Question of the day
Tuesday, Sep 23, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The setup…
Election Day will be something of an afterthought for tens of millions of Americans — they’ll be voting well ahead of time.
In fact, six weeks out from Election Day, some voters in Kentucky, South Carolina and Virginia already are done. | Video
Nationwide, about a third of the electorate is expected to vote early this year, thanks to expanded early voting provisions and fewer restrictions on absentee voting, researchers project. In all, more than 30 states allow any registered voter to cast an early ballot, some in person and others by mail. […]
It’s a trend that is fundamentally changing the home stretch of American political campaigns. October surprises? They’d better come in September if campaigns want to influence every vote. Get out the vote operations? They’re already under way in some states.
“You can’t hold your big guns right to the end,” said Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Oregon. “When up to 25 or 30 percent of the electorate has already cast a ballot, it might not be wise to wait until the last minute” to make a game-changing play for votes.
Even the presidential debate series, which begins Friday and runs through Oct. 15, will come after many have voted. However, experts say the earliest voters tend to be party loyalists who wouldn’t be swayed by debate performances anyway.
* The question: Should Illinois keep early voting or drop it? Explain.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:09 am:
You bet keep it!
Those who wish to vote are unlikely to be the ones who are currently waffling between the two candidates. Unless one of them has a stroke or mental breakdown between now and Election Day, there is no reason to end early voting.
- doc - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:14 am:
I have had to vote “absentee” or “early” in every election since the early 1980s. If early/absentee voting were eliminated, lots of eligle people would be disenfranchised - leavingthe elections to be swung to an even greater extent by the election day vote fraud.
- Anon - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:15 am:
Early voting should absolutely be kept in place. We should make it as easy as possible for people to vote. Also, most people who have already made up their minds and wouldn’t vote for the other candidate regardless of any “October surprises” are more likely to vote early. The people who are the true undecideds will probably vote on Nov. 4.
- Tom B. - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:32 am:
Keep, but a suggested change. I know this causes havoc with election officials, but the hours need to be the reverse of when people are working.
So, 6-10pm at night, 12-5 on saturdays and sundays.
OR, let’s go the Oregon/CA model and allow no-fault absentee voting by mail. Enough states have done this that allow for fraud to be an afterthought.
- Phil Collins - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:44 am:
Yes, we should keep it. More people might vote, if they can choose the day and time. When I vote on election day, I need to get up at 5:30 and vote before I go to my office. I usually use early voting so that I can vote on a weekend.
- Muskrat - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:54 am:
Keep it but limit it to start the Saturday 10 days before the election (ballots could be requested/mailed otu earlier, but would have to be postmarked or voted on or after that date). That should be enough to accommodate virtually all schedules, but also sticks to the principle that we should have a single national vote, based on the same set of conditions, the same cumulative knowledge of the candidates, etc.
I’m OK with the integrity of the process, but there could also be pressure by dndidates to make people vote early to bank reliable votes. That’s fine for the top of the ticket, but many people rely on things like newspaper endorsements for local, downticket and judicial races, and those sources aren’t always available early.
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:56 am:
Keep it.
The world has changed a lot since the Founding Fathers chose the first Tuesday in November as Election Day. Heck, the world has changed a lot in the last 20 years.
People’s schedules don’t fit nicely into a 9-5 mode, allowing for plenty of time to vote before or after work. Moreover, too many employers don’t follow the law and allow time off for voting.
- phocion - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:01 pm:
VM, you gave the reason that early voting needs to end. John Stroger had a stroke after tens of thousands of early voters made their preference. Would those who voted early for Stroger have reconsidered with the news of his stroke? Could voters now be swayed by a future debate performance, or meltdown? It seems early voting can only lead to less informed voting.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:09 pm:
Moreover, too many employers don’t follow the law and allow time off for voting.
Then report them and let Lisa M do her thing.
But how can we really say that 6AM to 7 pm is not enough time???
- Pat collins - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:17 pm:
Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:09 pm
is really yours truly. Busy AM:(
- Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:20 pm:
I agree with Phocion, and would also add that new information could become available days before the actual election which would cause voters to change their minds, only to find themselves in the position of being unable to do so.
I would actually argue in support of a two day election taking place over the weekend. Seems like a fair alternative to me.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:30 pm:
==VM, you gave the reason that early voting needs to end. John Stroger had a stroke after tens of thousands of early voters made their preference. Would those who voted early for Stroger have reconsidered with the news of his stroke? Could voters now be swayed by a future debate performance, or meltdown? It seems early voting can only lead to less informed voting. ==
==Unless one of them has a stroke or mental breakdown between now and Election Day, there is no reason to end early voting.==
I’m changing that stand…
We’ve had plenty of candidates die after nomination and Election Day. We’ve had plenty of candidates die between Election Day and Inaugural Day. And we have handled each situation without suspending or changing how votes were handled.
And since we’re discussing McCain/Obama this year regarding early voting; please note that when Stroger had a near-fatal stroke, even Obama didn’t support recalling early votes. He just supported the Cook County Machine’s candidate instead of reform. Obama doesn’t rock the status quo, does he?
- Bubs - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:36 pm:
I agree with Muskrat that the period opens way too soon. 10 to 14 days should be plenty. People voting in September, as in some states, is silly. The real campaign has barely begun.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:39 pm:
Keep it.
- Black Ivy - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 1:37 pm:
Keep it with greater oversight. Chicago is not known for the “vote early, vote often” philosophy for no reason. I believe the early voting process is wrought with opportunities for voter fraud and am concerned about the sanctity of voting.
- doubtful - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 3:29 pm:
Keep it.
It has several systemic advantages, as well, like familiarizing volunteers with the equipment and limiting waits on actual election day.
For those who say something can come out between the early voting and election day, I say that’s a moot point. As VanillaMan said in the first comment, it’s mostly hardened partisans, so there is likely relatively little that would change their mind.
Also, at this point in the race, for engaged voters, it’s unlikely that anything political will change their mind. In other words, I doubt a die hard McCain supporter would suddenly vote Obama if his cancer came out of remission.
Black Ivy,
How is early voting wrought with opportunity for fraud? I wouldn’t think it any more so than on November 4th. In fact, I think we’re going to see a lot of fraud in the form of unsubstantiated challenges to people right to vote, and I think that is more likely to occur on election day.
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 4:14 pm:
Pat Collins asks:
But how can we really say that 6AM to 7 pm is not enough time???
Get up at 6:00 AM to prepare breakfast and lunch for the kids
6:45-7:30 see the kids off to school
7:30-9:00 commute downtown
9:00-6:00 work
6:00-7:30 commute back
And that’s a light schedule for many people. So yeah, I can easily say that 6AM to 7PM is not enough time.
And if you think that an average working stiff will have any job security left if she reports her employer to the AG, then pass around whatever it is you’re smoking
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 4:38 pm:
I think it is a great idea. This year I leave on vacation October 29 and don’t return until after the election. I plan to vote before I leave.
- Captain America - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 5:28 pm:
Early voting is a tremendous option - much simpler than the hassle of voting absentee voting.
although i ususaly know who I want to support in in most cases, I like to check newspaper endorsements and other last minute sources of information for judicial candidates in contested primaries and for the judical retention decsion.
When I vote early my ID is checked, so I see zero possibility of any election fraud related to early voting.
People opposed to early voting seem to be those interested in minimizing voter turnout. I do agree that 2- 3 weeks should suffice for facilitating voter participation.
- the ole precinct captain - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:59 pm:
Keep it. It allows all who wish to vote to do so. Have all voted who wish. It makes it easier and allows greater participation for all.