There was a time when
the admonition “vote early” was accompanied with “and often.” No doubt many who
used the expression had Chicago in mind, so photos
of President Obama voting early in his hometown surely
reminded old timers of the days when people really did vote early and often.
Although election
watchdogs remain appropriately vigilant in their pursuit of voting fraud, and
it is reasonable to believe that fraud is rare in American elections today,
there is little attention being paid to the consequences of the nationwide trend to early
voting. Is it a good thing? What impact is it having on our elections? Why are
candidates across the political spectrum urging people to vote early?
Presumably the answer to
the last question is that candidates believe it will give them an advantage. If
supporters vote early, they are less likely to put it off and miss the deadline
of Election Day. Get-out-the-vote efforts take boots on the ground; if you have
more days to get people to the polls, you can cover more ground with the same
number of boots. And most people are influenced by the last thing they’ve heard
or read, so if you can get them to the polls before they have a chance to hear
your opponent’s pitch, they might be more likely to vote for you.
Of course early voting
was always possible, though it was known as absentee voting and you had to have
a good reason to get your ballot early. Now over 30 states allow no-excuse
absentee voting. In Florida, where I vote, everyone
can vote early because we get our ballots in the mail almost three weeks before
elections. Between the mailing of the ballots and Election Day, the candidates
can’t know how you have voted, but they can know whether you’ve voted. That way
they can hound those who haven’t mailed in their ballots and, if they’re
reasonably sophisticated, leave early voters alone. Now there’s a reason to
vote early.
But voting early, as a
routine option for all voters, does have real effects on elections. Proponents
of vote by mail argue that one of those effects is higher voter turnout. It
makes it easier for those who might have difficulty getting to the polls or
taking time from work on Election Day. The state of Washington recently adopted
the Oregon model, and polling stations are certain to become extinct in other
states. A white paper published
last year by Runbeck Election Services declares that “vote-by-mail is the past,
present and future of democracy in America with ballots on-demand.”
No doubt they are correct. Early voting, vote by mail and, surely soon to come, electronic voting from our home computers is the future. But these trends come with costs as well as the claimed benefits.
No doubt they are correct. Early voting, vote by mail and, surely soon to come, electronic voting from our home computers is the future. But these trends come with costs as well as the claimed benefits.
Campaigns can no longer
plan to peak on Election Day. They have to communicate their messages by the
earliest date ballots are available and then keep it up right until Election
Day. Sometimes candidate debates happen after some people have voted. A late October
surprise might lead some who have already voted to wish for a second chance.
It’s like being in a meeting where an important decision is to be made and some
of the people have filled out their ballots before the discussion is concluded.
Early voting makes it more
difficult for candidates to engage in serious debates about serious issues, and
goodness knows we could use more of that. It puts a premium on strategy and
tactics at the expense of an informed electorate and of democratic choices that
reflect the contemporaneous opinions of the citizenry. We know from the volatility
in the polls that voters’ opinions can change dramatically over the course of
two or three weeks. Given Romney’s momentum, it’s not surprising that the Obama
campaign has been particularly enthusiastic about early voting.
Early voting and vote by
mail have another cost. They make Election Day less and less an important civic
occasion and more and more just the day on which the votes are counted and the
winners projected within minutes of the closing of the polls — which actually
doesn’t happen in Oregon and Washington because there are no polls. What was
once a solemn occasion celebrating the sovereignty of the people and the
all-important right to vote has been reduced to maybe 30 minutes of waiting for
the talking heads to declare a winner, followed by endless chatter about why
things turned out as they did.
Increasingly, our
embrace of early voting — warts and all — is part of the reason things turn out
the way they do.
No comments:
Post a Comment