You’re hijacking your own thread, and I don’t think you should. But in the interests of fighting ignorance, I’m going to respond just this once. You’re subscribing to QAnon conspiracy theories on this issue.
This publication offers a limited number of free views. I encourage you to read this one, because the news sources you’re currently entertaining are misleading you. Badly.
Is it?
Kind of seems like you already decided what the facts are?
The study would lead to a lot of people losing faith in the sacredness of the secret ballot. It would likely have negative consequences that would last many election cycles into the future. And… it probably wouldn’t tell us anything one way or the other.
It would be a horrible thing if a group of people were having their vote stolen from them. I’m all for finding out if that is the case. But you have to go about this stuff in a smart way.
This is not the smart way:
No, that directly contradicts every statement that I’ve made.
If you can provide a cite then the research is moot.
I’m not really behind the OP on their proposal here, but I should point out that I’m pretty sure that was intended as sarcasm.
To be fair, nothing would be stopping you from early voting, just not voting at home.
This seems an odd point. If the whole point is that the spouse wants to make sure that their significant other is voting correctly, then sending it to another address wouldn’t do anything to prevent that. They’d just demand that they went to that other address and pick it up there and bring it back.
Personally, I am more concerned about vote buying than coerced votes. Lotta money in campaigns these days, with some elections being tens of dollars spent per vote. When you are willing to spend $20 to try to convince someone to vote for your candidate, how much would you be willing to spend to ensure that they do so?
I’d need a threat to my life or at least 9 figure bribe to vote against my conscience, but there are others out there who are more easily swayed.
In any case, while I think that there is a bit of fraud, coercion, and bribery that is enabled through vote from home, I think that the amount of disenfranchisement it prevents more than makes up for it. But some actual studies so that it’s not just what I think, but an objective fact, wouldn’t hurt.
If that’s true, I withdraw my post and accept I was whooshed. Thanks for pointing it out. 
Yes, ergo saying that I would be quite happy to fund the smaller study of talking to abused women about this one particular subcase.
I rarely call myself “you”.
You have made the assertion that there’s a large group of people of sufficient conscious depravity and forethoughtfullness, who would wait months to withhold their vote and beat their spouse into compliance to pull it all off, just to avoid being part of a statistical analysis, and that their quantity is large enough to change the answer.
If you are reluctant to give any actual basis for that assertion, I have to assume that you don’t think it’s supportable. If you believed that it was, you would calculate some reasonable number and give your sources and assumptions for deriving it. We could then review that and see if we agree on those assumptions. You might genuinely convince me.
Where did you even come up with this thing about women beating beaten by their spouse unless they voted a certain way?
I didn’t. I don’t think it’s a concern if you cut off the survey early because the people who would go to inordinate lengths to avoid scrutiny of their activities are not a notable demographic. I would expect the majority case to be an average couple with, at most, one overbearing partner but just as, if not more likely, a case where one partner was simply selected to be the one to do the work.
I don’t expect them to try to avoid getting counted and I don’t expect any large group of supervillains corrupting the results.
People who are committing crimes prefer to do so when no one is looking.