My proposal is premised on the fact that Vote Day 1 results are revealed. The point is to implicitly ask the question “This is the result after Vote Day 1. Are you ok with this? If not, you still have an opportunity to vote and change it.”
My proposal allows for a W = 1.0. 
My concern with full weight is that people will wait to see what is happening and then vote, which means it would be back to one day of voting.
I do like the idea of revealing the early voting though. Overall, I think that encourages the result to be whatever it is the people truly want.
There you go with “You Americans” again. :rolleyes:
He’s not saying Americans are lazy at all. Some Americans are apathetic. Some are undecided up until nearly Election Day. Some despair that their vote will make a difference. Early voting is a way to make it convenient for those who care about exercising their right. It means people don’t have to try to take time off work. It means it’s easier for disabled people to vote since they don’t have to try to make it to a polling place. Those who care to vote will take advantage of the opportunities offered to them. Those who don’t care, won’t. Early voting won’t make people vote who wouldn’t, anyway, and neither will a second day of voting in November. But please don’t smear all of us with your broad stereotype brush.
Exactly what I said: it would only really affect if at all those states where one of the top two parties was denied an actual majority. Which already are few and already are the focus of the campaign.
Yeah, I’d consider this to be a far more practicable way of inducing a high turnout(*).
And I think people believe the early-vote returns are known because the media and pundit sites, on the basis of registration lists and exit polling, predicts it and when published it makes it sound as if it were being counted and certified. Same with the notion that absentees are not counted unless the election is “close enough” for them to matter, when it’s that they are not reported about unless they *do *make a potential difference.
(*Why a high turnout should be desirable per se, is a different story for a different thread. Let’s just say that those who just don’t care, I’d rather they stay home and not gum up the works for those who do one way or the other.)
We just had early voting for the first time in Massachusetts and there was bigger turnout than the city accepted , 25% of voters voted early , I was one of them and loved be able to vote early . We had a whole week to vote early so , I am guessing the OP city or town doesn’t have this yet.
Well, I’m Canadian so our electoral process is different in a few ways. I would also like to see this in Canada as we have the same underlying issue. In any case, the proposal is not about early voting as previously discussed.
Also Pennsylvania. IIRC you need an excuse to request an absentee ballot too.
Checking online, I found that sixteen states do not have early voting. They allow absentee voting but you have to provide a reason why you can’t vote in person.
It’s worth looking a bit deeper into those 16. For example in MO where I used to live you have to give one of a list of approved reasons to vote absentee. One of which is “I think I might possibly be unable to get to the polls on election day.”
IOW, anyone that wants to vote absentee can use that reason and be OK. The dog might eat my homework, the car might break down, there might be a crisis at work, it might snow that day. Anyone can claim a plausible reason why at the last minute it becomes obvious they’re not going to get to the polling place on election day. So they’re forestalling that possibility now by voting absentee.
Whether the public at large in states like that have realized they just need to check the box, not provide an ironclad provable in court absolutely inevitable utter impossibility to vote in person on election day is another matter.
Why are we limiting it to two days? What about those who are dissatisfied with the results after the second day of voting? We would need to add a third day for them, and a fourth day for those who are dissatisfied after the third, and so forth.
I think preference-based instant-runoff is a much better system than manual runoffs or additional voting days. It requires the least amount of effort from the voters and better filters radical candidates from winning with weak pluralities.
Maine recently became the first state to institute instant-runoff for all statewide offices as well as their legislature and the US House. Maine also has a strong third-party movement. It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens there with regard to turnout and campaign strategy.
I’ve never been particularly fond of that counterargument. Under that premise, there is very little we should ever do unless it will absolutely perfect, which is rarely obtainable. Clearly this is not an ideal way to determine policy. If we cannot get 100% turnout then there is no point in doing anything which increases voter turnout. If the sole goal is to obtain perfect voter turnout, it would simply be necessary to mandate that you must vote (I’m not in favour of compulsory voting but that’s a whole other thread).
There is also the issue of diminishing returns. If 75% of people vote the first time and 75% of the remaining 25% vote the second time, we’re down to just 6.25% of the total who’ve not yet voted and would be eligible to vote in a third go-around.
Something I have not seen about this election (nor have I troubled to look very hard) are the turnout expressed as a percentage of registered voters.
None of the proposals in this thread are about getting more people to register. They’re just about getting the registered people to actually vote.
It would be unfair to the people who voted without knowing what the results were going to be, so you’d have to let everyone vote again. Except how do you nullify someone’s vote who has already voted? Oh, I’ve got it-- nullify the election and then everyone has to vote again.
Not seeing that as a working solution.
I can tell you from personal experience that it is extremely difficult to find poll workers for all the slots that need to be filled. Indiana even passed a law a few years ago allowing less than the required 2 clerks and 2 judges for precincts who have few than n registered voters, mostly remote, rural polls where only a few hundred people vote. I worked at one for three elections in a row where a Republican husband and wife acted as inspector and the Republican worker.
Even prior to that, Indiana had a third position, the sheriff, which was eliminated to reduce the burden of finding workers. Sheriffs were troubleshooters, which meant there might be long stretches when they did nothing, but when they did do something, it was often dealing with people whole weren’t registered, and needed a provisional ballot, or someone to look up their correct precinct for them (time-consuming before the internet). Now, when a judge or clerk has to stop and do this, it holds up the line. Also, occasionally, you got someone belligerent, and sheriffs dealt with them. Now there is no one whose specific job it is to deal with people causing trouble.
If workers had to be found for a second day, I don’t think it would happen.
Just to clarify, NY does not have “no excuse” voting. It does have absentee voting for people who will be out-of-town for legitimate reasons, such as military service or because they are attending college out-of-state, and has in-person early voting for people who will be working at precincts other than their own, or who have some other excuse, like medical interns assigned to 24-hr. hospital shifts on voting day, or firefighters who will be on duty that day.
What if I voted for an independent (now called #1) on Voting Day 1, thinking that my state would go the way of my second choice (I’ll call them #2). But, gasp, the state went with my least favorite candidate (#3). If I’d only known that, I’d have picked #2 instead, because I REALLY don’t like #3. Do I get to redo my vote too?
A second day to vote?? We already have early voting! If people don’t want to realize the responsibility and respect the historic value that is voting, their lost vote should not matter to anyone. IDs should and must be implemented. A prospective employer will not hire you if you cannot meet deadlines. Race has nothing to do with it. We already have absentee voting and early voting. Election day is on a Tuesday because in the 1700s and 1800s farmers would travel on Monday to get to their polling place.
Not voting - no excuse
I’m a big fan of absentee/mail-in/early voting, and I think that’s entirely appropriate. I would even like to see some kind of online voting if we can make it secure enough. We don’t want to make voting any more difficult than it needs to be, and states that require one-day voting are doing a big disservice, especially to voters with limited transportation and difficult demands on their time.
However, the proposed second day of voting with a different weighting doesn’t seem to provide any net benefit. You’ll obviously get the highest turnout among people who are unhappy with the initial result, and that seems unfair/undesirable no matter how much you discount their votes. If you don’t discount their votes enough, you’ve actually disadvantaged the initial winner. If you do discount their votes sufficiently, you might as well not have them vote at all. I don’t see any middle ground that would make the proposed second day an improvement.
How does Maine compare in voter turnout to other states? Here, absentee ballots can be requested by anyone, and you do not have to give a reason. There is also a three week window during which, you can show up at the town hall any time during business hours to vote. We have same-day registration, and even offer the option of registering at the polls. We are also one of only two states that allow convicted felons to vote in prison. All of the above also applies to primaries.