E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, April 15, 2016

A case against early voting

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 12:30 PM (#)

I like the concept of early voting and I have used it myself but it has gone too far and needs to be reigned in. We would be better off limiting early voting to a few days before Election Day.

The problem with allowing people to vote for up to a month before Election Day is that it necessarily leads to voters being less informed than they otherwise would be when they cast their ballots. Let's say candidate A and B are running close together and a major scandal breaks just before the election. Or, on the positive side, one of the candidates unveils a significant endorsement or a major public policy a week before the election - or an incumbent elected official steps up in a crisis and solves a major problem. Votes that would have been swayed are locked in because those votes were cast a month ago.

Even without an "October surprise" candidates are running TV ads, sending mailers, having debates, going door to door, and posting on their websites or social media trying to convince voters. But those who vote the first week of October (or the first week of April) cannot be informed by those things (or news coverage of the campaigns) the last month of the election - which happens to be when election coverage and campaigning is most intense. With all other things being equal, a voter who casts a ballot a month early is going to be less informed than a voter that casts a ballot on Election Day. Do we really want less informed voters deciding our elections?

We should not eliminate early voting entirely. Sometimes things happen that cannot be foreseen. I had a death in my family just before the Bloomington city elections in 1995, and I voted on Monday instead of Tuesday so I could travel back to my hometown for the funeral. People may get sick, have a family emergency, or be called into work unexpectedly. Therefore, it is unreasonable to limit voting to twelve hours on the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

It is not unreasonable, however, to expect voters to show up over a much shorter time frame. It would be better for early voting to be limited to Friday or Saturday through Tuesday - allowing people four or five days to vote, but not cutting off efforts to inform and convince voters and perhaps change a few votes here and there. This would result in a more informed electorate and would allow people more time to consider the candidates' policy positions, record and personal character. Any effort to do this would have intense backlash but sometimes the right thing to do is not the most popular thing to do.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.