By Vince Phillips
After more than two dozen letters examining Colorado’s election system, one central truth has become clear: most of the complex procedures we now rely on, signature verification, Risk-Limiting Audits, extended curing periods, and prolonged post-election counting, are not robust security measures. They are workarounds created to support a cumbersome, mail-heavy voting model that inherently creates vulnerabilities the system then struggles to patch.
These workarounds do not deliver the strong protections officials claim. They create layers of complexity, opacity, and reliance on trust rather than verifiable safeguards.
How Switzerland Handles Postal Voting
Switzerland is often cited as a successful model of widespread postal voting. But their system is very different from Colorado’s. In Switzerland:
- Every eligible voter receives voting materials 3–4 weeks in advance.
- The voter marks the ballot and places it inside a plain, anonymous inner envelope.
- They then sign a separate voting card (transmission card) that identifies them as the legitimate voter.
- Both the anonymous ballot envelope and the signed voting card go into an outer mailing envelope.
- When the municipality receives it, officials first verify the signed voting card against the voter registry.
- Only after that verification is the anonymous inner envelope separated and placed into the ballot box.
- Counting is done by teams working in pairs under the “four eyes” principle.
Unlike Colorado’s system, Switzerland does not automatically mail ballots to every registered voter, including inactive or moved individuals. Voters must return a signed voting card along with a plain, anonymous inner ballot envelope. Election officials first verify the signed card against the voter registry before separating, opening and counting the ballot. This creates a clear separation between verifying the voter’s identity and the secrecy of the actual ballot.
A key vulnerability in Colorado’s system is that the voter’s name and signature travel on the outer return envelope through the mail, where it is vulnerable for tampering/disposal while in transit. Once the signature is verified, the inner ballot is separated and becomes completely anonymous. In contrast, Switzerland uses a plain anonymous inner envelope for the ballot and a separate signed voting card. Officials verify the signed card first, then add the anonymous ballot to the count. Switzerland retains the signed cards as official records, while Colorado’s signed envelopes are detached and eventually destroyed after 25 months. This fundamental design difference makes Colorado ballots far more difficult to trace in cases of suspected fraud.
What Happened When France Moved Away from Mail-In Voting
France allowed postal voting from 1958 until 1975. It was then banned nationwide because of serious, widespread fraud, particularly in Corsica. Reports from that era documented stolen ballots, bought votes, ballots cast for dead people, and massive manipulation of results in some areas. In one documented case in Ajaccio, a list received dramatically different results from mail-in ballots compared to in-person votes, differences so extreme they could not be explained by normal voting patterns. In response, France replaced postal voting with proxy voting (where a voter can designate someone to cast their ballot in person) and made Election Day a Sunday to maximize participation.
The ban has held for nearly 50 years because the fraud problems were considered too serious to ignore. Even countries that allow broader postal voting today (such as Germany and the United Kingdom) have experienced documented cases of coercion, harvesting, and fraud, though usually on a smaller scale than the expansive, low-verification systems used in parts of the United States.
Honoring Those Who Fought and Died for the Right to Vote
Americans did not receive the right to vote easily. People fought and died for it. Generations of women organized, marched, were arrested, went on hunger strikes (and endured force-feeding) for decades until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. Black Americans fought through Reconstruction, faced Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, violence, and lynchings for nearly a century after the 15th Amendment until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally began to deliver on the promise of equal access. These sacrifices were not made so that future generations could treat voting as a casual convenience to be handled mostly by mail with layers of bureaucratic workarounds. They were made so that citizens could participate in a trustworthy, verifiable process. We repay that legacy best by prioritizing accuracy, transparency, and integrity over maximum convenience.
A Simpler, Stronger Path Forward
Same-day, in-person voting with photo ID (or free state-issued ID for those who need it) eliminates most of the vulnerabilities we now spend enormous time and money trying to manage.
- No intercepted or harvested ballots.
- No forged envelope signatures.
- In same-day, in-person voting, there are no anonymous inner ballots. The voter’s identity is verified, they mark their ballot under observation, and it goes directly into the ballot box. In Colorado’s mail-in system, the completed ballot is placed in a secrecy envelope that is deliberately separated from the signed return envelope. Once that separation occurs, the ballot becomes completely anonymous. If fraud happened inside that envelope, there is no practical way to trace it back.
- Clear chain of custody.
- Real-time observation by poll watchers from all parties.
- Results known on Election Night.
The elaborate post-election machinery we have built becomes largely unnecessary under that model. Making Election Day a national holiday for in-person voting would be simpler and extremely popular. It would signal that participating in democracy is important enough to pause normal business for one day. It would make it easier for working people to vote without excuses. What is wrong with asking people to care enough about their country and their future to show up on Election Day? Coloradans deserve elections they can trust without having to take it on faith that insiders are always acting in good faith. It is time to simplify the system, strengthen its foundations, and restore public confidence.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
