Obsession Against Mail-In Voting

In a sharp commentary for SME, Peter Schutz dissects the ongoing political battles surrounding mail-in voting, particularly highlighting the seemingly contradictory stances taken by various political factions across Central Europe. Schutz argues that the opposition to mail-in ballots, especially when championed by figures like Donald Trump, is often rooted not in legitimate concerns about fraud, but in a calculated strategy to suppress votes and gain electoral advantage.

The piece draws a stark contrast between the political dynamics in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, where populist or anti-establishment forces tend to oppose mail-in voting, and Hungary. In Hungary, Schutz notes, the burgeoning movement led by Péter Magyar has, conversely, called for the use of mail-in voting, demanding that minority representatives in Romania not repeat alleged "machinations" that supposedly benefited Fidesz in past elections. This divergence underscores Schutz's central thesis: the opposition is largely partisan, aimed at manipulating electoral outcomes.

“

Sending votes by mail does not threaten any harm

Schutz particularly takes aim at the argument that mail-in voting compromises the secrecy of the ballot. He contends that this is a 'hollow' and 'soulless' argument, revealing the self-serving motivations of those who advance it. The true purpose of secret ballots, he explains, is to shield voters from potential retribution or disadvantage by those in power. Postal voting, however, poses no such threat, as there is no power structure that can be leveraged against an individual voter based on their mail-in ballot.

From a Slovak perspective, this commentary resonates with a deep-seated skepticism towards political maneuvering and a desire for fair electoral processes. Schutz's analysis taps into the local understanding that political rhetoric often masks self-interest. The argument that Slovak diaspora votes have historically been 'anti-SMER' (referring to the Smer-SD party) provides a specific national context, suggesting that the opposition to mail-in voting is a direct attempt to disenfranchise a segment of the electorate perceived as unfavorable to the ruling coalition. The piece implicitly calls for a more principled, less opportunistic approach to electoral reform, emphasizing that fundamental rights should not be curtailed based on speculative fears or partisan calculations.

“

The main point is coming now. The coalition's crown argument that postal voting does not guarantee the secrecy of the vote is constitutionally compliant. However, it is so empty and soulless in terms of content and 'philosophy' that it convicts its proponents of purely selfish motivation, which is to sneakily increase their electoral prospects.