That's an interesting observation. Three states -- Oregon, Washington and Colorado -- conduct all elections entirely by mail, and almost every state allows absentee voting by mail. Is there any evidence that anybody's been coerced or bribed to vote a particular way while someone else watched? I could maybe imagine a spouse handing his/her ballot to the other and saying "I hate'em all. You deal with it." But if there was even a suspicion that anybody was being forced, I think we'd hear about it.
I don't know if there's ever been a problem with it. I'm surprised the issue hasn't come up yet, at least not in discussions on this forum. The "holding a gun to one's head" can be also in the form of trickery: e.g., a party activist going through the dining room of a retirement home and telling the people there they'll help them fill out the ballot form. That party activist could also be the resident nurse BTW.
I mentioned it because it is the principal reason my country doesn't do postal voting (*), and it's a problem that cannot be fundamentally solved. You don't know what happens in millions of people's homes. Likewise, for absentee voting, my country allows you to authorize someone else to proxy vote for you - and in order to prohibit party activists going around collecting proxy votes, the number of proxy votes someone can cast is limited to two. Most outcry I've ever heard in my country over alleged voter fraud is about polling workers or personal assistants or the like going into the polling booth with the (disabled) voter to help them out.
(*) Except for those living abroad - there's no other alternative there that I could think of. The nearest embassy or consulate is usually a bit too far away.
I've once done a postal vote, when I lived abroad, and once let someone proxy-vote for me - a friend whom I knew to be a party activist so I could trust him to cast the vote for the party I wanted to.
I'm not trying to claim that my country is best or something, just putting forth the arguments pro and con to get a deeper understanding what does and does not work. No voting system is absolutely perfect.
A bit of trivia I learned from wiki: France abolished postal voting in the 1970s because most postal workers were communist sympathizers.
All kinds of schemes are widely discussed. Many states have early voting at polling places in addition to the official Tuesday election. And of course, you can vote by absentee ballot almost everywhere. A frequent proposal is to hold elections on a weekend day instead of a work day, or hold polls open for 24 hours straight.
Sunday is indeed the most popular election day around the world. My country does not, because the 2% or so orthodox protestants would have a real problem with that. I can see that being a problem in the USA as well. Longer opening hours seems to me a no-brainer, especially as the USA has a lot of people working two jobs.
There are always at least two concerns. One is the additional cost.
That's really a non-concern. You decided to be a democratic country with universal suffrage, then give people a reasonable option to exercise that right. Cost shouldn't come into it. It's the cost inherent in the system.
The other is that the party in power doesn't want to make it easier for the other side to benefit. You'll find polling places closed or moved at the last minute in minority neighborhoods, fewer voting machines, sudden temporary parking restrictions, etc.
Most countries actually have non-partisan election commissions which oversee elections. And really, polling places moved or closed? When I get my voting card in the mail, approx. 4 weeks before the actual elections, it contains a complete list of all the polling places in my municipality. No messing with that afterwards.
You have to understand that the U.S. doesn't hold national elections. All elections, even for the only two national offices, are conducted by states, cities, counties and towns. State and local officials make the rules, hire the staff, assign polling places, buy the equipment, etc. There is no national authority that can tell everybody "do it this way." That's why voter ID laws, to take one example, are being proposed and fought state-by-state.
I understand that it's organized by state. A couple of comments on that.
First, when you say "two national offices", you mean Prez and Veep? I think of that as one vote, as it's a ticket you vote for with one vote. Additionally, the Rep and Senator you elect are also national offices IMHO, so come November, 1/3 of the Americans cast 2 national votes and 2/3 cast 3 national votes.
Second, I'd really hope that judges would take a very dim view of all such shenanigans with laws that aim to restrict voting. I get it that state legislatures make a game of "whack a mole" out of it, by introducing every 2 or 4 years a slightly different law, but set a straight example and take away eligibility from the legislators who passed the law - that'll teach them not to mess with voting. (I really don't know if that's possible but it would be the appropriate reaction IMHO).
Third, I'd think that the federal government has a legitimate interest in how the states organize the elections for President/VP and Congress - after all, those elected serve the federal government. Has it ever been tried to pass a federal law setting out minimum standards for the states to organize their elections?
Fourth, I'd think a federal judge would recognize that interest too and take a deep look at the newly minted law challenged. Moreover, federal judges then often give detailed instructions on what's exactly wrong with the law. Once you climb up the federal court ladder, say you're in 9th Circuit Court, you have a decision that's binding on a dozen states.
Fifth, I'd think that number of polling places would also be a federal concern. Those aerial shots that CNN has of polling places with a miles-long queue outside it make the USA the laughing butt of the first world when it comes to elections. No, "national pride" is nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but a creative judge can read it somewhere between the lines.
). ID-laws? I'd think that by now there would be clear guidelines on what is acceptable in that area and what not.
