The one big advantage of early voting is that it weakens a politician’s ability to drop a last minute turd on the final days before an election (see Bush DUI chaim on the last weekend before the 2000 election). Those last minute bombshells (true or not) are very hard to refute and can swing an election. If people can vote early, then they aren’t impacted by the bombshell. If the bomb thrower releases the info earlier to try and influence the early voters, it gives the other side more time to refute the claims.
Sorry, but… the premise of that article is that we have an electorate that’s paying attention to issues and rationally evaluating them. If we did, the case against early voting would have more merit. However, we don’t. As the article itself indicates, it’s the candidates that are putting out most of the ‘information’ the voters look at, and that’s the worst possible source. (It’s akin to putting credence in a TV ad about a product – foolhardy at best.)
Instead, we have an electorate that laps up the vacuous empty slogans and spin blathered by both sides, such as was so blatantly on display in the State of the Union speech last night (both in the speech, and the rebuttal.).
Also, the article mentions press scrutiny of the candidates. Come on, that’s baloney – the press simply does not to its job of scrutinizing and vetting the candidates (If they did, we’d have had different people giving the SOTU and rebuttal last night). So, that’s another false premise.
I also agree with Larry J above; early voting helps stop last minute bombshells. I don’t much mind the one used on Bush in 2000, because it was factual, but the greater danger is a false one that there’s no time to refute.
That said… I do have concerns when states allow early voting a month or two in advance. I’m fine with a week or two, though, so I’m in at least partial agreement.
I am not opposed to early voting but a month in advance is generous enough. Vote by mail is very convenient but in states like WA, voter fraud is pretty easy. Sometimes boxes of ballots just show up months after an election. We also don’t do a good job of pruning the voter rolls of people who have died or moved out of state.
Election integrity and convenience should not be mutually exclusive.
The incident that got me was one of the upper tier election guys in WA saying, “Oh, I have another couple boxes in my car.”
Unsecured, unobserved by the R & D election watchers, etc.
Even with perfectly legitimate ballots, they’re so cavalier about the whole process one can’t place much trust in it. The ‘vote in person’ method had layers of vote-integrity measures. The vote by mail method has … a signature on the -outside- of the envelope … and available online. (Last time I looked anyway.)
The other angle that’s ridiculous was the “reconciliation” process. The entire idea is to take two completely different routes of accounting and hopefully arrive at exactly the same count. Instead of doing that, the lady in charge of the process admitted “Well, I use entirely method 2 to get my final result, then back out what the numbers for method one -should- be … without all that pesky counting actual ballots.”
It’s beyond pathetic.
Totally agreed regarding fraud concerns. Voting by internet would be very convenient – but I bitterly oppose it. I’m opposed to any fraud-friendly system.
I’m concerned over some of the proposed fixes though – such as stopping the dead from voting. That’s downright discriminatory, and robs the lividity-challenged of their rights. It’s also politically unfair, as it directly targets the Democrats’ most solid (and rigid) constituency .
Here’s an idea: vote on election day. Show identification that proves you’re eligible to vote, get a purple thumb with your paper ballot. Scrutineers from multiple parties observe the counting of votes. It’s simple, straightforward, and virtually immune to fraud. Of course, that means the Dems wouldn’t win another election, with no dead people voting or people voting multiple times in multiple jurisdictions.
I agree completely. Election Day used to be a sort of civic holiday, a day when everybody from all walks of life, rich and poor, were all doing the same thing. It was a powerful symbol of the democratic system and helped cement the social fabric of our nation. Early voting and voting by mail dilutes that.
Absentee ballots should be restricted to those who are physically unable to go to their local polling station because of disability, travel, etc. It should not be an option for mere convenience.
I don’t want to make it easier to vote. If an individual is too damn lazy to go to their local polling place on Election Day, I don’t want them voting. They aren’t taking it seriously enough. And I don’t want to hear any nonsense about not being able to vote because of work. I never miss a primary or a general election, and I always work on those days. There is plenty of time before and after work for voting.
If voter ID is such an unreasonable burden for certain segments of the population, then they should have no objection to dipping their finger in a bottle of ink. That system is used in various countries around the world, including places where many are illiterate. It’s funny that hardly anyone ever suggests it for elections in the United States.
How about international observers?
I heard that international observers in the 2012 elections were appalled with our lack of security, including no ID required.
Yup.
Democrats would be walking around with gloves on and 10 purple fingers underneath.
The one big advantage of early voting is that it weakens a politician’s ability to drop a last minute turd on the final days before an election (see Bush DUI chaim on the last weekend before the 2000 election). Those last minute bombshells (true or not) are very hard to refute and can swing an election. If people can vote early, then they aren’t impacted by the bombshell. If the bomb thrower releases the info earlier to try and influence the early voters, it gives the other side more time to refute the claims.
Sorry, but… the premise of that article is that we have an electorate that’s paying attention to issues and rationally evaluating them. If we did, the case against early voting would have more merit. However, we don’t. As the article itself indicates, it’s the candidates that are putting out most of the ‘information’ the voters look at, and that’s the worst possible source. (It’s akin to putting credence in a TV ad about a product – foolhardy at best.)
Instead, we have an electorate that laps up the vacuous empty slogans and spin blathered by both sides, such as was so blatantly on display in the State of the Union speech last night (both in the speech, and the rebuttal.).
Also, the article mentions press scrutiny of the candidates. Come on, that’s baloney – the press simply does not to its job of scrutinizing and vetting the candidates (If they did, we’d have had different people giving the SOTU and rebuttal last night). So, that’s another false premise.
I also agree with Larry J above; early voting helps stop last minute bombshells. I don’t much mind the one used on Bush in 2000, because it was factual, but the greater danger is a false one that there’s no time to refute.
That said… I do have concerns when states allow early voting a month or two in advance. I’m fine with a week or two, though, so I’m in at least partial agreement.
I am not opposed to early voting but a month in advance is generous enough. Vote by mail is very convenient but in states like WA, voter fraud is pretty easy. Sometimes boxes of ballots just show up months after an election. We also don’t do a good job of pruning the voter rolls of people who have died or moved out of state.
Election integrity and convenience should not be mutually exclusive.
The incident that got me was one of the upper tier election guys in WA saying, “Oh, I have another couple boxes in my car.”
Unsecured, unobserved by the R & D election watchers, etc.
Even with perfectly legitimate ballots, they’re so cavalier about the whole process one can’t place much trust in it. The ‘vote in person’ method had layers of vote-integrity measures. The vote by mail method has … a signature on the -outside- of the envelope … and available online. (Last time I looked anyway.)
The other angle that’s ridiculous was the “reconciliation” process. The entire idea is to take two completely different routes of accounting and hopefully arrive at exactly the same count. Instead of doing that, the lady in charge of the process admitted “Well, I use entirely method 2 to get my final result, then back out what the numbers for method one -should- be … without all that pesky counting actual ballots.”
It’s beyond pathetic.
Totally agreed regarding fraud concerns. Voting by internet would be very convenient – but I bitterly oppose it. I’m opposed to any fraud-friendly system.
I’m concerned over some of the proposed fixes though – such as stopping the dead from voting. That’s downright discriminatory, and robs the lividity-challenged of their rights. It’s also politically unfair, as it directly targets the Democrats’ most solid (and rigid) constituency .
Here’s an idea: vote on election day. Show identification that proves you’re eligible to vote, get a purple thumb with your paper ballot. Scrutineers from multiple parties observe the counting of votes. It’s simple, straightforward, and virtually immune to fraud. Of course, that means the Dems wouldn’t win another election, with no dead people voting or people voting multiple times in multiple jurisdictions.
I agree completely. Election Day used to be a sort of civic holiday, a day when everybody from all walks of life, rich and poor, were all doing the same thing. It was a powerful symbol of the democratic system and helped cement the social fabric of our nation. Early voting and voting by mail dilutes that.
Absentee ballots should be restricted to those who are physically unable to go to their local polling station because of disability, travel, etc. It should not be an option for mere convenience.
I don’t want to make it easier to vote. If an individual is too damn lazy to go to their local polling place on Election Day, I don’t want them voting. They aren’t taking it seriously enough. And I don’t want to hear any nonsense about not being able to vote because of work. I never miss a primary or a general election, and I always work on those days. There is plenty of time before and after work for voting.
If voter ID is such an unreasonable burden for certain segments of the population, then they should have no objection to dipping their finger in a bottle of ink. That system is used in various countries around the world, including places where many are illiterate. It’s funny that hardly anyone ever suggests it for elections in the United States.
How about international observers?
I heard that international observers in the 2012 elections were appalled with our lack of security, including no ID required.
Yup.
Democrats would be walking around with gloves on and 10 purple fingers underneath.