Postal Vote

I am interested that the postal votes do not have to be in by the election day in the USA. In the UK the votes must be in by the close of the poll so that there is no doubt WHAT votes there are to be counted. -- JohnFletcher

Yes, removing at least that variable makes it considerably more boring.

Two points to consider: 1- Are the postal votes seen as 'after thoughts' in most (?all?) national elections, and?

2- Does the US constitution guarantee the right to vote? Be careful ........

The US Consitution gives certain reasons that you cannot use to deny someone the vote, such as race, color, gender, or age over 18. And, of course, the "right to vote" depends on what position you vote for. The only official elected at large in the US government is the President and Vice President, which are actually selected by appointed voters from states and D.C. (D.C. was added in the 23rd amendment). This one is weird; there is an ElectoralCollege that is appointed by each state or DC, and our vote is used to tell them how to vote. You can't vote for senators or congressmen if you don't live in a state, since only states have them. This really annoys some Puerto Ricans; since Puerto Rico is in the US but not actually a state, citizens there cannot vote. ---

The constitution does not guarantee, but rather implies, the right to vote. The Founding Fathers of the US Constitution believed "voting rights" were best left to the individual states to articulate.

In UK some years ago it was necessary to show a good reason to get a postal vote e.g. sickness such as to be unable to go (doctor's signature needed) or work commitments (employer's signature needed).

Then the rules were relaxed so that it became a personal choice, e.g. if away on holiday. Voters who would be abroad are encouraged to appoint a proxy who will vote for them, either in person or by post.

There is also a special provision for people who live on small islands to vote by post if they would have had to use a ferry to get to vote. This is important in the islands of the north of Scotland. -- JohnFletcher

In the recent (May 2002) local elections in the UK, a few areas tested alternative voting methods: some had online voting (in addition to PollingStation?s), some had e-voting (machines at the PollingStation?s) and some had pure postal voting (there were no PollingStation?s). The aim was to improve turnout. Neither of the first two methods had much impact, but pure postal voting led to a big increase in turnout (presumably because it didn't require people to actually turn out). I would assume it also reduced costs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1965000/1965521.stm

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn155.pdf