Oregon's had voting by mail exclusively, and, it _automatically_ registers voters in a number of places, so unless you are fully off the grid, you're pretty much gonna get a ballot. Consequently, Oregon has had consistently higher turnouts in most elections.

Each vote gets the signature reviewed by a person, one at a time. I actually had my ballot put on hold this year because the signature wasn't quite close enough - likely, since I probably just flippantly scribbled something on the package. They quickly mailed out another registration form where I basically re-signed the ballot for additional information.

Ballots can be dropped off into several boxes, that don't even go through the postal service.

Additionally, most counties have phone and email notifications for you to track your vote. That's how I got my notification, 2 days after mailing it in, that my ballot was under review.

No two signatures I've ever written actually look the same. I do wonder how this might affect people like me!

Gotta agree. My signature is chicken-scratch. Much like my handwriting in general. Yes, it's a personal failing. But, if it disenfranchises me, I'll be pretty upset.

Ditto.

I was stopped temporarily last night at the polls after the poll worker scanned my ID and had me sign. She said they're not the same signature, and I'm like, "lmao, yeah, no, no they're not. I gave up on my signature a long time ago."

A signature does not have to look similar to previous signatures to be legally effective.

You could start signing with an "X" and that first X would have legal force. Might confuse or annoy some bureaucrats though.

Oregon already has vote by mail exclusively, and absentee voting has been around for years.

As for verifying an absent voter, back about 1980 when I voted absentee, I had to have the form notarized.

How do they measure fraud rates? Is it even possible to determine if it is occurring, and if so to what degree?

Saying "rates are low" without any actual metric is never convincing.

> removing one party votes. people need to choose, we don't need drones

The first time I voted, I remember being shocked at the premise that you could tick a box and vote for one party across the board.

Oregon has had mail-in ballots only for decades and voter fraud is as close to a non-issue as statistically possible, easily on par with in-person voter fraud -- which is also extremely rare.

It also boosts turnout and saves money, and it's great to sit there and look over your ballot at your leisure.

We used to have voting parties where we'd all sit around and actually talk about the ballot issues and candidates one by one. Nothing's ever felt so much like democracy in action as that.

tl;dr vote-by-mail is great and fraud is virtually non-existent, e.g. Oregon's two decades of vote-by-mail.

Upvoted. I live in Oregon, and VBM is excellent.

> my state had early voting for weeks so there really isn't a "voting day" issue here. (Georgia).

Except for the massive campaigns to disenfranchise voters.

Which you didn't bother to mention as a problem. You did mention the boogeyman of voter fraud though, good job.

> I am more worried about votes where we have to verify an absent voter simply because the chance of fraud increases How high are the chances really? The work required to fraudulently submit even a single absentee ballot would just not be worth it. It reads as tone-deaf to place concerns of voter fraud above voter engagement when voter turn out is consistently so low.