on the list.

It was the classroom's responsibility to be honest and fair.

The "collector" simply had the responsibility of verifying that the name associated with the ballot appeared on the list provided by the classroom.

And now we arrive at the heart of the problem created by the original separation of authority in the bylaws.

The school is ultimately dependent upon the integrity of 50 separately administered elections.

Information is being provided to the Main office, but the Main office has limited authority to establish common safeguards governing how that information is produced.

Suspicions were growing that some people who should not have been voting may have been doing so.

Does "classroom autonomy" mean the Main office must ultimately rely on election results produced by the classrooms while having very limited authority to establish minimum standards governing how those results are produced?

Or can the Main office establish a limited safeguard without taking control of the classrooms' elections themselves?

That's the question.

Redial,

Did you read it. Actually it be study it.

There's a lot to it.

But there is a single point being brought it. Did you get it?

Eff,

Too bad you didnt read it.

Back from my college teaching days I was frequently told I can simplify things making it comrehrndable.

Eff,

My point was that we are having federal elections but states are holding the elections. In the simplest form I think what Trump wants makes sense.

States should adhere to basic rules to ensure integrity.

Personally I suspect some states are very likely cheating somehow.

Eff,

Ill be honest.

This sounds like the rantings of a mad man.

You sound very informed but how is Trump going to accomplish all this before he's out of office?

You say he wants control.

Do you mean he wants control or are you talking about the GOP having control?

Eff,

If your point is that the states are sovereign within their own constitutional sphere, how is that different from the point of my school analogy?

The classrooms in my example were given authority under the bylaws to conduct their own elections. The main office could not simply take over that process.

Isn't that separation of authority exactly what the analogy was intended to illustrate?

If you think it's "apples and oranges," what specific part of that comparison do you think fails?

Eff,

"If Voter fraud Is occuring, it would be Addressed by State Laws, there is No Federal Standard."

Yea...sure.

If some particular state is committing voter fraud and not holding a clean election, you're asking that state to clean itself up?

Do you see the fallacy in that?

Dan,

"Speak now, and bring the receipts."

That's one thing Congress is for.

Pass a federal election verification law, require the records, and direct an audit to be done.

Then watch the rats run.

Dan,

"You have no proof at all."

That's what Congress can require after passing a Federal Election Verification Law.

The records.

The audit.

The proof...or lack of it.

Entiendes

Dan,

#110 will all come to light after an accurate audit.

I won't presume the outcome.

Just let the chips fall where they may.

Time for a backyard BBQ.

Dan,

#110 How about this?

I'm curious what you would predict as a naysayer.

Dan,

It's your question.

You should provide your opinion if you expect me to.

Fair warning...I'll chicken out and not do it.

Dan,

"Are you ashamed to admit your beliefs?!?"

Not at all.

It would be something I would never post.

Dan,

Don't ask someone to do something you're not willing to do yourself.

Dan,

Save your energy trying to provoke me.

I wrote enough on this thread.

Did you read my classroom analogy?

Dan,

"I said I'd answer immediately after you did, and I will. Why are you lying, Bill?"

Something weird I've noticed more and more over the last several years.

People seem to think they're entitled to ask someone a question and that the other person is somehow obligated to answer it.

It's been a gradual thing.

Businesses collecting more and more information from their customers.

Political campaigns collecting more and more information about voters.

Now buying and selling information about everyone is big money.

I know who started it.

Radio Shack.

Back in my teens I went in one day, made a cash purchase, and they asked me for my phone number.

I saw the writing on the wall.

Dan, this is making my point.

We've been manipulated so much that people have started feeling entitled to ask others for information and expect them to feel obligated to provide it. And worse, people have actually started buying into it like little sheep.

No. I don't feel obligated.

For the record, I never brought political parties into this thread, and I'm not going to start now.

Dan,

You're trying hard.