Is there a reason why we can’t have real time vote counting throughout course of early voting and actual election day? I wouldn’t be opposed to a safe way of doing that.
But I don’t like the OP’s proposal. Just don’t like the idea of some votes counting for less.
Missouri.
Also, think how many people won’t bother voting the first time around-- why should they when they get a Mulligan if the election turns out not to their liking.
Terrible idea all 'round. Instant runoff is the way to go, not this re-vote nightmare.
Absentee ballots are not the same thing as early voting, at all, even though by necessity they are filled out “early”.
And I’m still unsure why “improving voter turnout” is a good thing, except in cases where there is some sort of suppression going on. If people want to vote, they should be able to, and disability, absence, work, etc shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way. But if people don’t want to vote, I don’t care to prod them. They made a perfectly valid decision and it’s no one’s place to question that.
People should vote out of civic duty, make it mandatory (like Australia) to increase turnout. In Canada, you get a reasonable amount of time of work to vote. Probably in the US too. If you aren’t inclined to vote, adding more time might not make you more inclined to vote. If you don’t like the result, you should have voted or voted differently. A second vote would just increase uncertainty and unhappiness, if you want to go that route better to have a ranked ballot rather than an extra day IMHO.
In Maine, all early voting is by absentee ballot. As I mentioned, you can vote early in person at the town hall. The clerk gives you an absentee ballot, which you can either fill out right there and drop in the ballot box, or bring it home to mail in later. Either way, or if they mail you your ballot, it is treated the same as any other absentee ballot.
Mandatory voting is a solution in search of a problem. Moreover, you increase the likelihood of voting in candidates based less on policy and experience and more on fame or celebrity status. Perish the thought.
And New Jersey.
How do you know it won’t have the opposite effect? Why won’t more people decide to sit out Day 1 to see how the vote is going? If they then think the vote is either going their way or too far to make a difference more people may sit out altogether.
I voted absentee/early in every election in across the 20 years I lived in MO. You’re not doing it right.
You decrease the likelyhood of voting on narrow sectional interest. Which is actually a problem with the American system, (1) corrupting the system, and (2) favouring fringe political postions.
The Australian system of compulsory voting is attached to a different kind of structure, so I can’t use this country as an example of what would happen in the USA if you had compulsory voting. But whatever the bad effects, it clearly would have some very good effects on some of the known problems with the American system.
show me.
I have been doing the Vote-by-Mail thing for 10+ years (CA rules - don’t know about others*)
If people would do this, the problem of poll hours is moot.
Does Texas count as “the South”?
We can and do vote at supermarkets and other public places for 3 weeks before Election Day.
If minority voter turnout is low, it is NOT because it’s difficult to vote here.
Virtually the entire northeast. There are a total of 16 states without early voting, ftr.
In Colorado it’s very very easy to vote. You get your ballot, you mark it, you can either mail it back, or take it to a polling place. Could NOT be easier.
And yet, people don’t vote. I guess I haven’t seen any statistics on how many eligible voters exercise their right under this very easy system as they did under the somewhat harder (but still not onerous) day-at-the-polls scenario.
It just doesn’t seem to matter to people. I’m assuming the people who didn’t vote are different people than the ones bitching right now.