Hubbry Logo
Postal votingPostal votingMain
Open search
Postal voting
Community hub
Postal voting
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Postal voting
Postal voting
Postal voting
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
   Postal voting available only for some/all citizens abroad
   Postal voting available for some/all citizens abroad, and for citizens at home meeting certain conditions
   Postal voting available for all citizens on demand
   No postal voting system in place
Part of the Politics series
Voting
Balloting
Ballots
Candidates and Ballot measures
Collection
Counting
Electoral systems
Plurality and majoritarian systems
Proportional and semi-proportional systems
Mixed-member systems
Voting strategies
Protest votes
Voting patterns and effects
Protest votes
Electoral fraud and prevention
Prevention
icon Politics portal
Ballot and other documents for postal voting for the 2015 Luxembourg constitutional referendum

Postal voting is voting in an election where ballot papers are distributed to electors (and typically returned) by post, in contrast to electors voting in person at a polling station or electronically via an electronic voting system.

In an election, postal votes may be available on demand or limited to individuals meeting certain criteria, such as a proven inability to travel to a designated polling place. Most electors are required to apply for a postal vote, although some may receive one by default. In some elections postal voting is the only voting method allowed and is referred to as all-postal voting. With the exception of those elections, postal votes constitute a form of early voting and may be considered an absentee ballot.

Typically, postal votes must be mailed back before the scheduled election day. However, in some jurisdictions return methods may allow for dropping off the ballot in person via secure drop boxes or at voting centers. Postal votes may be processed by hand or scanned and counted electronically. The history of postal voting dates back to the 19th century, and modern-day procedures and availability vary by jurisdiction. Research, focused on the United States and using data from states where postal voting is widely available—California, Oregon and Washington—shows that the availability of postal voting tends to increase voter turnout.[1][2][3]

Electoral laws typically stipulate a series of checks to protect against voter fraud and allow for the integrity and secrecy of the submitted ballot to be maintained. Known instances of fraud are very rare.[4] Coordinated, large-scale fraud by postal voting is likely hard to pull off undetected because the large number of interested parties (such as officials, political operators, and journalists) as well as a large number of scholars and analysts who are capable of detecting statistical outliers in vote totals signifying large-scale fraud.[2] Officials can confirm instances of fraud by checking signatures and conducting basic detective work.[2]

All-postal voting

[edit]

All-postal voting is a form of postal voting in which all electors receive their ballot papers through the post, not just those who requested an absentee ballot. Depending on the country, electors may have to return their ballot papers by post or they may be allowed to deliver them by hand to specified drop-off locations. All-postal voting is used in several states in the United States and in Switzerland, and was used in 2016 in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey as well as in four regions of the United Kingdom in the 2004 European Parliament election.

There is some evidence that all-postal voting leads to higher turnout than in-person voting or mail-in voting that requires voters to first request a ballot (rather than receive it automatically).[3]

By country

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

At the 2016 Australian federal election, there were 1.2 million postal votes cast, amounting to 8.5 percent of total votes.[5]

Postal voting in Australia was introduced for federal elections in 1902, and first used at the 1903 election. It was abolished by the Fisher government in 1910, following claims that it was open to abuse and biased towards rural voters. The Cook government's bill to restore postal voting was one of the "triggers" for the double dissolution prior to the 1914 election. Postal voting was eventually restored by the Hughes government in 1918 and has not been challenged since, although the provisions and requirements have been amended on a number of occasions.[6]

Prior to Federation in 1901, Western Australia introduced a form of postal voting in 1877 with strict eligibility criteria. South Australia introduced postal voting for seamen in 1890,[7] and a further act in 1896 gave postal votes to any elector who would be more than 15 miles (24 km) from home on election day, as well as for any woman unable to travel "by reason of her health". Victoria passed a similar law in 1899, and the first federal postal voting legislation was also modelled on the 1896 South Australian act.[6]

Procedure

[edit]

Postal voting at a federal level is governed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and administered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Postal votes are available to those who will be absent from their electoral division through travel, or who those are unable to attend a polling booth due to illness, infirmity, "approaching childbirth", caring responsibilities, reasonable fears for their safety, religious beliefs, imprisonment, status as a silent elector, or employment reasons.[8]

Eligible voters may make a postal vote application (PVA) prior to each election, or apply for status as a "general postal voter" and receive a postal ballot automatically. Postal voters receive their ballot(s) and a prepaid envelope containing their name and address, as well as a predetermined security question from the PVA. Voters are required to sign the envelope and provide the correct answer to the security question. They are also required to have a witness sign and date the envelope.[9] As of 2016, postal votes were able to be received and entered into the count up to 13 days after election day. Following the 2016 election, it was observed that the strict scrutiny process afforded to postal votes was a "significant contributor" to delays in declaring the results of close elections.[5]

Austria

[edit]

Austria enabled postal voting in 2007 by amending Article 26 of the Constitution of Austria. Electors request an electoral card that can be completed in person or in private and sent via post. In the 2017 election, roughly 780,000 postal ballots were cast representing 15% of all ballots.[10] In 2019, this number has increased to 1,070,000.[11]

Canada

[edit]

The ability to vote when in-person voting is not possible was first introduced with the federal Military Voters Act in 1917, giving all Canadian soldiers and their spouses the right to vote. Public servants became eligible in 1970. The right was further extended to civilian support personnel on Canadian Forces bases in the 1977. In 1993, Bill C-114 extended the special ballot vote (Special Voting Rules) by mail to all Canadian citizens.[12]

Use of special voting rules, including mail voting, has grown with each election. In the 42nd general election (2015), the number of voters increased by 117 percent over the previous election to roughly 619,000.[13] This number grew to roughly 660,000 in the 43rd election (2019) representing 3.6 percent of electors.[14]

Czechia

[edit]

Postal voting was introduced to Czechia in 2024 via act nom. 268/2024 of Civil Code.[15] Electors can request voting materials on diplomatic missions abroad. First elections where the postal voting was conducted are The 2025 Parliamentary Elections.[16]

Czech citizens living abroad are allowed to use postal vote in Elections to the Chamber of Deputies, Presidential elections and European Parliamentary Elections.[17]

Denmark

[edit]

In Denmark, the term "brevstemme" literally means postal voting and refers to a possibility of voting in advance in a different municipality than the home municipality, and then the vote is sent by post to the home municipality for counting.[18]

Finland

[edit]

Finland introduced vote by post in 2019 for eligible voters living permanently abroad and eligible voters staying abroad at the time of the elections.[19]

France

[edit]

Postal voting existed in France until 1975, when it was banned (except in very limited circumstances) due to fears of voter fraud.[20] The highly publicized use of widespread postal voting in the 2020 United States presidential election has reignited debate in France about the use of postal voting, but no consensus or concrete plans exist for reintroducing it.

Germany

[edit]

Postal voting is common in Germany, with almost 18.5 million voters, 37% of the electorate, voting by post in the 2025 federal election.[21] Absentee voting has existed in Germany since 1957, originally in order to ensure that all German citizens, especially the old, sick, and disabled, and citizens living abroad, have the opportunity to participate in elections. At first, postal voters had to state why they could not cast their vote in person on Election Day; but this requirement was dropped in 2008, allowing everyone to use postal voting. Like in many other countries, in more recent years voting by mail has become increasingly popular among younger and non-disabled citizens residing within the country; as such, various tools Archived 2021-03-10 at the Wayback Machine are being developed to help citizens, both domestic and abroad, more easily apply for postal voting.[citation needed]

Greece

[edit]

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced that postal voting will be used in the European Parliament Elections on June 9, 2024. He also said that the adoption of this option in European Parliament elections serves as a precursor to its implementation in national elections, which will be held in 2027[22]

Hungary

[edit]

Hungarian citizens living abroad who do not have an official address in Hungary are allowed to vote by mail.[23] They are only allowed to vote for party lists, but not for local representatives.[24] In the last parliamentary election in 2018, 267,233 votes (4.6% of all votes) were submitted via mail. 48% of all valid postal votes were submitted from Romania.[25][26]

India

[edit]

Postal voting in India is done only through the Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot Papers (ETPB) system of Election Commission of India, where ballot papers are distributed to the registered eligible voters and they return the votes by post. When the counting of votes commences, these postal votes are counted first before the counting of votes from the electronic voting machines of all other voters. Only certain categories of people are eligible to register as postal voters. People working in the union armed forces and state police as well as their wives, and employees working for the Government of India who are officially posted abroad can register for the postal vote, these are also called service voters. Additionally, people in preventive detention, disabled and those above the age of 65 years old can use postal vote. Prisoners can not vote at all.[27][28][29] Media persons too have been allowed to use the postal ballot to cast their vote.[30] The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has alleged that postal ballots "will adversely effect the verifiability of a large number of voters, thus, transparency and integrity of the process", and expressed concerns with "instances of manipulation and malpractice" with postal ballots.[31][32][33]

Indonesia

[edit]
Postal voting documents sent to an Indonesian voter in the United Kingdom during the 2019 Indonesian general election

Eligible Indonesians living abroad are able to vote by mail in national elections by registering at the Indonesian overseas election commission in their country of residence. Beside presidential elections, they are also able to vote in DPR elections. All overseas Indonesian voters are included in the Jakarta 2nd constituency, which also contains Central and South Jakarta.

Italy

[edit]
Electoral package sent to an Italian voter in South America during the 2013 Italian general election

Since 2001 Italian citizens living abroad have the right to vote by mail in all referendums and national elections being held in Italy (provided they had registered their residence abroad with their relevant consulate).

Malaysia

[edit]

In Malaysia, opposition leader and former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim alleged that postal votes have been used by the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition in securing seats in certain constituencies.[34] He also said that in one particular constituency (Setiawangsa), he claimed that his Parti Keadilan Rakyat had actually won during the 2008 elections, before 14,000 postal votes came in awarding the incumbent BN parliamentarian the seat with a majority of 8,000 votes.[35] In Malaysia, only teachers, military personnel, and policemen based away from their constituencies are eligible to submit postal votes.

Mexico

[edit]
Postal ballot paper for Mexico federal election 2012

In Mexico, since the 2006 federal elections, postal voting for people living abroad has been permitted. A request can be made to the National Electoral Institute which then sends the ballots outside the country.

Norway

[edit]
Main article: Elections in Norway

Postal voting is accepted for voters who are staying abroad and are not close to a foreign station or other voting place. Voters can request ballots to be sent to them. Voters are also allowed to write their own ballots.[36]

Philippines

[edit]
Main article: Elections in the Philippines § Voting

Mail-in ballots are an option for Overseas Filipinos in select countries only. The general practise for local and overseas absentee voting in Philippine elections requires that ballots be cast in person at select polling places, such as a consulate office.

Poland

[edit]
Main article: Elections in Poland

Postal voting (głosowanie korespondencyjne) is available to all Polish citizens on demand who declare and justify their absence during an election at a designated state council, institution or government website.[37] The reason for absence comprises infirmity, disability, age (for citizens aged 60 and over), or if a person eligible to cast a ballot is currently placed under quarantine or isolation.[37]

Singapore

[edit]

Singaporean citizens living abroad may vote by post in presidential and parliamentary elections.[38]

Slovakia

[edit]

Postal voting in Slovakia was introduced in 2004.[39] Slovak citizens living or stationed abroad can use it on demand to participate in Parliamentary elections and national referendums. When using postal voting the voters abroad are assigned to special districts. One special district usually corresponds to about 4000 voters.[40]

The first elections when postal voting was conducted in Slovakia were the 2006 Parliamentary election.[39]

Spain

[edit]

In Spain, for European, regional and municipal elections, voters who will be absent from their town on election day or are ill or disabled, may request a postal vote at a post office. The application must be submitted personally or through a representative in case of illness or disability certified by a medical certificate.

Sweden

[edit]

Swedish citizens living abroad may vote by post.[41]

Switzerland

[edit]
Main article: Voting in Switzerland

Swiss federal law allows postal voting in all federal elections and referendums,[42] and all cantons also allow it for cantonal ballot issues. All voters receive their personal ballot by mail and may either cast it at a polling station or mail it back. As of 2019, approximately 90% of Swiss voters cast ballots using Remote Postal Voting.[43]

United Kingdom

[edit]
Main article: Absentee voting in the United Kingdom

Absentee voting in the United Kingdom is allowed by proxy or post (known as postal voting on demand) for any elector. Postal voting does not require a reason,[44] apart from in Northern Ireland, where postal voting is available only if it would be unreasonable to expect a voter to go to a polling station on polling day as a result of employment, disability or education restrictions. Postal voting is common in the United Kingdom; 8.4 million postal votes were issued, 18% of the UK electorate (18.2% England, 19.4% Scotland, 19.4% Wales and 1.9% N.Ireland) in the 2017 general election.[45]

Proxy voting is allowed for people who will be away, working, or medically disabled,[46] anyone eligible to vote in the election may be a proxy for close relatives and two unrelated people.[47] The proxy voter for an elector can also be a postal voter, known as Postal Proxy voting.[48] If a person becomes unable to vote in person within 6 days of an election, including up to 5pm on the polling day, they can apply for another person to vote on their behalf as an emergency proxy.[49]

Postal voting in the UK has been (allegedly)[who?] subject to fraud, undue influence, theft and tampering; other forms of voting have also been subject to fraud. The number of cases reported to or by the Electoral Commission however is low.[50] "[T]hese concerns need to be balanced by the fact that it is entirely legitimate for political parties to encourage electors to vote, be it in person or by post".[51]

United States

[edit]
No-excuse postal voting.[52][53][54]
  All-mail voting
  No-excuse absentee voting
  Excuse-needed absentee voting
California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking about his decision to sign an executive order which would have every registered voter in California mailed a ballot
Main article: Postal voting in the United States

In the United States, postal voting (commonly referred to as mail-in voting, vote-by-mail or vote from home[55]) is a process in which a ballot is mailed to the home of a registered voter, who fills it out and returns it via postal mail or by dropping it off in-person at a voting center or into a secure drop box. Deadlines are set under state law, with some states requiring ballots be received by election day and others allowing ballots to be received after election day so long as they are postmarked by election day.[56] Vote-by-mail is available in both Republican and Democratic states,[2] with research showing that the availability of postal voting increases voter turnout.[3][2][1] Five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington—hold elections almost entirely by mail.[57]

It has been argued that postal voting has a greater risk of fraud than in-person voting, though there are few known instances of such fraud.[58] Mail-in ballots pose other challenges, including signature verification,[59] prompt delivery of ballots,[60] and issues that have led to evidence suggesting younger voters, as well as voters from racial and ethnic minorities, are more likely to have their vote-by-mail ballots rejected.[61]

In the 2016 general election, approximately 33 million postal ballots were cast, about a quarter of all ballots cast.[62] Some jurisdictions used only vote-by-mail and others used absentee voting by mail.

In April 2020, during lockdowns for the COVID-19 pandemic, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 58% of those polled would favor nationwide election reform to allow everyone to vote by mail.[63] In the November 2020 presidential election, postal voting was an encouraged voting method in many locations due to the coronavirus pandemic. A poll by Pew Research Center found that 54% of people voted in person in the 2020 election compared to 46% who voted absentee or mail in.[64] Despite the long history of postal voting and a large number of postal votes in the 2016 election, President Donald Trump has cast doubt on the integrity of unsolicited mail-in voting in the 2020 election. There is little evidence to support Trump's claim that postal voting enables widespread election fraud.[65]

Following false claim of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, Republican state lawmakers began an effort to roll back access to postal voting.[66]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Postal voting

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Postal voting, also referred to as mail-in or absentee voting by post, enables eligible voters to receive ballots through the and return them without attending a polling place, facilitating broader electoral participation for those constrained by , mobility, or scheduling. Originating in the during the Civil War to accommodate soldiers, the expanded post-World War II and has since been adopted in various forms across numerous , including all-mail systems in places like and parts of . While empirical studies indicate it can boost turnout among demographics such as the elderly and rural voters by enhancing convenience, postal voting has sparked debates over vulnerabilities like chain-of-custody lapses and potential coercion, with documented fraud instances—though prosecuted cases remain rare relative to ballots cast—raising concerns about scalability in high-volume expansions. Globally, over 50 permit some form of postal voting, but implementation varies, with safeguards like signature verification and ballot tracking aimed at mitigating risks, though critics contend that empirical fraud metrics understate undetected irregularities due to verification challenges.

History

Origins in Military and Absentee Contexts

The practice of postal voting originated primarily to enable military personnel unable to attend polling stations due to active duty, with early precedents in the United States during wartime. In 1775, during the American Revolutionary War, soldiers from Hollis, New Hampshire, had their votes counted in local elections despite their absence, representing one of the earliest recorded instances of absentee voting, though not yet standardized via mail. More formally, Pennsylvania became the first state to legalize absentee balloting in 1813, permitting military members serving in the War of 1812 to vote by mail if stationed more than two miles from their home polling place. The American Civil War marked the first widespread adoption of postal voting for soldiers, driven by the need to enfranchise over one million Union troops deployed far from home. Missouri led Union states in 1862 by granting absentee voting rights to military members, followed by 18 others, enabling approximately 150,000 soldiers to cast ballots in the 1864 presidential election, with about 78% supporting incumbent Abraham Lincoln. In the Confederacy, six of eleven states had authorized military absentee voting by the end of 1861, often through mailed or proxy methods, though implementation varied due to wartime disruptions. States like Ohio facilitated this by providing pre-printed envelopes for soldiers to return ballots, establishing procedural templates for secure transmission. Subsequent world wars accelerated military postal voting globally, with the U.S. expanding access further. By World War I, 45 of 48 states permitted absentee voting for soldiers, reflecting broad acceptance of mail-in methods honed during the Civil War. The 1942 Soldier Voting Act formalized federal support for overseas military ballots, leading to over 3.2 million cast in the 1944 election across all states, underscoring the system's scalability for absentee service members. These military contexts laid the groundwork for broader absentee applications, initially limited to excused civilians such as those ill, traveling, or residing remotely, with states like Vermont pioneering civilian mail voting in 1896 under strict conditions.

Expansion to Broader Civilian Use

Following initial implementations for military personnel during conflicts such as the American Civil War and World War I, postal voting provisions began extending to select civilian populations in the late 19th century, primarily for individuals unable to attend polling stations due to illness, physical disability, or unavoidable business travel. In the United States, Vermont enacted the first such law in 1896, allowing absentee ballots via mail for voters confined by sickness or absent on election day for occupational reasons. Similar excuse-based expansions occurred in other U.S. states by the early 20th century, though usage remained limited and required notarized affidavits or witness signatures to verify eligibility. By the mid-20th century, broader civilian access emerged, driven by recognition of barriers for elderly, disabled, and rural voters, as well as administrative experiments. Washington state authorized all-mail elections for small jurisdictions in 1933, marking an early shift toward procedural flexibility without strict excuses. In the United Kingdom, postal voting, initially for absent seamen and soldiers under the 1918 Representation of the People Act, extended to civilians with specific justifications like infirmity by the 1940s, though it required medical certification until reforms in the late 20th century. Australia similarly permitted postal ballots for civilians unable to reach polling places due to distance or illness from the 1920s onward, aligning with its compulsory voting system to accommodate remote voters without mandating in-person attendance. Significant accelerated from the , with many jurisdictions eliminating requirements to enhance . In the U.S., states increasingly adopted "no-excuse" absentee voting, rising from a handful in to 27 by , facilitating mail-in participation for any registered voter. The removed the need for stated reasons in , postal vote applications on demand and boosting usage to over 20% of ballots in subsequent elections. formalized postal voting options by the , allowing any elector to apply without justification, though it emphasized safeguards like declaration envelopes to maintain integrity amid growing demand from overseas and interstate travelers. These changes reflected empirical pressures from demographic shifts—such as aging populations—and logistical efficiencies, though they also introduced debates over verification rigor compared to in-person voting. ![No-excuse postal voting map of the US][float-right]

Key Milestones in Major Countries

United States
Postal voting in the United States began during the Civil War, with excuse-required absentee voting laws enacted in 1864 for Union soldiers unable to return home, allowing ballots to be cast and mailed from the front lines. By World War II, every state permitted military personnel to vote absentee, facilitating the casting of approximately 3.2 million such ballots, which represented a substantial portion of military participation. Civilian access expanded gradually; starting in the 1980s, numerous states relaxed restrictions on issuing absentee ballots to non-military voters, shifting from strict excuse requirements toward broader eligibility without mandating proof of hardship. United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, postal voting initially required voters to demonstrate inability to attend polling stations, with provisions dating back to provisions for absentees. A pivotal expansion occurred with the Representation of the People Act 2000, which took effect in February 2001 and eliminated the need for a stated reason to apply for a postal vote in Great Britain, enabling on-demand access and contributing to higher usage rates among applicants compared to in-person voters. Germany
Postal voting was formally introduced in Germany for the 1957 Bundestag elections to uphold the principle of universal suffrage, allowing eligible voters unable to attend polling stations to receive and return ballots by mail. Initial participation stood at around 5% of total votes, but it has since grown steadily, approaching 30% in recent federal elections due to increasing convenience and no-excuse eligibility for those aged 18 and over.

Mechanics and Procedures

Ballot Distribution and Eligibility Requirements

In postal voting systems, eligibility generally requires voters to be registered electors who meet jurisdiction-specific criteria, often centered on inability to vote in person due to absence, disability, or other impediments, though some jurisdictions allow applications without justification. Ballots are typically distributed via mail only after an application is submitted and approved by election authorities, ensuring targeted issuance rather than universal automatic mailing in most cases; applicants must usually provide personal details for verification against voter rolls. Distribution processes prioritize secure postal handling, with ballots packaged alongside instructions, envelopes, and sometimes declaration forms, mailed from official election offices to the voter's registered address. In the United States, eligibility for absentee or mail-in ballots varies by state, with no uniform federal standard beyond the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, which mandates accommodations for military and overseas voters. As of 2024, eight states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington—conduct all-mail elections, automatically mailing ballots to all registered voters without application, while 16 states plus the District of Columbia offer permanent absentee lists for automatic distribution upon opt-in. In the 27 states requiring an excuse, common qualifications include age 65 or older, disability, expected childbirth, or absence from the jurisdiction on election day, as in Texas where voters must attest to one of these under penalty of perjury. Applications are submitted to county clerks or state election offices, often online or by mail, with approved ballots then mailed out, typically 7-45 days before election day depending on state law; the U.S. Postal Service facilitates delivery but does not process requests. In the United Kingdom, any registered elector aged 18 or over on polling day is eligible to apply for a postal vote without providing a reason, following the Elections Act 2022 which eliminated prior restrictions but introduced reapplication requirements every three years for parliamentary elections. Applications must be submitted to local electoral registration offices by 5 p.m. 11 working days before the election, via online portals or paper forms, with voters declaring their identity and address for verification. Upon approval, a postal voting pack—including ballot paper, declaration form, and pre-paid return envelope—is mailed to the applicant approximately one week before polling day, allowing completion and return by post or in person. Australia's federal system permits any enrolled voter to apply for a postal vote if unable to attend a polling place on election day, such as due to travel, illness, or remoteness, with no excuse required; general postal voters, including those over 70 or with ongoing barriers, can register for automatic ballot forwarding in future elections. Applications open upon issuance of the writ for an election and must reach the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) by 6 p.m. on the Friday before polling day, submitted online, by phone, or mail with proof of identity for first-time applicants. Approved postal vote packs, containing ballot papers and a certificate envelope, are mailed from AEC facilities, with voters instructed to complete and return them by election day close. In Canada, eligibility for mail-in voting through requires applicants to be Canadian citizens aged 18 or older on , with no residency-based needed, though it is promoted for those abroad, incarcerated, or otherwise unable to reach polling stations. Voters , by , or phone before deadlines—typically 6 p.m. ET seven days before election day—with special provisions for international voters via the International Register of Electors. Upon verification against the National Register of Electors, a voting kit with , inner and outer envelopes, and instructions is mailed, often with tracked delivery options for overseas applicants, and must be returned to receive vote validity. Provincial variations exist, such as Ontario's absentee voter registry for temporary out-of-province residents.

Verification, Signature Matching, and Counting

Verification of postal ballots typically involves multiple steps to authenticate the voter's identity and the ballot's before . Election officials first confirm that the ballot was issued to an eligible voter by cross-referencing the return envelope's or voter ID number against registration . A primary safeguard is verification, where the provided on the ballot's return envelope or affidavit is compared to the on file from the voter's registration application or prior . This is mandated in numerous jurisdictions, including 32 U.S. states that require election workers to perform such comparisons, often supplemented by requirements for witnesses, notaries, or unique identifiers. Signature matching relies on trained personnel evaluating key features like slant, pressure, proportions, and individual letter formations between the submitted and reference signatures. Automated software may assist in initial screening in some systems, flagging potential mismatches for human review, but final decisions remain manual to account for natural variations in handwriting over time or due to conditions like age or disability. Empirical studies reveal inconsistencies in this method, with rejection rates for signature mismatches ranging from 0.15% to 2.5% across U.S. elections, often resulting in tens of thousands of ballots discarded annually; for instance, a 2024 analysis found that worker calibration errors contributed to over-rejections, particularly affecting voters with disabilities or non-standard signatures. Cure processes allow voters to contest rejections by providing additional verification, such as a renewed signature sample, within specified deadlines, though participation rates vary and can disenfranchise voters who fail to respond. Following successful verification, counting commences with the separation of the ballot from its envelope to maintain voter secrecy, followed by a review for overvotes, undervotes, or alterations. Valid ballots are then processed through optical scanners or hand-counted in smaller jurisdictions, with safeguards like bipartisan teams observing the opening and tabulation to prevent tampering. Duplication procedures handle damaged or unreadable ballots by creating identical copies under witnessed conditions, ensuring chain-of-custody logs track materials throughout. While these steps incorporate redundancies such as pre- and post-count audits, vulnerabilities persist if initial verification fails, as rejected ballots are not recounted absent legal challenges, underscoring the causal importance of robust signature protocols in preventing both erroneous inclusions and exclusions.

Variations in Safeguards Across Systems

In the United States, safeguards for postal (or mail-in) ballots vary substantially by state, reflecting decentralized election administration. All 50 states and the District of Columbia require voters to sign an affidavit or declaration on the ballot return envelope, with officials comparing this signature to the one on file in voter registration records. However, the rigor of signature matching differs: states like Georgia and Texas employ trained teams for detailed comparisons, often with bipartisan review and opportunities for voters to "cure" mismatches through additional verification, while others, such as California, apply less stringent thresholds, leading to higher acceptance rates but potential vulnerabilities to forgery. Approximately 14 states, including Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia, additionally mandate a witness signature—typically from a non-relative adult—or notarization to attest to the voter's identity and voluntary casting, providing an extra layer against coercion or impersonation. Notarization, though rarer (e.g., in Louisiana and Missouri), involves a commissioned officer verifying identity via ID, further elevating safeguards in those jurisdictions. Internationally, postal voting safeguards often emphasize restricted eligibility and oversight, contrasting with the broader "no-excuse" access in many U.S. states. In , where postal voting is available to any elector but under mandatory voting laws, ballots must be accompanied by a declaration signed before an authorized witness—such as a justice of the peace, , or practitioner—who confirms the voter's identity and that the ballot was marked privately, without viewing the vote itself; this witness , enforced by the Electoral Commission, aims to prevent fraud while maintaining secrecy. The United Kingdom requires postal voters to provide a signature and date on the voting statement, which election officials verify against electoral register records prior to opening envelopes, with mismatches leading to rejection unless resolved; this personal identifier system, updated in recent elections, applies universally to postal votes and has rejected thousands annually for discrepancies. Germany's federal postal voting, open to all but used heavily (around 30-40% in recent Bundestag elections), relies on a self-sealed returned with a signed identity , without mandatory witnesses or matching; verification occurs at centralized centers where officials check the against voter rolls, though analyses highlight risks in chain-of-custody to marking and postal transit, mitigated by legal penalties for tampering. In Canada, mail-in (special ballot) voting is confined to specific absences like travel or illness, requiring photocopies of government-issued ID or two pieces of alternative identification, plus a solemn oath; ballots are secured via tracked mail and verified against voter lists before , limiting scale compared to U.S. universal options. These variations underscore causal trade-offs: U.S. state-level flexibility enhances accessibility but invites criticism for inconsistent enforcement, as evidenced by disparate rejection rates (0.5-2% for signatures in 2020), whereas international systems prioritize uniform, witness- or ID-based controls for narrower applications, reducing exposure to coercion or harvesting risks at the cost of lower uptake. Empirical reviews, such as those from the National Conference of State Legislatures, indicate that while fraud remains rare across systems, weaker verification correlates with higher dispute potential in high-volume environments.
JurisdictionKey Verification MethodsAdditional SafeguardsScope of Availability
U.S. (varying states)Voter signature match to recordsWitness/notary in ~14 states; cure processesNo-excuse in 8 states + D.C.; excuse-required elsewhere
AustraliaWitnessed declarationAuthorized witness verifies ID, not voteAll voters, but mandatory voting context
UKSignature/date match to registerPre-opening verification; photo ID for in-personAll voters
GermanyIdentity declaration checkCentralized return and countingAll voters
CanadaID copies + oathSpecial ballot for absentees onlyLimited to justified cases

Advantages and Benefits

Accessibility for Remote, Disabled, and Elderly Voters

Postal voting facilitates participation for voters residing in remote locations, such as rural areas or overseas, by eliminating the need for physical presence at polling stations. In the United States, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 mandates that states permit absentee ballots for active-duty military personnel, their dependents, and U.S. citizens residing abroad, enabling ballots to be mailed internationally. This mechanism addresses logistical barriers like deployment or expatriation, though empirical data indicate low utilization, with overseas citizen voting rates at approximately 3.4% in the 2022 general election. Similarly, rural voters benefit from reduced travel to distant polling sites, as postal systems allow ballot delivery directly to isolated addresses. For voters with disabilities, postal voting provides a critical alternative to in-person voting, circumventing barriers such as inaccessible polling places, lack of transportation, or inability to use standard voting . Approximately one-sixth of the U.S. electorate consists of voters with disabilities, many of whom rely on mail ballots to vote independently without requiring assistance that could compromise or . indicates that absentee voting promotes access for this group by allowing ballots to be marked at , though turnout remains lower than for non-disabled voters, with a persistent gap attributed partly to lingering administrative hurdles like signature verification. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize that such systems reduce the "cost of voting" for those with mobility or sensory impairments, supporting higher participation where in-person options fail. Elderly voters, often facing compounded mobility and health challenges, similarly gain from postal voting's convenience, which minimizes physical exertion and exposure risks. Historical patterns show older demographics exhibiting higher mail voting rates; for instance, in pre-2020 elections, voters aged 65 and above disproportionately used absentee options compared to younger cohorts. This accessibility contributed to sustained turnout among seniors during the 2020 election amid pandemic concerns, where mail ballots comprised a significant share of votes from this group. Empirical studies on convenience voting reforms, including no-excuse absentee systems, document modest turnout increases—around 2-3% in all-mail jurisdictions—particularly benefiting older and infirm voters by aligning election access with their constraints. However, efficacy depends on reliable postal infrastructure, as delays can disenfranchise timely returns.

Potential Impacts on Voter Turnout

Postal voting offers convenience by enabling voters to complete and return ballots remotely, potentially reducing barriers such as travel, work conflicts, or polling place access, which may elevate participation rates among groups facing these obstacles. Empirical analyses of universal vote-by-mail systems, where ballots are automatically mailed to all registered voters, indicate modest overall turnout gains of approximately 2 percentage points, driven primarily by mobilizing infrequent or marginal voters rather than shifting high-propensity participants. In states adopting mandatory or universal postal voting, such as Oregon following its 1998 statewide implementation for federal elections, turnout has consistently exceeded national averages; for instance, Oregon recorded the highest U.S. voter turnout rate in the 2022 midterm elections at around 61.5% of eligible voters, compared to the national figure of about 47%. Similar patterns appear in other all-mail jurisdictions like Colorado and Washington, where automatic ballot delivery correlates with sustained higher participation, particularly in off-year and primary elections. The mechanism appears causal through lowered costs of voting, with natural experiments showing stronger effects among demographics like the elderly, rural , and low-turnout individuals who might otherwise abstain due to inconvenience. However, optional expansions of absentee or postal options, without universal distribution, often yield negligible aggregate increases, as they primarily facilitate existing voters rather than recruit new ones. International evidence is sparser but aligns in contexts like postal pilots, where prepaid options or streamlined processes have boosted local turnout by 3-8% in targeted trials, though effects diminish in systems with already high baseline participation.

Administrative Efficiencies

Postal voting systems, particularly when implemented on a large scale such as in all-mail jurisdictions, can yield administrative efficiencies by centralizing ballot processing and diminishing reliance on decentralized polling infrastructure. This approach eliminates the need for numerous temporary polling sites, associated rentals, and recruitment of election-day poll workers, allowing officials to allocate resources toward ongoing verification and tabulation tasks spread over weeks rather than a single high-pressure day. In Colorado, the shift to all-mail balloting for the 2010 general election reduced average administrative costs per registered voter by approximately 19%, from $6.70 under a hybrid system (including polling places and absentee options) to $5.65. These savings stemmed largely from decreased labor expenditures, as trained permanent staff handled ballot processing over an extended period instead of hiring temporary workers for Election Day operations. A survey of county clerks confirmed that all-mail systems lowered overtime for permanent employees and obviated the costs of site setup and management. Comparable efficiencies have been reported in other all-mail states like Oregon and Washington, where the absence of polling places has historically lowered per-ballot costs through streamlined logistics, though exact figures vary by election cycle and scale. For instance, early implementations in Oregon demonstrated postal ballot costs around $1.24 per ballot versus $4.33 for in-person equivalents, attributable to bulk printing, mailing automation, and centralized counting facilities. However, expansions in postal voting within mixed systems can introduce countervailing costs, such as additional postage, specialized scanning equipment, and signature verification protocols, which may offset some savings without full elimination of in-person options. Overall, these efficiencies enable election administrators to manage higher volumes of ballots with predictable workflows, including pre-election processing like envelope opening and barcode scanning, reducing Election Day bottlenecks and enhancing operational predictability. Jurisdictions with mature postal systems, such as Colorado post-2013 reforms, have leveraged this to maintain high throughput while minimizing peak-day staffing surges.

Risks, Criticisms, and Security Concerns

Vulnerabilities to Fraud and Forgery

Postal voting systems are inherently susceptible to because ballots are completed and returned without direct oversight from election officials, relying instead on self-reported voter eligibility and verification that can be circumvented through or access to prior samples. Unlike in-person voting, which involves immediate identity checks and witnessed marking, postal ballots traverse unsecured mail channels where they can be intercepted, altered, or fabricated entirely, with facilitated by the absence of biometric or real-time . matching, a primary safeguard in many jurisdictions, has been criticized for inconsistent application; studies indicate error rates in verification exceeding 2-3% in some states due to subjective human judgment, enabling forged ballots to pass undetected if the forger practices replication. Empirical evidence of forgery includes cases where individuals completed and signed ballots for deceased or unwitting voters. In North Carolina's 9th congressional district election on November 6, 2018, operative McCrae Dowless orchestrated a scheme involving the collection and submission of absentee ballots with forged or unauthorized markings, affecting hundreds of votes; Dowless pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, perjury, and ballot fraud on June 21, 2021, leading the state Board of Elections to invalidate the results and order a new election on September 10, 2019. Similarly, in Paterson, New Jersey's May 12, 2020, city council election, over 1,000 absentee ballots—nearly 20% of those cast—were flagged for irregularities, including forgery and unauthorized submissions by campaign workers; a judge invalidated the outcome on August 19, 2020, after evidence showed council candidates personally collecting and tampering with ballots, prompting fraud charges against elected officials. The Heritage Foundation's database documents over 200 proven instances of absentee or mail-in ballot fraud since 2000, including forgery, such as a 2023 federal conviction of a New York woman for submitting dozens of falsified absentee ballots on behalf of others, and a 2022 North Carolina case where Jessica Dowless admitted to fraudulent absentee use. While aggregate fraud rates remain low—estimated at 0.00025% to 0.0025% of mail ballots in audited states—research modeling transitions to universal mail voting shows a statistically significant uptick in reported fraud cases, from 14.4 per year pre-adoption to higher post, attributable to expanded opportunities for forgery amid weaker chain-of-custody controls. Detection lags exacerbate risks, as many forgeries surface only through post-election audits or whistleblowers, potentially allowing outcome-altering insertions in tight races without systemic safeguards like mandatory video surveillance or cryptographic seals.

Issues of Coercion, Harvesting, and Chain-of-Custody

Postal voting systems, by delivering ballots to voters' homes, heighten risks of coercion, as individuals may face undue pressure from family members, caregivers, or employers to vote in a specific manner without the privacy safeguards of in-person polling. Unlike supervised polling environments, where ballots are marked in secret booths under neutral observation, postal ballots are completed in uncontrolled private settings, enabling subtle or overt influence that compromises voter autonomy. Studies and analyses have documented this vulnerability, noting that absentee and mail-in formats facilitate coercion through observable vote demonstration or direct intervention, particularly among dependent populations such as the elderly or those in institutional care. For instance, in long-term care facilities, residents may yield to staff or relatives exerting influence over ballot completion, as evidenced by advocacy efforts highlighting vote theft and suppression risks in these settings. Ballot harvesting, the practice where third parties collect and submit multiple completed postal ballots on behalf of voters, amplifies coercion risks by introducing intermediaries who can pressure or manipulate participants during the collection process. Legalized in jurisdictions like California since 2016 and parts of North Carolina post-2018, harvesting lacks uniform oversight, allowing collectors to potentially alter votes, discard unfavorable ones, or coerce voters under the guise of assistance. Notable scandals illustrate these dangers: in Paterson, New Jersey's 2020 city council election, widespread harvesting led to the invalidation of over 1,900 ballots after evidence of fraudulent submissions, including mismatched signatures and coerced collections, prompted a redo of the vote. Similarly, a 2022 Staten Island grand jury investigation uncovered multiple instances of illegal harvesting in a New York City Council race, involving unauthorized collections and submissions that violated state law. Federal prosecutions, such as the 2020 charges against former U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar's associates for stuffing absentee ballot boxes through organized harvesting schemes, underscore how this method enables coordinated influence operations. Chain-of-custody concerns in postal voting arise from the absence of continuous tracking once ballots leave the voter's possession, exposing them to interception, tampering, or loss during transit through postal services or drop-off points. In contrast to in-person voting, where officials directly oversee ballot handling from marking to tabulation, mail-in ballots rely on self-sealing envelopes and signature verification upon receipt, but intermediaries like postal workers or harvesters introduce unverifiable handling gaps. Vulnerabilities include forged submissions or bulk mishandling, as seen in a 2025 Maine incident where hundreds of blank ballots were discovered in an Amazon delivery package, raising alarms about unsecured distribution chains. Election fraud databases document cases where broken custody enabled absentee ballot alterations, such as unauthorized completions or thefts, with over 1,400 proven instances tracked since 1982, many involving mail formats due to their decentralized nature. Critics, including policy analyses, argue that these systemic weaknesses—lacking bipartisan witnessing or real-time logs—facilitate undetected interference, though proponents cite procedural logs and audits as mitigations, albeit without empirical proof of eliminating risks.

Rejection Rates and Voter Errors

In the United States, postal ballot rejection rates have historically ranged from 0.8% to 1.5% of cast ballots, with primary causes including late receipt, mismatched or missing signatures, and procedural errors such as using the wrong envelope or failing to include required secrecy sleeves. During the 2020 presidential election, approximately 69.9 million absentee and mail-in ballots were cast, of which 560,177—or 0.8%—were rejected, a decrease from the 1.4% rate in the 2018 midterms and 1.0% in 2016, despite a 131% surge in mail voting volume amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This decline was attributed to expanded voter education efforts, prepaid postage in more states, and ballot curing processes allowing voters to correct deficiencies like missing signatures before final rejection deadlines. Voter errors contributing to rejections often stem from unfamiliarity with multi-step processes, such as failing to sign envelopes, postmarking ballots too late due to postal delays, or omitting inner envelopes that preserve ballot secrecy. In primaries earlier in 2020, over 50,000 ballots were rejected nationwide for tardiness alone, with states like Pennsylvania and Michigan reporting rates exceeding 1% due to strict postmark cutoffs. Signature verification failures, which reject ballots when handwritten signatures do not match registration records, accounted for up to 40% of rejections in some jurisdictions, though error rates in verification can reach 5-10% even among trained officials due to subjective matching criteria. By 2022 midterms, rejection rates stabilized at 1.5% for 549,824 of roughly 36 million mail ballots, mirroring pre-pandemic levels and indicating that procedural safeguards, while reducing invalid votes, still result in disenfranchisement of compliant voters affected by timing or clerical mistakes. State variations highlight systemic differences: low-rejection states like Oregon (0.3-0.5% in all-mail systems) benefit from universal experience and automated tracking, while higher rates in Pennsylvania (1.5% in 2020) reflect stricter deadlines and less curing access. Internationally, data is sparser, but jurisdictions like the United Kingdom report postal rejection rates below 1% in general elections, often due to similar errors, with emphasis on pre-election guidance to mitigate issues. These patterns underscore that while rejection rates remain low relative to total volume—suggesting effective error detection—voter errors disproportionately affect first-time mail users and underscore the trade-off between accessibility and procedural rigor in postal systems.

Empirical Evidence and Studies

Effects on Election Outcomes and Partisanship

Empirical analyses of universal vote-by-mail systems in U.S. states such as California, Utah, and Washington, which adopted the policy in a staggered manner between 1996 and 2018, indicate no substantial impact on partisan composition of turnout or Democratic vote shares. Using difference-in-differences designs on county-level election data and voter files encompassing millions of records, researchers estimated that universal vote-by-mail raised overall turnout by approximately 2 percentage points but produced negligible shifts in the Democratic share of voters (0.1% to 0.7%) or vote margins, with effects attenuated to null after accounting for trends. Similar findings emerge from mandatory vote-by-mail implementations, showing turnout gains of 1.8 to 2.9 percentage points without statistically significant changes in Democratic vote share (estimated at 0.7 percentage points, 95% CI: -0.7 to 2). While aggregate outcomes display partisan neutrality, individual-level usage patterns reveal differences, particularly in non-universal systems. In the 2020 U.S. election, 58% of Democratic voters utilized mail-in ballots compared to 29% of Republicans, a divide influenced by state policies on ballot requests and partisan messaging. However, expansions of no-excuse absentee voting did not yield disproportionate Democratic turnout gains relative to Republicans, as evidenced by regression discontinuity analyses around age eligibility thresholds. By 2024, Republican adoption of mail voting increased substantially, narrowing the gap and contributing to competitive outcomes without systematic shifts favoring either party. Internationally, data on postal voting's partisan effects remain sparse but align with U.S. patterns of demographic rather than ideological bias. In the UK, postal voters tend to be older, female, and higher socioeconomic status—groups not uniformly aligned with one major party—though convenience facilitates participation among less mobile conservatives in rural areas. All-postal local elections in Britain during the early 2000s showed turnout boosts without evidence of partisan skew in results, though methodological challenges in isolating causality persist due to concurrent reforms. Studies emphasize that while postal voting mobilizes infrequent voters, who may lean left in urban contexts, overall election outcomes reflect baseline partisan distributions rather than method-induced advantages. Limitations in existing research include reliance on pre-pandemic data and focus on universal systems, potentially underestimating effects in opt-in absentee frameworks where self-selection amplifies partisan sorting.

Quantified Fraud Incidence and Detection Challenges

Detected instances of postal voting fraud, based on prosecuted cases, remain exceedingly rare relative to the scale of ballots processed. The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Database documents over 1,400 proven election fraud convictions across the United States since the 1980s, with fraudulent use of absentee or mail-in ballots comprising a notable subset—approximately 300-400 cases involving forgery, coercion, or unauthorized submissions. In context, this equates to a detected fraud rate below 0.0001%, or fewer than one fraudulent ballot per million cast, as corroborated by analyses of billions of postal ballots handled over decades. A comprehensive review of cases from 2000 to 2012 identified only 491 instances of absentee ballot fraud nationwide, underscoring the infrequency of substantiated violations amid expanding postal voting adoption. Detection challenges arise primarily from the decentralized, nature of postal systems, which complicate real-time verification and oversight compared to in-person voting. Without witnessed ballot submission, forms of abuse such as family coercion, paid harvesting, or organized forgery evade immediate scrutiny, often surfacing only through post-election audits or whistleblower reports. Signature verification, employed in most U.S. states as a core safeguard, introduces subjective errors; research indicates mismatch rejection rates of 1-2% or higher for returned ballots, with some legitimate votes discarded due to aging signatures or inconsistent handwriting, while forged ones may slip through inconsistent training or overload. Under-detection exacerbates these issues, as fraud schemes rarely self-report and require targeted investigations to uncover, potentially masking impacts on close races. A 2020 statistical analysis of state transitions to expanded mail voting found no aggregate increase in reported fraud cases per million voters, but the study's reliance on official records highlights limitations in passive detection methods. Critics of low-fraud narratives, including analyses from conservative-leaning sources, contend that prosecutorial thresholds and resource constraints yield only the "tip of the iceberg," with historical examples like the 2018 North Carolina congressional race—overturned due to undetected absentee ballot tampering—illustrating latent vulnerabilities. Multi-layered safeguards, such as barcode tracking and voter ID cross-checks, mitigate risks but cannot eliminate opportunities for exploitation in high-volume systems.

Comparative Turnout and Integrity Data

Empirical analyses of postal voting's impact on turnout reveal modest or negligible net increases, often attributable to convenience substitution rather than broad mobilization. In the United States, staggered implementation of all-mail elections in Washington state counties from 1993 to 2005 raised turnout by 2 to 7 percentage points in local elections relative to in-person baselines, primarily benefiting infrequent voters. However, a design-based evaluation across multiple universal vote-by-mail adoptions found no discernible effect on aggregate turnout or partisan vote shares, suggesting expansions primarily shift existing voters from in-person to mail without expanding the electorate. Similar patterns hold in Oregon, where all-mail since 1998 correlated with turnout rates of 70-80% in recent cycles, exceeding national averages but not isolating causal gains beyond baseline trends. Internationally, optional postal voting in systems like Australia's—where it accounts for 8-10% of ballots amid compulsory participation—supports overall turnout above 89%, though this stems predominantly from legal mandates rather than postal access alone. In Canada, postal and special ballots comprise under 5% of votes, with national turnout hovering at 62-67% in recent federal elections, showing no pronounced uplift from availability. The United Kingdom's expansion of postal voting to over 20% of ballots in 2019 yielded a 59% turnout, comparable to prior in-person-dominant cycles and below peer democracies with limited postal options. Cross-national data indicate postal facilitation aids remote voters but yields diminishing returns in high-access environments, with turnout variations more tied to compulsory laws, registration ease, and election salience than modality alone. Regarding integrity, detected fraud rates in postal systems remain below 0.0001% of ballots cast, akin to or lower than in-person voting, per state-level transitions in the U.S. from 2000-2018, where vote-by-mail adoptions showed no elevation in prosecuted irregularities after controlling for reporting biases. Australia's Electoral Commission reported 14 postal fraud convictions from 2013-2016 across millions of ballots, emphasizing signature verification and declaration requirements as deterrents, with no systemic integrity breaches altering outcomes. In Canada, Elections Canada audits reveal isolated postal forgeries (e.g., fewer than 100 annually in recent elections), mitigated by secure drop-off protocols and cross-checks, maintaining rejection rates under 1%. UK data from 2019 indicate postal rejection rates of 1-2% due to errors or mismatches, with fraud prosecutions numbering in the dozens amid 9 million postal votes, though critics highlight chain-of-custody gaps in unsupervised environments.
JurisdictionPostal Ballot ShareRecent Turnout (%)Reported Postal Fraud Rate
U.S. (All-Mail States, e.g., OR/WA)80-100%70-80<0.0001%
Australia8-10%89-91~0.00004% (2013-2016)
Canada<5%62-67<0.001%
UK20-25%59-67~0.0001-0.001%
These figures underscore postal voting's administrative viability under verification safeguards but reveal persistent challenges in quantifying undetected anomalies, as postal ballots lack real-time oversight inherent to in-person polling. Jurisdictions with universal mailing, like select U.S. states, report comparable integrity metrics to optional systems, yet expanded handling volumes amplify coercion risks in areas with ballot harvesting, as noted in California audits post-2018.

All-Postal Voting Systems

Implementation in Select Jurisdictions

In Oregon, universal vote-by-mail was enacted via Ballot Measure 60, approved by 69% of voters on November 3, 1998, authorizing the state to conduct all elections by mail without requiring an excuse for absentee participation. This followed pilots dating to 1981 and legislative expansions in 1995, with full implementation for the 2000 general election, marking the first U.S. presidential contest decided entirely by mail. Ballots are mailed automatically to all registered voters 18 to 28 days prior to election day, enclosed in secrecy and signed return envelopes; voters mark and return them via U.S. Postal Service or designated drop boxes, with optional limited in-person voting at county elections offices for accessibility or replacement ballots. Upon receipt, county clerks verify signatures against voter registration records before processing, rejecting approximately 0.5-1% of ballots annually for mismatches or other errors. Colorado adopted all-mail voting through House Bill 13-1303, signed May 8, 2013, with rollout for the June 2014 primary; ballots are proactively mailed to all active registered voters starting 15 days before election day. Voters return completed ballots by mail, drop box, or in person at voter service and polling centers open during early voting periods and on election day, where they can also obtain replacements or assistance. The system emphasizes signature verification, with clerks comparing returns to registration files; in 2020, over 90% of ballots were returned by mail or drop box, and rejection rates hovered below 1% due to cure processes allowing voters to correct discrepancies. New Zealand's local government elections, conducted triennially for councils and mayors, operate under an all-postal system established by the Local Electoral Act 2001, with voting packs mailed to enrolled electors by August 1 deadlines. The voting period spans roughly four weeks from early September to midday October 12 (for 2025 elections), during which voters receive personalized ballot papers, mark preferences, seal them in provided envelopes, and return via freepost mail or drop-off at public sites like libraries and council offices—no traditional polling stations are used. Electoral officers, appointed by local authorities, oversee printing and distribution, targeting delivery in the first week of voting; returns undergo eligibility checks, with invalidations for non-enrollment or procedural errors, though freepost ensures no direct postage costs to voters. Turnout in the 2022 cycle reached 36.9%, the lowest since 1989, prompting debates on potential shifts to hybrid models.

Evaluated Outcomes and Adjustments

In the United Kingdom, all-postal voting pilots conducted in select local elections between 2000 and 2004 demonstrated significant turnout increases, ranging from 7% to 40% compared to traditional polling, according to evaluations by the Electoral Commission. However, these pilots revealed vulnerabilities, including documented cases of fraud such as the 2004 Birmingham scandal involving organized forgery of thousands of ballots, prompting adjustments like the abandonment of routine all-postal schemes and the introduction of stricter safeguards, including household-to-individual electoral registration by 2015 and voter ID pilots from 2018 onward. Detected fraud remained low overall, with only isolated convictions, but concerns over coercion and verification gaps led to hybrid models favoring in-person options where feasible. New Zealand's local elections, conducted primarily via postal ballots since the 1989 reforms, have yielded turnout rates typically between 30% and 45%, lower than national elections, with a 2022 Auckland evaluation attributing stagnation to voter disengagement rather than method alone. Fraud incidence is negligible, with no systemic issues reported in official audits, yet persistent low participation prompted 2025 calls from Local Government New Zealand to replace pure postal voting with mandatory in-person booths to enhance engagement and perceived integrity. Adjustments have included expanded drop-off points and digital enrollment reminders, but core postal reliance persists amid debates over cost-effectiveness. Switzerland's federal referendums, where over 90% of votes are cast by post since the 1990s, maintain high validity rates above 95%, with empirical studies showing minimal fraud—fewer than 0.1% of ballots invalidated annually for irregularities—and no outcome-altering incidents in postal processes. Recent probes into signature forgery for referendum initiation (not ballot casting) in 2024 highlighted peripheral risks, leading to enhanced digital verification protocols without altering the postal core. Evaluations confirm sustained trust and efficiency, with adjustments limited to anti-forgery envelopes and witness attestations in cantons. Oregon's universal vote-by-mail system, implemented statewide in 2000, has consistently boosted turnout to 70-80% in general elections, a 10-15% rise from pre-reform levels, per longitudinal assessments showing no partisan skew or fraud uptick beyond 0.0001% of ballots. Post-implementation reviews identified early rejection rates of 1-2% due to signature mismatches, addressed through 2025 legislative changes mandating stricter deadlines (postmarked by Election Day) and expanded cure periods for voters to verify signatures. These refinements, alongside drop-box proliferation and audits, reduced errors while preserving accessibility, though debates continue on reverting to hybrid models amid national scrutiny.
JurisdictionKey Outcome MetricPrimary Adjustment
UK Pilots (2000-2004)Turnout +7-40%; isolated fraud casesScaled back all-postal; added ID and registration reforms
New Zealand LocalTurnout 30-45%; low fraudProposals for in-person mandates; drop-off expansions
Switzerland ReferendumsValidity >95%; fraud <0.1%Enhanced envelope security; digital checks
Oregon VBM (2000-)Turnout 70-80%; fraud ~0.0001%Signature cures; deadline enforcement

Controversies and Debates

Election Integrity Disputes

Disputes regarding the integrity of postal voting systems have intensified in jurisdictions expanding their use, particularly amid rapid policy changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, with critics arguing that mail-in ballots introduce vulnerabilities absent in supervised in-person voting, such as weakened chain-of-custody controls and limited verification mechanisms. In the United States, the 2020 presidential election saw unprecedented mail-in ballot volumes—over 65 million cast nationwide—prompting allegations from Republican officials and former President Donald Trump that the process enabled ballot harvesting, duplicate voting, and unauthorized submissions, potentially altering outcomes in key states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. These claims centered on issues like unsecured drop boxes, signature verification lapses, and late-arriving ballots postmarked before but received after Election Day, which courts in some instances ruled violated state laws, though federal and state judges dismissed over 60 related lawsuits primarily for insufficient evidence of widespread, outcome-determinative fraud. Empirical documentation of postal voting irregularities includes a database maintained by , which as of 2025 records over 1,500 proven cases since the 1980s, with absentee and mail-in ballot misuse comprising a significant portion, such as the 2022 conviction of Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos's aide for absentee ballot involving coerced signatures from . Specific incidents highlighted in disputes include the 2020 case in Paterson, New Jersey, where over 3,000 mail-in ballots from one high-density area showed improbable uniformity, leading to a state investigation and a revote after evidence of organized harvesting; similarly, in Pennsylvania, a 2020 probe uncovered schemes where individuals submitted fraudulent absentee applications for deceased voters. Detection challenges exacerbate disputes, as studies note that postal ballots are harder to audit than in-person votes due to separated transmission of ballots from voter ID, with rejection rates for invalid mail ballots averaging 0.8% in 2020 but potentially undercounting if signatures match via lax standards or harvesting evades initial checks. Internationally, similar integrity concerns have arisen in systems with routine postal voting, such as the United Kingdom's 2000s expansion, where allegations of organized fraud in postal ballots— including over 1,000 investigated cases in Birmingham's 2004 local elections involving hijacked votes from ethnic communities—led to prosecutions and a 2007 Electoral Commission report recommending tighter controls like individual voter barcodes to prevent multiple voting. In Germany, the 2021 federal election's record postal vote share of 34.7% drew far-right AfD party claims of systemic risks, including family coercion and unverifiable submissions, prompting calls for enhanced verification despite official audits finding no large-scale irregularities. These disputes underscore a recurring tension: while proven fraud incidents remain rare relative to total ballots—e.g., Heritage data shows roughly 500 absentee fraud convictions from 2000-2020 across U.S. elections—opponents argue that under-detection due to resource constraints and partisan reluctance to prosecute inflates skepticism, as evidenced by post-2020 U.S. state laws mandating voter ID for mail ballots in Georgia and stricter deadlines in Texas. Critics of expansive postal voting, including policy analyses from conservative think tanks, contend that causal risks like third-party handling enable coercion or buying, particularly in unsupervised environments, contrasting with in-person voting's real-time oversight; for instance, a 2020 sampling of cases revealed patterns of fraud in absentee applications exceeding 20% in some localized probes. Mainstream sources often emphasize minimal incidence to counter narratives of systemic failure, yet acknowledge safeguards like bipartisan ballot handling fail against insider threats, as in the 2023 DOJ conviction of a Pennsylvania woman for a scheme submitting dozens of fraudulent absentee ballots. Public trust erosion persists, with surveys post-2020 showing 30-40% of Republicans doubting mail-in integrity due to perceived biases in media and academic dismissals of vulnerabilities, fueling ongoing reforms like Arizona's 2022 hand-count audits revealing discrepancies in Maricopa County's tabulation of mail ballots.

Partisan Perspectives and Policy Shifts

In the United States, Democratic leaders and voters have generally advocated for expanding postal voting to enhance accessibility and increase turnout, particularly among demographics less likely to vote in person, such as urban residents and minorities. In 2020, 58% of Democratic voters used mail-in ballots compared to 29% of Republicans, reflecting policy preferences in states with no-excuse absentee voting. Democrats have cited administrative benefits like reduced polling place congestion and higher overall participation, with empirical analyses of universal vote-by-mail systems showing no systematic partisan advantage in turnout or outcomes. Republicans have expressed persistent concerns about postal voting's vulnerability to fraud, emphasizing chain-of-custody issues, ballot harvesting, and difficulties in verifying voter identity remotely, despite official audits documenting fraud incidence below 0.0001% in most jurisdictions. Former President Donald Trump amplified these views, claiming mail-in systems enable widespread abuse and pledging to curtail them federally, though pre-2020 Republican support for absentee voting in states like Florida indicated earlier bipartisan acceptance before politicization. GOP skepticism correlates with reliance on conservative media, where perceptions of fraud risks exceed empirical rates, prompting calls for stricter verification like signature matching or photo ID requirements. Post-2020, Republican-controlled states implemented restrictions to bolster integrity, including Georgia's 2021 Election Integrity Act mandating absentee ballot ID copies and limiting drop boxes to early voting sites; Texas's Senate Bill 1 in 2021 banning drive-thru voting and curbing 24-hour drop boxes; and Florida's expansions of in-person early voting alongside tightened mail rules. Conversely, Democratic-led states like California and Nevada codified pandemic-era expansions, such as automatic ballot mailing and extended deadlines, maintaining no-excuse systems. These shifts reversed some temporary 2020 accommodations, with 19 states adding absentee restrictions by 2022, often along partisan lines, amid ongoing debates over balancing convenience against verifiable security. In the United Kingdom, postal voting debates have centered on administrative strains rather than sharp partisan divides, with both Conservative and Labour governments expanding access since 2000 but facing cross-party scrutiny over fraud risks, as in the 2004 Birmingham scandal involving organized postal vote manipulation. Reforms like the 2022 Elections Act introduced stricter ID checks for in-person voting while retaining postal options, reflecting shared concerns over delays and eligibility without favoring one party's base. European nations exhibit similar non-partisan patterns, with postal voting in countries like Germany and France used selectively for absentees, and policy adjustments driven by logistical needs rather than ideological battles.

Post-2020 Reforms and Public Skepticism

In response to concerns raised during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, where mail-in ballots accounted for approximately 43% of votes cast amid the COVID-19 pandemic, at least 25 states enacted laws between 2021 and 2024 modifying absentee and mail voting procedures to incorporate additional safeguards. These reforms often included requirements for voter identification on absentee ballot applications, such as Georgia's Senate Bill 202 signed on March 25, 2021, which mandated a photocopy of a government-issued photo ID or an ID number for absentee requests and restricted unsecured drop boxes to early voting sites only. Similarly, Florida's Senate Bill 90 in 2021 prohibited drop boxes outside supervised locations, required ballots to be received by Election Day rather than postmarked by then, and strengthened signature verification processes. Texas and Arizona implemented comparable measures, including bans on unsolicited mailing of ballot applications and enhanced tracking systems to monitor ballot chain of custody. While empirical analyses, such as those from the Brennan Center, have documented instances of low detected fraud rates in mail voting—estimating 0.00006% of ballots affected in prior elections—reform advocates cited vulnerabilities like unverifiable signatures and delayed processing as justification for changes, pointing to isolated post-2020 incidents such as the 2021 Paterson, New Jersey mayoral election where over 1,000 mail ballots were disqualified due to irregularities. These adjustments aimed to restore public confidence but drew criticism from voting rights groups for potentially reducing access, though no widespread evidence emerged of reforms causing significant turnout declines in subsequent elections. Public skepticism toward postal voting persisted, particularly among Republican voters, fueled by perceptions of inadequate safeguards in 2020. A 2024 NPR/PBS News/Marist poll revealed that 89% of likely Donald Trump supporters expressed concern about voter fraud in the general election, with mail-in voting frequently cited as a vulnerability. An AP-NORC poll conducted in October 2024 similarly found broad doubt about the integrity of mail ballots, with only about 40% of respondents confident in nationwide tallies, reflecting a partisan gap where Democrats reported higher trust levels. This wariness contributed to ongoing debates, including failed federal proposals like the Election Integrity Act of 2023 (H.R. 3257), which sought uniform standards such as proof of citizenship for mail voting but stalled in Congress. By 2024, mail-in usage had stabilized at around 30% of ballots in key states, yet polls indicated sustained demands for further verification amid unresolved questions about detection efficacy in large-scale systems.

Implementation by Country

Australia

In Australia, postal voting serves as a key mechanism for eligible electors unable to vote in person on polling day, complementing compulsory voting requirements under federal law administered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Introduced in the early federal elections following the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902, it allows ballot papers to be mailed to voters, who complete and return them with a witnessed declaration. This system supports participation for those absent from their electorate, overseas, or facing barriers to physical attendance, while incorporating verification processes to deter duplication or invalidation. Eligibility encompasses provisional (temporary) postal voters—such as interstate travelers, the ill, or those with religious objections to Saturday polling—and permanent general postal voters, including Australian Defence Force personnel, diplomats, and remote residents who pre-enroll for automatic ballot delivery post-writ issuance. Applications, which must detail reasons and are verified against the electoral roll, open upon election announcement; for the 2025 federal election, the AEC processed over 2.2 million packs by late April, emphasizing timely submission to mitigate postal delays. Voters receive a pack containing ballots, a certificate, and return envelope; they mark preferences privately, sign the witnessed declaration (by an authorized figure like a justice of the peace or medical practitioner), and ensure receipt by the AEC by 6pm on election day. Safeguards include roll cross-checks to prevent multiple voting, serialized ballot papers for tracking, and exclusion from ordinary vote issuance upon postal receipt confirmation, with rejected votes audited for formalities. These measures contribute to low fraud rates, as AEC data indicates enrolment irregularities and multiple voting prosecutions number in the dozens annually across millions of votes, far below levels suggesting systemic issues. Participation has grown amid rising early voting trends; in the 2022 federal election, postal applications exceeded 1.54 million by early May—surpassing the full 2019 tally—though returned valid votes formed about 8-10% of the total, with pre-poll in-person options dominating non-traditional methods at over 30% of turnout. Delays in close races can occur from late-arriving postals, prompting AEC scrutiny, but overall integrity remains high due to compulsory enrolment and verifiable processes.

Canada

In Canada, postal voting for federal elections is conducted via the special ballot procedure, which enables eligible voters unable to attend a polling station to apply for a voting kit from Elections Canada, vote privately, and return the ballot by mail. This system, introduced in the early 1990s under the Canada Elections Act amendments, requires voters to submit an application proving eligibility, after which Elections Canada mails a kit containing the ballot, a secrecy envelope, an identification envelope with a declaration form, and a prepaid return envelope. Domestic ballots must arrive at Elections Canada headquarters or local offices by the close of polls on election day (6 p.m. local time), while those from Canadians abroad have until 6 p.m. EDT six days later; failure to meet these deadlines results in invalidation, regardless of postmark. Historically, participation in special ballot voting has been minimal, typically accounting for less than 1% of total ballots cast, as most voters opt for in-person voting at advance polls or on election day. The process emphasizes verification through voter affidavits and barcode tracking to prevent duplication or fraud, with Elections Canada reporting no confirmed instances of widespread ballot tampering in federal elections. However, reliance on Canada Post for delivery introduces risks of delay, particularly during peak volumes or disruptions like labor disputes or pandemics. The 2021 federal , held amid restrictions, saw a sharp rise in applications, with over 1 million special issued—more than double prior levels—as concerns encouraged remote options. Of these, approximately 100,000 domestic mail-in ballots arrived after the deadline and were set uncounted, primarily to backlogs at , prompting Conservative Party claims of systemic disenfranchisement in urban ridings where late ballots skewed toward Liberal voters. Courts upheld Elections Canada's rejection of late ballots, citing statutory requirements, though critics argued the fixed deadlines failed to account for predictable postal inefficiencies, potentially suppressing by 5-10% among mail applicants. Similar challenges persisted in the 2025 federal election, where Elections Canada issued special ballots amid renewed concerns over delivery reliability, with over 120,000 reported as uncounted—mostly late arrivals or incomplete kits—despite advanced tracking measures. Official audits confirmed procedural integrity, attributing discrepancies to voter errors or transit issues rather than manipulation, but the incidents fueled ongoing debates about expanding automatic mail distribution versus maintaining application-based safeguards to balance accessibility and security. Provincial and territorial elections employ analogous systems with variations, such as British Columbia's broader mail-in options since 2020, but federal implementation remains the benchmark, prioritizing verifiable identity over universal convenience.

European Nations

Postal voting in European nations varies significantly by country, with some offering it universally to all eligible voters while others restrict it to specific groups such as expatriates or those unable to attend polling stations. In Germany, postal voting has been available since the 1957 Bundestag election to uphold universal suffrage, allowing any registered voter to request a ballot by mail up to election day. Usage has risen steadily, comprising about 25-30% of votes in recent federal elections, facilitated by a system where voters mark ballots at home, seal them in envelopes, and return them to election offices for verification against voter registers. Switzerland employs postal voting extensively across federal, cantonal, and municipal levels, with ballots mailed to all voters for most referendums and elections held four times annually. This system, rooted in , sees over 80% of votes cast by post in some cantons, supported by prepaid envelopes and secure drop-off options, though electronic voting pilots supplement it for select groups. Security relies on voter signatures and centralized counting, with rare fraud incidents attributed to the decentralized cantonal structure. France discontinued domestic postal voting for mainland elections in 2017 following documented fraud cases, including organized ballot harvesting in prior regional votes, limiting it now to overseas territories and French citizens abroad under stricter proxy rules. This shift addressed vulnerabilities like unsecured ballot transport, with turnout via post previously low at under 1% before the ban. In the Netherlands, postal voting is not standard but was temporarily expanded during the 2021 parliamentary election for voters over 70 due to COVID-19, prompting rule adjustments for improperly sealed ballots after initial rejections. Historical reliance on in-person voting persists, with electronic experiments abandoned over security concerns rather than postal expansion. Other nations like Italy permit postal voting primarily for citizens abroad and military personnel, using secure kits mailed from consulates, while Luxembourg allows it for referendums and expatriates, as seen in the 2015 referendum where voters received ballot packages by post. Fraud remains infrequent across Europe, with convictions rare—e.g., under one per biennium in similar systems—but prompting reforms in high-risk contexts, underscoring trade-offs between accessibility and verification rigor.

India

Postal voting in India, known as "vote by post" or postal ballots, is a limited mechanism allowing eligible voters to cast ballots remotely rather than in person at polling stations, as regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. This system prioritizes in-person voting at polling stations for the general electorate under Section 59 of the RPA, 1951, but permits postal ballots for specific categories to ensure inclusivity without compromising verification. The Election Commission of India (ECI) administers the process, emphasizing safeguards like declaration forms and secure transmission to mitigate risks of fraud. Eligibility for postal ballots is restricted to defined groups, including service voters (armed forces personnel, state police, and government employees in essential services posted away from home), voters on election duty, persons with disabilities (PwD), senior citizens aged 85 and above, and, for specific elections, media personnel accredited to cover polling activities. Voters on election duty must now vote at designated facilitation centers under amended Rule 18A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, introduced in 2024. Absentee voting for non-resident Indians (NRIs) remains unavailable via post; NRIs vote in person at special polling stations abroad or upon return. Applications are submitted via Form 12D to the returning officer at least seven days before polling, with ballots sent by post or electronically for service voters under the Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System (ETPBS), implemented since October 2016. The voting process requires electors to mark the ballot in secrecy, enclose it in an inner envelope with a declaration (Form 13D), and return it via a second cover to the returning officer by the deadline, typically 5 p.m. on poll day. Ballots are verified for the elector's declaration and secrecy before counting, which commences 30 minutes before electronic voting machine (EVM) tallies under standard protocol. For service voters, ETPBS transmits ballots electronically via secure channels, with printed copies returned physically. Recent expansions have broadened access: in 2024 Lok Sabha elections, home voting via postal ballots was facilitated for PwD and seniors aged 80+, with over 1.6 million such voters utilizing the option nationwide. In September 2025, the ECI mandated full postal ballot counting before the penultimate EVM round to enhance transparency and address potential discrepancies in close contests, reinstating a pre-2019 rule amid increased postal ballot volumes from inclusivity measures; this applied first to Bihar assembly polls. These adjustments, the ECI's 30th reform in six months, aim to balance accessibility with integrity, though critics note persistent challenges in verification for remote categories.

United Kingdom

In the , postal voting allows registered electors in , , and to receive and return ballots by without needing to justify their absence from polling stations, a provision enabled by the Representation of the Act and effective from 2001. maintains stricter criteria, permitting postal votes only for electors reasonably expected to be absent, physically incapacitated, or otherwise unable to attend to , , or service in certain roles like the armed forces. Applications must be submitted to the local electoral registration officer, with deadlines typically set at noon 11 working days before polling day for parliamentary elections; overseas voters and proxies face adjusted timelines. Approved applicants receive a postal voting pack via first-class mail, including personalized ballot papers, a declaration of identity form requiring a signature and date, and pre-paid envelopes for secure return. Voters mark ballots in secrecy, enclose them unmarked in an inner envelope, attach the signed declaration, and seal the outer envelope for posting or hand-delivery to a polling station or returning officer's office—though since 2023, individuals may deliver only their own vote plus up to two from non-household members to curb potential abuse. Verification occurs upon receipt: returning officers check the declaration's signature and date against the elector's register entry before separating and counting the ballot, ensuring anonymity while confirming eligibility. To address vulnerabilities exposed post-expansion, safeguards evolved incrementally: absent voting identifiers, introduced in 2006, uniquely link declarations to individual electors for precise matching; the Elections Act 2022 imposed proxy limits (one non-relative plus household members) and mandated local checks on frequent proxy granters, responding to the 2016 Pickles review documenting risks like personation and undue influence in postal systems. Earlier pilots, such as all-postal local elections from 2000 to 2007, tested turnout boosts but revealed administrative strains and security gaps, leading to abandonment of blanket postal ballots in favor of targeted reforms. Empirical data indicate postal voting elevates participation among users—turnout exceeds in-person rates by margins observed in multiple elections—yet overall electoral turnout has not consistently risen, as seen in the 2024 general election's 59.9% national figure despite 19.9% of registered voters holding postal ballots. The system's convenience for the elderly, disabled, and expatriates (extended "votes for life" in 2024 via the Elections Act) contrasts with documented integrity challenges: the on-demand shift correlated with fraud spikes, including the 2004 Birmingham scandal where forged postal declarations and coerced votes invalidated results in six wards, yielding convictions for six Labour figures on charges like forgery. Over 2001–2009, courts upheld similar irregularities in areas like Slough and Peterborough, often involving organized harvesting, though prosecutions remain rare relative to volumes cast—Electoral Commission data logs fewer than 1,000 annual allegations across all fraud types, with postal-specific convictions in the low dozens. These incidents underscore causal risks from detached verification, prompting ongoing scrutiny without reverting to pre-2001 restrictions.

United States

Postal voting in the United States, also known as absentee or mail-in voting, permits eligible voters to receive, complete, and return ballots by mail, bypassing in-person polling places. This method is regulated primarily at the state level, with federal laws standardizing access for military personnel, overseas citizens, and voters with disabilities under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. As of 2024, all states offer some form of absentee voting, but requirements vary: eight states—Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and California (for specific elections)—conduct all-mail elections, automatically mailing ballots to active voters. In 27 additional states and the District of Columbia, voters may request absentee ballots without providing an excuse. The remaining states require a valid excuse, such as illness, travel, or religious observance. The process typically begins with a voter requesting a ballot application from election officials, though some states allow requests or distribution. Upon approval, the ballot is mailed with a envelope, affirmation form, and return envelope; voters mark the ballot privately, seal it, sign the affidavit, and return it prepaid via the U.S. Postal Service or drop boxes where available. Verification occurs upon receipt: most states mandate signature matching against voter registration records, with 41 states using this method as of 2024; rejections for mismatches averaged 0.8% of mail ballots in recent elections, varying by state from under 0.1% in Oregon to over 2% in Georgia. Additional safeguards include unique barcodes for tracking, bipartisan curing processes for deficient ballots, and prohibitions on third-party collection except for family or caregivers in most jurisdictions. Adoption surged during the COVID-19 pandemic: in the 2020 presidential election, mail ballots accounted for 43% of total votes, up from 21% in 2016, driven by temporary expansions in excuse requirements and processing deadlines. By the 2024 election, usage declined to 30.3% amid restored restrictions and increased early in-person options, with over 47 million mail ballots cast nationwide per Election Assistance Commission data. Empirical analyses of fraud incidents, drawing from state audits and databases like the Heritage Foundation's compilation of over 1,500 proven cases since 1982 (many involving absentee ballots), indicate rates below 0.0001% of votes cast, comparable to in-person voting risks. No evidence links mail voting expansions to systemic fraud increases, though isolated vulnerabilities—such as unsecured drop boxes or paid harvesting in states like California—have prompted procedural tightenings, including enhanced chain-of-custody protocols post-2020.

Other Notable Examples

In Switzerland, postal voting serves as the predominant method for federal, cantonal, and municipal elections as well as frequent referendums, with ballots mailed to all eligible voters who can return them by post or deposit at polling stations. This system, established in the 19th century and refined over time, accommodates the country's direct democracy model, where citizens vote up to four times annually on various issues. Over 80 percent of voters choose postal submission, facilitated by Swiss Post's secure handling process that includes prepaid envelopes and verification seals to prevent tampering. New Zealand implements all-postal voting for local government elections, distributing ballots by mail to all enrolled voters without requiring an excuse for absentee participation. This approach, used since the 1980s for municipal polls, aims to boost accessibility but has faced scrutiny over low turnout rates, averaging around 40 percent in recent cycles, prompting calls for reforms like hybrid digital options. In the 2022 local elections, final turnout reached approximately 41 percent after late postal returns, highlighting logistical challenges such as delayed mail in rural areas. Mexico permits postal voting exclusively for citizens residing abroad during federal elections, including the presidency, with ballots mailed upon request to registered expatriates. Introduced in 2006 under the Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures, this system processed over 100,000 votes in the 2018 presidential election, though participation remains limited by verification requirements and international postage delays. Authorities employ serial-numbered envelopes and postmark deadlines—typically 30 days before election day—to maintain integrity, with results integrated into national tallies after manual audits.

Recent Developments

In the United States' 2024 presidential election, mail-in ballots accounted for approximately 30% of total voter turnout, a notable decline from 43% in 2020, amid heightened public scrutiny and state-level reforms emphasizing in-person verification following allegations of irregularities in prior cycles. The U.S. Postal Service processed over 99 million ballots, with average delivery times from voters to election officials reduced to one day, reflecting operational improvements despite persistent concerns over chain-of-custody risks inherent to remote voting methods. Early in-person voting rose to offset the drop, comprising about 31% of turnout, for a combined pre-Election Day share of nearly 60%. In the United Kingdom's July 2024 , postal voting reached 19.9% of registered voters, an increase from 17.2% in , driven by convenience for those unable to attend polling stations but complicated by last-minute application surges and delivery that risked disenfranchising thousands. The Electoral Commission noted smoother overall administration but highlighted vulnerabilities in the on-demand postal , including potential for proxy applications and incomplete voter verification, prompting calls for tighter timelines and safeguards. India's elections featured postal use, primarily for service personnel and disabled voters, with over % overall recorded at polling stations before incorporating postal counts; early postal trends occasionally influenced initial leads but were mandated to precede electronic tallies to mitigate tampering risks in tight races. The reported 642 million total participants, with postal comprising a small but subject to stricter pre-2019 counting protocols reinstated to prioritize verifiable paper votes over electronic . Across European Parliament elections in June 2024, postal and absentee options varied by member state, with no uniform EU-wide statistics available; participation remained low overall at around 51%, though countries like Germany and France permitted broader postal access, underscoring ongoing disparities in remote voting infrastructure compared to in-person mandates elsewhere.
ElectionPostal/Mail % of Turnout (2024)Prior Cycle Comparison
US Presidential~30%Down from 43% (2020)
UK General19.9%Up from 17.2% (2019)
India Lok Sabha<5% (est., service/disabled focus)Stable, limited expansion

2025 Legislative Changes

In the United States, President issued on , , directing federal of statutes (2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1) that prohibit absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, while conditioning Assistance Commission on states implementing Election Day receipt deadlines for such ballots, with exceptions for Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ballots. This measure aimed to align practices with international norms in nations like and , where late-arriving mail ballots are not counted, amid ongoing debates over . In August 2025, President Trump announced via social media plans to issue an executive order aiming to eliminate mail-in ballots and restrict voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to ensure election integrity, including advocacy for voter ID requirements and congressional passage of the SAVE Act; however, legal experts note limited presidential authority over state-administered elections. State legislatures in 2025 passed multiple bills restricting mail-in voting access, continuing a trend of increased limitations compared to expansions; for instance, measures in various states introduced stricter signature verification, curbs on third-party ballot collection, and requirements for excuses to vote absentee where previously none existed. In Maine, a Republican-backed ballot measure proposed in 2025 sought to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, potentially reducing mail-in participation significantly. In the United Kingdom, implementation of the Elections Act 2022's reforms intensified in 2025, mandating that postal vote arrangements—previously indefinite—expire after three years, requiring reapplications by deadlines such as January 31, 2026, for certain elections. This change, intended to enhance security by curbing potential fraud from long-term registrations, resulted in widespread expirations, with councils reporting that up to half of existing postal voters in areas like Reading failed to reapply promptly, risking disenfranchisement. No major legislative alterations to postal voting were enacted in Australia or Canada in 2025, though operational challenges, such as ballot errors in Western Australia's local elections, prompted calls for procedural reviews rather than statutory changes.

Ongoing Technological and Procedural Innovations

In response to challenges with manual signature matching on returned absentee ballots, several U.S. jurisdictions have piloted and expanded automated signature verification systems employing machine learning algorithms to compare voter signatures against registration records. For instance, North Carolina's State Board of Elections initiated a 2024 pilot program in ten counties, including Bertie and Durham, to test automated tools for verifying absentee ballot signatures, aiming to enhance accuracy and efficiency while maintaining human oversight for discrepancies. Similarly, Riverside County, California, began testing advanced scanning technology in 2025 to streamline mail-in ballot verification, reducing processing times and potential errors associated with subjective human review. These systems, such as those from Parascript, analyze multiple reference signatures digitally, flagging mismatches for manual cure processes where voters can affirm eligibility. Voter-accessible ballot tracking technologies have proliferated, enabling real-time monitoring of -in akin to services. , a ed platform operational in over states as of , uses intelligent barcodes to notify voters via text, , or app of status from mailing to and , with a second U.S. granted in for its notification system. A 2024 University of Southern California study across Georgia, Colorado, and California found that such tracking boosts voter confidence in the process, though utilization remains low due to awareness gaps, with only a fraction of eligible voters engaging the tools. Procedural enhancements include expanded pre-processing of ballots—such as signature verification and envelope opening—prior to Election Day in states like those permitting it under 2024 laws, shortening post-election tabulation timelines. The United States Postal Service has refined its election mail protocols, achieving faster delivery of mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election compared to prior cycles through intelligence-driven sorting, remote encoding centers, and prioritized handling that outpaced standard first-class mail speeds. Barcodes and QR codes on absentee ballots and envelopes facilitate automated sorting, tracking, and verification, though their use has sparked debate; for example, Georgia lawmakers in 2024 proposed eliminating QR codes from ballots over concerns they could prioritize machine-readable data over human-marked selections in tabulation. These incremental technologies address logistical bottlenecks but face scrutiny for potential vulnerabilities, with experts emphasizing hybrid human-tech approaches to preserve auditability.

References

  1. https://www.polyas.com/election-glossary/postal-vote
  2. https://www.usa.gov/absentee-voting
  3. https://www.si.edu/collections/snapshot/history-voting-mail
  4. https://time.com/5892357/voting-by-mail-history/
  5. https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absentee-voting
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11661420/
  7. https://latino.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/LPPI-VRP-Voter-Fraud-res.pdf
  8. https://www.idea.int/news/how-us-stacks-against-global-voting-mail-trends
  9. https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/vote-by-mail.pdf
  10. https://www.nalc.org/news/the-postal-record/2024/september-october-2024/document/Absentee.pdf
  11. https://www.history.com/articles/vote-by-mail-soldiers-war
  12. https://wcl.american.libguides.com/voting/history
  13. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/postal-voting-in-the-uk/
  14. https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/files/research_report_3.pdf
  15. ./assets/No-excuse_postal_voting_map_of_the_US.svg.png
  16. https://www.seafarers.org/seafarerslogs/2020/08/absentee-voting-has-deep-roots-in-u-s-history/
  17. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110938/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20200728-SD036.pdf
  18. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2015-0125/CBP07419.pdf
  19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1759553
  20. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/69321/2/ssoar-germpolitics-2020-wagner_et_al-Germany_Going_Postal_Comparing_Postal.pdf
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/DEVELOPMENT-OF-POSTAL-VOTING-IN-GERMANY_fig1_341429967
  22. https://www.gov.uk/apply-postal-vote
  23. https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/ways_to_vote/files/postal-voting-factsheet.pdf
  24. https://ballotpedia.org/All-mail_voting
  25. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-3-states-with-permanent-absentee-voting-lists
  26. https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/voter/reqabbm.shtml
  27. https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Voting-by-Mail
  28. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/ways-vote/apply-vote-post
  29. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/ways-vote/how-vote-post
  30. https://www.aec.gov.au/pva
  31. https://www.elections.ca/voting-by-mail
  32. https://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=faq&document=faqvbm&lang=e
  33. https://www.registertovoteon.ca/register-of-absentee-voters/eligibility-to-register-as-an-absentee-voter
  34. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots
  35. https://ballotpedia.org/How_do_election_workers_match_signatures%253F_%282020%29
  36. https://campaignlegal.org/update/signature-matching-and-mail-ballots-safeguards-ensure-every-vote-counts
  37. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X241254383
  38. https://civicdesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Voting-by-mail-and-impact-of-signatures-2023-11-27-CCD-post.pdf
  39. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/mail-ballot-security
  40. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/mail-voting-is-safe-secure/
  41. https://ballotpedia.org/How_do_states_protect_and_verify_absentee/mail-in_ballots%253F_%282020%29
  42. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-returning-officers-administering-local-government-elections-england/absent-voting/receiving-and-opening-postal-votes/process-opening-postal-votes/checking-personal-identifiers
  43. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media/4948
  44. https://d-nb.info/1252740204/34
  45. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3463677.3463679
  46. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=int/cou&document=index&lang=e
  47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQd6rBAMVk
  48. https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-absentee-voting-act
  49. https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Reports/2022-OCPA-Report_Combined_Final_20230925.pdf
  50. https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2023/09/05/faster-postal-service-linked-to-better-voter-turnout/
  51. https://www.eac.gov/best-practices-accessibility-voting-mail
  52. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/EAC_2024_Rutgers_Report_PDF.pdf
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379425001039
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265114919_Absentee_Voting_by_People_with_Disabilities_Promoting_Access_and_Integrity
  55. https://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2020/03/20/some-demographics-on-voting-by-mail/
  56. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/the-voting-experience-in-2020/
  57. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/Identifying.the_.effect.of_.all_.mail_.elections.on_.turnout.pdf
  58. https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2020/08/Thompson_et_al_VBM_PNAS.pdf
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7449689/
  60. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/01/03/oregon-leads-nation-in-voter-turnout-rates/
  61. https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/10/09/states-that-send-a-mail-ballot-to-every-voter-really-do-increase-turnout-scholars-find/
  62. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/does-voting-by-mail-increase-participation-using-matching-to-analyze-a-natural-experiment/D502CA1057D8EC73091E5ACE9E575994
  63. https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/vote-by-mail
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379425000745
  65. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2012/01/03/cost-savings-from-all-mail-balloting
  66. https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/TheCostofConductingElections-2022.pdf
  67. https://www.academia.edu/2881324/Absentee_Voting_in_a_Comparative_Perspective_A_Preliminary_Assessment_of_the_Experiences_with_Postal_Voting
  68. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/mail-voting-litigation-2020-part-iv-verifying-mail-ballots
  69. https://arxiv.org/html/2410.13900v1
  70. https://www.wxii12.com/article/north-carolina-9th-congressional-ballot-fraud-guilty/36792217
  71. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/paterson-new-jersey-city-council-voter-fraud
  72. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/
  73. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/woman-convicted-voter-fraud-scheme
  74. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200878
  75. https://www.amstat.org/docs/default-source/amstat-documents/pol-vote-by-mail.pdf
  76. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html
  77. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/four-stolen-elections-the-vulnerabilities-absentee-and-mail-ballots
  78. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/does-voting-mail-increase-risk-voter-fraud
  79. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html
  80. https://centerforvulnerablevoters.org/vulnerable-voting-groups/elderly-voting/
  81. https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/6/3/63333671-7b8d-4a11-b194-b8b3636857f5/FBC5BB6EEB4A8508DFB33AA21C05CBDDF4F044DBCFCCA5909DACE9EBF09E22A1.california-report-summary.pdf
  82. https://nypost.com/2022/11/22/grand-jury-finds-numerous-instances-of-ballot-fraud-in-nyc-council-race-on-staten-island/
  83. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-congressman-charged-ballot-stuffing-bribery-and-obstruction
  84. https://www.texaspolicy.com/legevoterfraud/
  85. https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-claims-amazon-delivery-box-stuffed-hundreds-blank/story?id=126149881
  86. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results%2C_2020:_Analysis_of_rejected_ballots
  87. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/preserving-democracy/2023/08/30/1-5-of-all-absentee-mail-in-ballots-were-rejected-in-2022/
  88. https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/deep-dive-absentee-ballot-rejection-2020-general-election
  89. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-few-absentee-ballots-were-rejected-in-2020/
  90. https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/new-report-finds-mail-ballot-rejection-rates-decreased-in-2020/
  91. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1125179062/voting-explainer-in-many-states-theres-a-process-to-fix-an-error-with-your-ballo
  92. https://www.ideas42.org/blog/how-to-prevent-the-minor-errors-that-disqualify-mail-in-ballots/
  93. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness
  94. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X241254383
  95. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-mail-in-ballot-rejected-voting-counts/
  96. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/13/1148799521/mail-ballot-rejection-rates-state-tally
  97. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/thousands-of-votes-wont-count-this-year-over-minor-absentee-ballot-errors/
  98. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2007249117
  99. https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influenced-partisan-divide-over-voting-mail
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8694609/
  101. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/us/politics/trump-2024-election-mail-votes.html
  102. https://academic.oup.com/pa/article/76/1/43/6361031
  103. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/election-fraud-database-tops-1400-cases
  104. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/graphics
  105. https://www.sciline.org/elections/voter-fraud-ballot-security/
  106. https://www.fec.gov/documents/2248/2020-05-27-ELW-Facts-About-Voting-by-Mail.pdf
  107. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud
  108. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-vote-by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/
  109. https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2024/10/16/maricopa-county-signature-verification-process-flaws-disenfranchisement/
  110. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/HeritageAnalysis_Final.pdf
  111. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/mail-voting-accuracy
  112. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/identifying-the-effect-of-allmail-elections-on-turnout-staggered-reform-in-the-evergreen-state/3725E51B9B7F331D77DC9B49130D7F7D
  113. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007249117
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248326599_Analysis_of_the_turnout_effects_of_vote_by_mail_elections_1980-2007
  115. https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/federal_elections/voter-turnout.htm
  116. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database
  117. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/
  118. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2021.1906806
  119. https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/eip-blog/2022/6/13/plxw8zwd4m7thgurqvyqdj6qjhyhjw
  120. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-dilemma-of-postal-voting/
  121. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3666259
  122. https://multco.us/info/brief-history-vote-mail-oregon
  123. https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/statistics/vote-by-mail-timeline.pdf
  124. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9756790/
  126. https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/FAQs/mailBallotsFAQ.html
  127. https://vote.nz/local-elections/about/local-elections-2025/voting-in-local-elections/
  128. https://www.votelocal.co.nz/information-for-voters/
  129. https://www.regulation.govt.nz/assets/RIS-Documents/ris-dia-cte-feb24.pdf
  130. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02882/SN02882.pdf
  131. https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/fact-check-little-evidence-of-postal-vote-fraud-in-the-uk/
  132. https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2024/06/20240620_OR_AGN_11944_ExternalAttachments/20240620_OR_AGN_11944_Attachment_99911_4.PDF
  133. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/544645/mayors-push-for-end-to-postal-voting-in-local-elections
  134. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/how-the-world-s-most-frequent-voters-handle-postal-ballots/46070666
  135. https://apnews.com/article/switzerland-electoral-fraud-investigation-bb6691574275801cc7b95d0b5bad06ee
  136. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/five-years-later-a-reassessment-of-oregons-vote-by-mail-electoral-process/B1132DCF91E347ABAEDDBBE041C80718
  137. https://citizenportal.ai/articles/2347249/Oregon/Oregon-revises-mail-in-ballot-rules-for-timely-voting-and-signature-verification
  138. https://www.koin.com/news/politics/oregon-vote-by-mail-system-public-opinion-03312025/
  139. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53353404
  140. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/litigation/
  141. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108824/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20190129-SD020.pdf
  142. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/
  143. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/57534/1/democraticaudit.com-Postal_voting_and_electoral_fraud_a_reply_to_Richard_Mawrey_QC.pdf
  144. https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-the-postal-vote-and-fraud-claims/a-58844693
  145. https://electioninnovation.org/research/nov-2021-election-integrity-survey/
  146. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/majority-of-americans-continue-to-back-expanded-early-voting-voting-by-mail-voter-id/
  147. https://www.pa.gov/agencies/vote/elections/fact-checking-pa-related-election-claims
  148. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/18/trump-mail-voting-attacks-00513875
  149. https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2021/10/red-blue-states-mail-voting/185988/
  150. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/09/16/legitimacy-of-voting-by-mail-politicized-leaving-americans-divided/
  151. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/the-evolution-of-absentee-mail-voting-laws-2020-through-2022
  152. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-state-guide-restrictive-changes-voter-id-mail-voting-and-ballot
  153. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-voting-laws-have-changed-battleground-states-2020
  154. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/04/electoral-body-legislation-not-fit-for-purpose-amid-postal-vote-delays
  155. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/our-meetings-and-leadership/political-composition/local-government-elections/changes-postal
  156. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/08/26/yes-postal-voting-exists-in-europe-contrary-to-trumps-claims
  157. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/unrigging-our-elections
  158. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5130284/election-concerns-voter-fraud-trump-harris-poll
  159. https://apnews.com/article/poll-election-2024-voting-ballots-conspiracy-theories-51d67f8c0ceb3921b6cc9c1a61464f13
  160. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3257
  161. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mail-voting-millions-voters-opt-paper-ballots/story?id=115271747
  162. https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/fraud-and-multiple-voting.htm
  163. https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/general-postal-voters.htm
  164. https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2025/04-23.htm
  165. https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/safeguarding.htm
  166. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/03/spike-in-postal-votes-could-delay-results-in-closely-fought-seats-in-2022-election-aec-says
  167. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/FlagPost/2022/May/Early_voting_at_the_2022_federal_election
  168. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vote&dir=mail&document=index&lang=e
  169. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec92530&lang=e
  170. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=pas/44ge/vbm&document=index&lang=e
  171. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&dir=pre&document=sep2921&lang=e
  172. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=int&document=index&lang=e
  173. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mail-in-voting-set-soar-canada-election-could-undermine-trudeau-new-democratic-2021-08-17/
  174. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/almost-100000-mail-ballots-in-federal-election-not-counted-most-arrived-late
  175. https://globalnews.ca/news/8940422/mail-in-ballots-canada-federal-election-not-counted/
  176. https://www.facebook.com/ElectionsCanE/posts/there-are-still-some-suggestions-that-we-lost-ignored-or-refused-to-count-121000/1161425219363496/
  177. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=pas/44ge/ege&document=p5&lang=e
  178. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=dis&document=index&lang=e
  179. https://verwaltung.bund.de/portal/EN/info-pages/briefwahl
  180. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335997715_The_Swiss_Postal_Voting_Process_and_Its_System_and_Security_Analysis
  181. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-Frances-decision-to-ban-postal-voting-Do-you-think-it-is-a-beneficial-decision-and-why
  182. https://www.politico.eu/article/france-is-split-over-american-mail-in-ballots-2021-regional-election/
  183. https://www.reuters.com/world/netherlands-eases-rules-mail-in-ballots-election-continues-2021-03-16/
  184. https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/17/dutch-election-rule-change-to-accept-wrongly-sealed-mail-in-ballots
  185. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/751457/EPRS_BRI%282023%29751457_EN.pdf
  186. https://www.idea.int/news/special-voting-arrangements-svas-europe-country-postal-early-mobile-and-proxy-arrangements
  187. https://ceodelhi.gov.in/PDFFolders/TrgMaterial/Postal_BallotECI.pdf
  188. https://www.eci.gov.in/eci-backend/public/api/download?url=LMAhAK6sOPBp%252FNFF0iRfXbEB1EVSLT41NNLRjYNJJP1KivrUxbfqkDatmHy12e%252FzVx8fLfn2ReU7TfrqYobgItdlAf5leESczTnRxTIvxJyjFfg8joQr6AEHGlrEBTZirabKcSEWdgpEp7NvXATdzJXUrWedL00SJB2Y5F8t4Z6Bcji3ct%252BK2PTIww2qEv%252FdMNOBDhjf55nC1Z7G14x2nA%253D%253D
  189. https://www.business-standard.com/elections/lok-sabha-election/postal-ballot-voting-eligibility-and-process-for-lok-sabha-elections-2024-124032100284_1.html
  190. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/postal-ballot-eligibility
  191. https://ceodelhi.gov.in/PDFFolders/2024/Guidelines_on_Postal_Ballot_Papers30Apr2024.pdf
  192. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/on-postal-ballot-for-nris
  193. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=151934
  194. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/etpbs-electronically-transmitted-postal-ballot-system/
  195. https://www.eci.gov.in/etpbs
  196. https://erode.nic.in/election-postal-ballot/
  197. https://www.thehindu.com/elections/eci-tweaks-postal-vote-counting-process/article70093592.ece
  198. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2171058
  199. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/in-30th-reform-ec-tightens-postal-ballot-counting-rules-amid-surge-in-pwd-senior-voters/articleshow/124126869.cms
  200. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7419/CBP-7419.pdf
  201. https://www.gov.uk/how-to-vote/postal-voting
  202. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-government-elections-england/postal-votes
  203. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elections-act-postal-and-proxy-voting-safeguards
  204. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/electoral_commission_pdf_file/AVI-Final-For-Web_26954-19967__E__N__S__W__.pdf
  205. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2023/145/pdfs/ukia_20230145_en.pdf
  206. https://tobysjames.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/james-2011.pdf
  207. https://electoral-reform.org.uk/this-years-general-election-left-millions-of-voices-unheard/
  208. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-electors-delivering-votes-for-life-for-british-expatriates/overseas-electors-delivering-votes-for-life-for-british-expatriates
  209. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03667/SN03667.pdf
  210. https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/politics/councillors-guilty-of-postal-votes-fraud-that-would-shame-a-banana-republic-5350422.html
  211. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data/2022-electoral-fraud-data
  212. https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of-Elections-in-the-UK-Executive-Summary-2008.pdf
  213. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voting-outside-the-polling-place
  214. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-1-states-with-no-excuse-absentee-voting
  215. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2024_EAVS_Report_508.pdf
  216. https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2025-07/HowWeVotedIn2024.pdf
  217. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5452536/mail-in-ballot-early-in-person-voting-2024-election
  218. https://geschaeftsbericht.post.ch/15/ar/en/annual_report/business_performance/communication_market/postal_voting.htm
  219. https://www.lgnz.co.nz/news/media-releases/final_voting_numbers_system_needs_to_change/
  220. https://aceproject.org/ace-ar/topics/va/country-case-studies/mexico-safeguarding-the-integrity-of-the-electoral/mobile_browsing/onePag
  221. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/world/americas/mexico-vote-abroad-election.html
  222. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5379475-mail-ballots-2024-presidential-election-research/
  223. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2024/1202-usps-releases-2024-post-election-analysis-report.htm
  224. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-cast-ballots-early-and-by-mail/
  225. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/consultation-review-of-the-universal-postal-service-and-other-postal-regulation/responses/electoral-commission.pdf?v=396953
  226. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/post-poll-statement-uk-general-election-2024
  227. https://elections24.eci.gov.in/docs/BnS4hhbvK9.pdf
  228. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/lok-sabha-poll-results-2024-paper-ballots-should-we-swayed-by-early-trends-on-counting-day-101717459070345.html
  229. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-poll-panel-says-642-mln-voters-cast-ballots-general-election-2024-06-03/
  230. https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/
  231. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2023/754620/EPRS_ATA%282023%29754620_EN.pdf
  232. https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/postal-ballots-the-numbers-and-why-opposition-favours-the-new-formula-10278542/
  233. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/
  234. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-vows-end-use-mail-in-ballots-ahead-2026-midterm-election-2025-08-18/
  235. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/does-trump-have-the-power-to-end-mail-in-voting-legal-scholar-weighs-in
  236. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/18/nx-s1-5506210/trump-mail-in-ballots-ban
  237. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-laws-roundup-october-2025
  238. https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee/mail-in_voting_legislation_in_the_United_States%2C_2025
  239. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/a-gop-backed-ballot-measure-could-radically-restrict-mail-voting-in-maine/
  240. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rpq4pp9nqo
  241. https://www.somerset.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/postal-vote-expiry/
  242. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-25/postal-voting-problems-for-2025-local-government-election/105815250
  243. https://www.ncsbe.gov/blog/2024/05/01/numbered-memo-2024-04-absentee-ballot-signature-verification-pilot-program
  244. https://www.facebook.com/nbcpalmsprings/posts/riverside-county-is-testing-new-technology-to-help-verify-mail-in-ballots-more-e/1240809058068240/
  245. https://www.parascript.com/solutions-by-industry/government/vote-by-mail-signature-verification/
  246. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250721872791/en/BallotTrax-Secures-Second-U.S.-Patent-for-Mail-Ballot-Tracking-and-Voter-Notification-System
  247. https://priceschool.usc.edu/news/vote-by-mail-ballot-tracking-tool-boosts-voter-confidence-in-electoral-process-says-new-usc-study-of-voters-in-three-states/
  248. https://electioninnovation.org/research/data-dive-pre-processing-mail-ballots/
  249. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2024/12/usps-delivered-mail-in-ballots-faster-in-2024-than-in-recent-years/
  250. https://www.votebeat.org/2025/03/28/trump-executive-order-elections-bans-barcodes-qr-codes-explained/
  251. https://georgiarecorder.com/2024/01/30/georgia-gop-senators-take-new-step-to-eliminate-use-of-qr-codes-on-paper-ballots/
  252. https://verifiedvoting.org/decoding-your-ballot-the-role-of-qr-codes-and-barcodes/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.