In a thread discussing the Montana congressional special election, we learn that the GOP candidate is alleged to have assaulted a reporter by body-slamming, prompting RTFirefly to wryly observe:
However, the electoral results may not sway too much because (among other reasons) Montana allows early mail voting. The New York Times observed, “Voting by mail is common in the state, and officials in both parties believe that more than half of the total ballots that will be cast in the election had been submitted before Thursday.”
This is, I argue, a reason to dislike early voting. Voters who might vote differently based on this news cannot.
Admittedly, there is always a point at which that’s true, but I argue it would serve us better if that point were the same for everyone – that is, if there were voting on Election Day, period.
I’d be OK with this if Election Day were a national holiday and everyone, no matter what their job, was granted time off to vote, and there were contingencies for extenuating circumstances (travel, surgery, etc.).
Without all that, vote by mail is by far a net benefit compared to relatively rare situations like this.
I fear that one day we will succumb to the lure of internet voting, then the guy with the best hackers will win.
Mail voting has its pros and cons. You don’t have to worry about a ride to the polls, but you might vote too early and miss a big story like the Montana thug who threw down a journalist.
I’s like to see elections be four day holidays where every employer is required by law to give each employee at least one day off from Saturday through Tuesday. Have the polls open about 15 hours a day each day and perhaps continuously from Monday morning through Tuesday evening.
This is easily solved. Allow voters who voted by mail to vote in person at the polls and have their mailed in ballot shredded. People can still vote by mail for convenience and if there’s new info that drastically changes their opinion of a candidate, they can find the time to come to the polls and vote or their original vote will stand.
I am a permanent absentee voter in the state of California, and there have been times when I felt like I might have changed my mind if I voted later. But there are always going to be things that might have changed your vote in hindsight – Election Day is as arbitrary a cutoff date as any other. I don’t see the particular value in everyone voting on the same day, and there are plenty of advantages in being able to vote by mail. I feel like I put a lot more thought and care into my votes when I can do it at my leisure at home, even if I might miss the last minute assaults.
It’s not optimal when stuff like this happens but is it enough to take away something that makes it so much easier to vote? The American election system is so drawn out, how often does a game changing event happen in the last couple of weeks.
Mail-in and advanced polls give people who may not have the opportunity to vote at a regular poll the ability to actually vote rather than be disenfranchised. Such people can include ex-pats, students residing out-of-town, people who are shut-in or distant from their polling station, people without transportation, people who cannot afford to take off work or are not allowed un-paid time off work, people who cannot stand in line for extended periods, and people (in some states) who cannot vote at polls because the polls are not sufficiently staffed to handle the flow but also are not willing to stay open until everyone in line gets to vote.
What are the benefits of it being the same point for everyone?
I would argue the opposite. There are benefits in spreading it out, the main one being that the electoral advantage of saving up damaging information for an “October Surprise” blitz is reduced. Do we really want more people deciding their vote based on a last-minute barrage of campaign maneuvering?
It takes time for the truth of a situation to filter out of the news. Some bombshell released right before the election might end up swaying opinions and then evaporate as a non-story. We don’t have to imagine this case; it literally just happened with Comey’s letter to Congress about reopening the investigation into Clinton’s emails.
And that’s before we even get into the negatives that making voting more restricted and difficult bring.
Voting week, every two years. Arrange locations where people running (or their representatives) can come and talk to everyone, hand out pamphlets, run debates, etc. Offer free bus rides to and from voting locations.
“Last minute information” in most elections is smear tactics by the opposition, often unraveled in the following - but too late - weeks. Swift boat, Hillary’s emails… if vote-by-mail blunts that tactic then any real eleventh-hour surprise should still have proper impact.
If the voters of Montana are as educated and informed and knowledgeable of the candidates as they should be, then they should already know this about the man.
Washington State relies heavily on mail (or drop boxes that essentially work the same way). I think it’s a good system. It’s obviously convenient, but there is something quite nice about filling in the long ballot full of local races in the comfort of your own home with easy access to all the research resources you might want.
I find it a vastly superior system, and I feel you’d need to be solving a pretty serious problem if you decided to give that up. I don’t see the serious problem you’re trying to solve.
This is always going to be an issue with arbitrary election dates. Maybe the assault would have changed some early voter’s minds. But what if the assault happened the day after the election? What if the election was two days earlier? What if we had much shorter election cycles? Would that be bad?
I hadn’t even thought about the benefits of spreading out the impact of the bipolar ups and downs of the news cycle. That’s a compelling argument too.
Why? There are vast differences in the amounts of information that different voters have that are much more significant than a time delay. Those who choose to vote early understand the risk they are taking that they might lose the ability to react to future events Why shouldn’t they be allowed that choice.
Between this and your opinions regarding voter ID, there really seems to be a desire to make voting as difficult as possible so as to prevent those less affluent citizens with inflexible work situations from voting. Poll tax 2.0.
I’m fine with voting by mail. They’re holding this special election on a Thursday, right before a holiday weekend. That is ridiculous. Even in a rural state, there are going to be a lot of people finishing up work or errands before enjoying their long weekend.
It is often difficult to get away from work to vote, even if you’re technically allowed time to vote. A few years ago, while working a job I hated, there was a special election. I asked my manager about time to vote, since I worked ten hour days, and got the most incredible roll eyes. Yes, I could have stood my ground and gotten the time to go vote, but I knew I’d move up to #1 on the shit list and I didn’t need that.
The Bush DUI came out the weekend before the 2000 election and didn’t seem to really have an effect. Candidates bodyslamming reports are thankfully quite rare black swan events.
Why? There are vast differences in the amounts of information that different voters have that are much more significant than a time delay. Those who choose to vote early understand the risk they are taking that they might need to change their mind. Why shouldn’t they be allowed that choice. Especially given that for many it may be the choice between voting with a few days less knowledge and not voting at all.
Between this and your opinions regarding voter ID, there really seems to be a desire to make voting as difficult as possible so as to prevent those less affluent citizens with inflexible work situations from voting. Poll tax 2.0.
