I actually dislike pre-voting intensely. I think that the vote should represent a snapshot of the public opinion on a given day. That’s true not just because of idiots who take down reporters, but because there is always the potential for last-minute information to affect a vote.
On the other hand, in a state like Montana, where the distances are so large, forcing people to vote in-person seems a bit unwieldy. What happens if a bad storm hits? What happens if you’re not easily able to drive, or get a ride?
Probably, the best solution is internet voting limited to a time frame like 48 hours, with the state providing roving voting stations for those who refuse to join the modern world.
If this guy wins, as he well might, because of the 300,000+ mailed in votes already cast, I expect there’s gonna be some soul-searching in the Democratic Party in Montana tonight.
The trivial solution to this is that early votes are double sealed with the voter identity on the outside envelope. When multiple early votes are submitted by the same person, only the latest one is accepted; if the person votes at the polls, the early vote is invalidated.
Once a voter’s early ballot has been confirmed valid, the outside envelope is removed and the still-sealed ballot is shuffled in with all other valid early ballots. Once the ballots have been collected the final envelope can be opened and the anonymized votes tallied.
Repeating others’ question of Bricker, why is that important? Why does it need to represent a snapshot on a given day rather than the bulk of information gathered over a longer time period with the noise filtered out? Situations like this where a crime is committed the day before the election are exceeding rare. Slightly more common is the timed release of “gotcha” surprises that might causes momentary blips in polls, and I argue those shouldn’t be given the weight that they are.
A Republican winning in Montana? Quelle surprise! We’ve seen the low bar for what Republicans will accept in their candidates. A Democratic win would be a bolt from the blue, and very few people realistically expect that. A loss won’t result in great soul searching.
One current Senator from Montana is a Democrat, as is the Governor.
I couldn’t care less whether people vote on the same day or not. There is always some extra bit of news that might come out if we wait just one more day. Overall, if I were actually worried about this, I’d say the good outweighs the bad. More likely there will be some irrelevant “news” than a story with some heft to it.
For most of the history of democratic elections like ours, voting has been a single-day thing. So I assert that the common interpretation of what it means to have an election matches what I said. When we start stretching out that time frame, the question then becomes, how long shall we stretch it out? I mean, if you’ve already let voting go for three weeks, why not four? Most people in the last presidential election had their mind made up by the point of the conventions; why not just open it up then? But all that does is cement a bad idea: that people should make up their minds early and not keep them open until the end of the process.
First of all, Democrats win state-wide almost as often as Republicans do in Montana. Second of all, while a Republican winning might not normally cause much concern, a Republican who just assaulted a journalist winning by a narrow margin, helped by the fact that nearly one-third of expected votes were already cast by the time he did that would be a horse of a different color.
What if a candidate assaults someone at noon? Isn’t it unfair that some people voted before work?
This is only “trivial” if you’re fine with the increase in resources needed to figure all that out, and then waiting a long time to hear a result since they have to reconcile the polling place records with the huge stack of envelopes.
The seat was previously won by 16 points. 538 had an analysis of the election and said something within 10 points or less would be a continuation of strong showings by Dems. It’s looking like 7-8 points in early returns, so while not great news, it isn’t the worst. As I noted, Republicans have shown that character is not an important criteria when choosing a candidate.
As for how long of a voting period is reasonable, you don’t have to reduce it to “well if x weeks is ok, why not x+1?” Look at the statistics of poll variation due to news items - 538 has a massive trove of data. I think their data typically shows polls reaching equilibrium after a week or something.
Creating policies based on an extremely rare situation like this doesn’t make sense, especially when vote by mail has so many proven advantages.
Gianforte won. Quite a few supporters said the altercation didn’t change their vote.
I don’t know anything about the race or issues and can’t comment. What I read about the attack was disturbing. But this is the rugged old west. They still herd cattle in Montana. A fist fight might gain the candidate votes.
Maybe, maybe not. A civil suit enables discovery. The ability to investigate Gianforte further might be worth more to the journalist than any monetary recompense.
When statistical surveys over the Internet have been reliable for some time, we’ll be ready to “join the modern world” in the same way with respect to voting, which after all is far more important to get right.
I feel quite the opposite. Despite situations like what happened in Montana on Wednesday night, on the whole it’s probably a bad idea for the electorate to be reacting to one thing in particular in the voting.
Voting over a period of time will have voters reacting to a more balanced set of issues, concerns, and events, and thus yield a better result.
Only if the vote can be changed as the process continues. Sort of a preference poll, but at some point you have to lock in your vote.
Is there any other democratic country around the world that allows voting for offices to continue for more than one or two days? I’ve not looked to see if this is a trend elsewhere.
I can see this as a valid reason why individual voters might decide to refrain from voting early. It seems an overreaction to say, however, that everyone should vote at the same time.
Exactly. It’s arbitrary no matter when you do it. Suppose Gianforte had attacked a reporter on the day after the election? Would we expect a do-over?
I agree. Most of the last-minute, potential election-influencing things I’ve seen in my life are oppo dumps—not unforced errors like Gianforte’s assault, which can happen at any time. Forcing everyone to vote on the same day, just in case a candidate commits a crime at the last minute, is a solution to a problem that is exceedingly rare.