Why Do Most European Countries Ban Mail-In Voting?

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2022/08/17/why-do-most-european-countries-ban-mail-in-voting/

Several weeks ago, my wife and I received postcards from Massachusetts Secretary of State William Francis Galvin instructing us how to apply to vote-by-mail in the upcoming elections in the Commonwealth.

The question is:  Why?

Why would we want to make our elections less secure?

Why would we want to invite ineligible citizens and non-citizens to send in a ballot?

Why would state officials push mail-in voting when most developed countries reject it?

“Liberals and progressives often try to model the US on Western European countries in many ways, but you never hear them arguing that we should adopt their voting rules,” economist John Lott wrote in an August 2020 article published by the Social Science Research Network. “There is a reason for that. Banning mail-in voting or requiring people to use photo IDs to obtain a mail-in ballot is quite common in developed countries, especially in Europe.”

Lott, who provides extensive information about other countries’ voting policies, points out that most countries in Europe – our “peer” democracies, if you will – take a dim view even of absentee voting. “Most developed countries ban absentee ballots unless the citizen is living abroad or require Photo-IDs to obtain those ballots,” Lott writes. “Even higher percentages of European Union or other European countries ban absentee voting for in country voters.”

These European democracies welcome eligible voters to participate in free and fair elections – just as the United States does. But they have no interest in fraud. They have no interest in non-citizens voting. And they take election security seriously.

Some European countries – the United Kingdom and Germany, for example –allow mail-in voting. But the procedures for absentee voting are carefully structured so that fraud is largely eliminated. And ballots must be received by the close of election day to be counted – unlike some U.S. states, where a ballot can be counted if it arrives several days after the election – or even a week, or, in the case of Illinois, two weeks.

Why are we distancing ourselves from good examples, and emulating bad ones?

Do fair elections mean nothing in Massachusetts?

The official line on the 2020 presidential election is that nothing untoward happened and Joe Biden won fair and square. But we all know that large portions of the country don’t accept it. They saw strange goings-on on election day and oddities afterward and drew their own conclusions. (Rightly or wrongly; even a year and three quarters later, it’s hard to tell.)

Why would we want to further undermine the confidence that many Americans have in our elections?

If mail-in voting is so susceptible to fraud – and obviously, it is — why would the Democratic Party and a flood of so-called “progressives” seek to advance a practice that lends itself to fraud, and perhaps worse, causes many citizens to question electoral integrity and the fairness of elections in America?

There is really only one answer:  The Democratic Party has thirst for power that cannot be quenched – whether the means be fair or foul. Democratic Party leaders have no use for laws that tend to throw their grip on power into doubt.

Think of “sanctuary” cities and states where the governing authorities commit themselves not to cooperate in any way with federal law enforcement officials seeking to deport some of the millions of illegal aliens in our midst. Such places are essentially engaging in nullification – which threatened to tear our country apart a generation before the Civil War. (In 1832, President Andrew Jackson threatened John C. Calhoun with sending federal troops into South Carolina when that state declared federal tariff laws “null and void.”)

The major reason why “progressives” support sanctuary cities and states is that they believe that these illegal aliens will remain in this country, become citizens (or at least voters), and become dependable supporters of the Democratic Party that brought them in and offers endless government services with other people’s money.

Another Democratic Party strategy is to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. California has issued driver’s licenses to more than a million people in the country illegally since 2015.

Supporters claim a driver’s license doesn’t allow people to vote. But we all know that a driver’s license is the gateway to accessing all sorts of benefits in this country. Are illegal immigrants voting in California? Who would doubt it?

In Massachusetts, Democratic politicians passed a law earlier this year authorizing the state to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. And when Governor Charlie Baker vetoed the law, citing his concern that noncitizens will be able to register to vote because of it, Democrats in the state legislature overrode the veto, enacting the law.

But it doesn’t take effect until July 1, 2023, and there’s something you can do about it.

Opponents of this terrible bill are collecting signatures to put a referendum on the November 2022 ballot that would allow the voters of this state to reject driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. The committee pushing the ballot initiative have another week — until Wednesday, August 24 – to collect 41,000 signatures of registered voters.

Polls show that flipping the driver’s-licenses bill could win, if supporters can get it on the ballot.

Give them your signature, and help make it happen.


Robert H. Bradley is Chairman of Bradley, Foster & Sargent Inc., a $5.7 billion wealth management firm that has offices in Hartford, Connecticut and Wellesley, Massachusetts. Read other articles by him here.


New to NewBostonPost?  Conservative media is hard to find in Massachusetts.  But you’ve found it.  Now dip your toe in the water for two bucks — $2 for two months.  And join the real revolution.