Posted on 11/01/2016 8:56:01 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
With the revelation that the FBI is re-opening its investigation into Hillary’s emails and Trump on the rise because he is keeping his mouth shut, many are wondering if Trump could pull off a major come-from-behind victory. The problem is even if his positive trajectory continues through Election Day, it might already be too late for him. Hillary might have already banked an insurmountable lead prior to the authentic Election Day set by Congress since 1845. According to the New York Times, with eight days until official Election Day, over 22 million people had already voted early. Some estimate that two-thirds of voters in critical states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina will have cast ballots before Election Day.
Irrespective of one’s view of either candidate, this dynamic is fundamentally unfair. It’s akin to having the jury begin casting its vote while the evidence in the case is still being presented and before closing arguments. Constitution and federal law
Clearly, our Founders never envisioned protracted voting periods for as long as 4-6 weeks when ballots were cast and the results of how many registrants voted would be shaping the momentum of the election.
When discussing the election of the president, Art. II §1 cl. 4 of the Constitution states: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
Although states were to have control over all the administrative aspects of voting and voter eligibility (which courts are now violating), Congress was granted the authority to set the national Election Day for president. In 1845, Congress designated that day as “the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.” In 1872, Congress enacted the same law governing elections to the U.S. House [2 U.S.C. § 7], and when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, Congress dictated that Senate elections should be held on the same day as well [2 U.S.C. § 1]. Congress never intended voting to begin more than a month before that day, as is practiced in many states.
Also, the spirit of the Constitution clearly dictates that Election Day should be uniform. Although the clause dictating that the “Day shall be the same throughout the United States” was referring to the day the electors choose the president, it was clearly understood as granting Congress the sole authority to set the uniform day for choosing the electors (what we regard as national Election Day).
The great constitutional historian, Justice Joseph Story, wrote that when Congress first designated the date for choosing the electors in 1792 (not just the date for the electors choosing the president), it was “[I]n pursuance of the authority given by this clause.”[1]
When defending the election clause from those who felt it gave the federal government too much power, former North Carolina Governor Richard Dobbs Spaight gave a robust defense at the North Carolina ratification convention. From the context of his words, it is clear that the power granted to Congress and the desire for uniformity applied both to the day the people choose the electors and to the day the electors actually vote for president:
While many delegates to various state conventions objected to any federal control of elections, it was very clear that the Constitution had indeed vested Congress with the power to create a single election day. Ever since the Presidential Election Day Act set that date as "the Tuesday after the first Monday in November," it’s hard to see how a state holding multiple election days for in-person voting — without any excuse — is not a violation of this law, at least in spirit.
What is doubly ironic is that the federal courts have obliterated legitimate state control over methods and procedures of elections. Yet, when it comes to the actual date of the presidential election, which is fixed by Congress pursuant to the Constitution, the courts actually mandate that states have additional early voting. A backwards system indeed.Rendering a Verdict before the Trial
Aside from the dubious constitutionality of early voting, the notion that, over the course of a volatile campaign, different people would vote at different times is absurd because there are so many events that could alter the public perception about a candidate. It makes sense that everyone should observe the same campaign for the same duration and render their verdict based on a uniform set of information only available once the entire campaign is completed. What if a major revelation comes to the forefront — either positive or negative — about a given candidate after ballots have already been cast?
In recent years, some states have gone as far as allowing early voting even before the presidential debates! Minnesota has been voting since September 23, prior to the first debate at Hofstra University. This is especially damaging for congressional races where challengers to incumbents are often lacking name recognition at this stage. Yet many people who would otherwise have an open mind voting for a known quantity will reflexively vote for the incumbent at this early stage.Influencing the Outcome of Election Day
A quick glance at the congressional debates preceding passage of the election day law for presidents in 1845, and the election day for the House of Representatives in 1872, reveals that Congress clearly intended that states should have polls open only on the day prescribed in the statute. In 1871, Rep. Benjamin Butler (R-MA) spoke on the House floor about the need for a uniform voting day because otherwise “we may have a canvass going on all over the union at different times.” Butler’s concern was that it would give some states and political parties “an undue advantage.” He spoke of how the announcement of vote results in some states helped influence the momentum of the election.[2]
While official election results are not announced to the public prior to Election Day, practically everything else — from turnout by party to demographics — is either announced or can be ascertained. It is now known who has voted on every block in every state with early voting. The New York Times has an entire blog page dedicated to influencing the momentum of this election by prejudging the results. And as Rep. Butler feared, this certainly is designed to benefit a political party, in this case, the Democrats. It’s no coincidence that the electoral map substantially shifted in favor of Democrats beginning in 2008 when early voting first became a significant factor. As has been the case over the past decade, preliminary estimates of early voting turnout show a significant advantage for Democrats. Ace reporter, Jon Ralston, predicts that based on early voting, Hillary has a near-insurmountable lead in the critical state of Nevada. And since the Democrat base is comprised of monolithic groups, they can harness their GOTV machine to completely influence the perception of an election long before Election Day. This is obviously not an excuse for Republicans lacking a decent ground game for early voting, but it doesn’t make the state laws fair or just.
In his “Commentaries on the Constitution,” Justice Story presciently observed that the need for a uniform day was “self evident”:
It goes without saying that, aside from the aforementioned reasons to end early voting, holding the vote over a protracted period invites corruption and fraud. It gives “those ready expedients” (think Soros community organizing groups) ample time “to employ to accomplish its designs.”[3]Early Voting a killer for Insurgent Candidates in Primaries
Democrats will never agree to cede their advantage in early voting during general elections, but both parties should agree to reform the process for primaries, which affects both parties equally. Given that primaries are so heavily influenced by name recognition, new insurgent candidates — even the ones who are ultimately victorious — tend to surge in the final days of the election when there is the most intense coverage of the race. Unfortunately, states with early voting give incumbents and candidates with ubiquitous name ID an automatic advantage by allowing them to bank votes before enough voters know there is another viable candidate in the race.
If nothing else, it would make sense for the parties to come together and get rid of early voting at least for the primary process.
Nowhere is early voting more deleterious and absurd than in presidential primaries. Unlike general elections which were designed to occur on the same date in each state, the whole point of the staggered primary process is to allow unknown candidates to gain momentum gradually instead of competing in a national primary day with few resources. Yet, with the advent of early voting, the momentum from a surprise upset win in an early state could be mitigated by the fact that so many “early” votes were already cast in the “later” states for the initial front-runner.
Moreover, in what is perhaps the inanest outcome of early voting, presidential primaries are extremely fluid with multiple candidates dropping out after performing poorly in earlier states, yet a number of voters in later states with early voting have already cast thousands of ballots for a candidate that is no longer in the race on election day. We saw this across the board in the GOP primary when Cruz was vying for a mano-a-mano fight against Trump (who had the universal name ID from day one), but for weeks after candidates dropped out so much of the anti-Trump vote was already wasted on Rubio or other candidates no longer in the race.
If nothing else, it would make sense for the parties to come together and get rid of early voting at least for the primary process. Sadly, the establishments of both parties love early voting precisely because it benefits incumbents.
The trend for early voting is only getting worse. Democrats are seeking to expand the days, hours, and locations of early voting at every turn. In the states where they are out of power, the courts have enacted their early voting agenda for them. With modern communication and transportation, it is easier than ever to register to vote and cast a ballot or request and send back an absentee ballot if one is unable to vote in person on Election Day. If a single Election Day was good enough for our first two centuries when it was harder to travel or communicate, it should certainly work for us today.
[1] Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. (Boston: Hillard,
Gray, 1833), §1470.
[2] Congo Globe, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., 141 (1871) (remarks of Rep. Butler).
[3] The principle that Congress intended on only one election day both for president and congressional elections because of voter fraud and undo influences was clearly expressed by Senator Allen Thurman (D-OH) during debate on the 1872 law. “I think as a general principle it is best to have our elections on the same day whenever we can. We provided long ago by law that the election of electors of President and Vice President should take place on the same day throughout the United States, and for the same reason we may well provide that the election of member of Congress shall take place on the same day. Whenever you provide that elections shall take place upon the same day, you do interpose a not inconsiderable check to frauds in elections, to double voting, to the transmission of voters from one State to another, and you do allow the people to vote for their Representatives undisturbed by considerations which they ought not to take at all into account.” Cong. Globe, 42 Cong., 2d Sess. 618 (1872) (remarks of Sen. Thurman).
“Another group that shouldn’t vote is childless liberals”
They certainly don’t have anything in stake. But as long as they are not living off the gubmint dole, then I cannot argue for their voting privilege exclusion.
My husband cannot stay in a line and definitely cannot be exposed to whatever is out there.
We early vote. I do not want to have to go and wait in line for hours. Yes, I am that lazy. But, since they offer the early voting I do it. I have seen many do so. My husband actually voted curbside. I know who I am voting for. NOTHING could change my mind.
BTTT.
I voted for Trump last week, as there is nothing that could be said or done to convince me to vote for Clinton. There are plenty of people like me - on both sides.
It is frankly convient to put it in the mail, and not stand in long lines on a work day, that for me begins at 8:30 AM, and doesn’t end until 5 or 6 PM.
We should give the Democrats one thing: two days of voting on a Saturday and Sunday.
In exchange: no vote by mail, no electronic voting, no early voting except in extreme cases, and voter ID required.
But even the RINO's who run the GOP wouldn't fight for such commonsense ideas.
I have always waited until Election Day.
But ... with today’s technology I think voting should all be done on-line. Skype the Registrar of Voters to register, providing your vitals including valid ID and last 4 digits of SS#. The registrar would compare your mug to your state ID database picture to verify you are you. Get your PIN to access your ballot. Then vote at any time and change your vote as many times as you want up to midnight on Election Day. Polling would be obsolete, as the actual data for any issue or candidate would be available all through the process, with your ballot opening up months before the first Primaries. As issues come up, the effect on the race would be immediately available for everyone to see. If something comes up at the last minute, you change your vote and there is no room for buyer’s remorse.
Same goes for government workers. Obvious conflict of interest.
Isn’t that just a health insurance plan people paid premiums into for 40 years ? Like any other insurance, what you get back out is paid for by somebody else, not directly from you own premiums.
Of course, it is badly run by people with no regard to setting rates based on actuarial data, but that is hardly the customer’s fault.
That's why the left is so adamantly in favor of early voting.
The same can be said about not requiring ID; it undermines fair elections. Again, the left is adamantly opposed to voter ID laws.
The left has been Voter Fraud, Inc. for decades and will continue to be as long as the right lacks the balls to collect, compile, and present the evidence, and prosecute those responsible.
Unfortunately, many Clinton voters might have said the same thing last week and are now wishing they could change it. Internet voting where you have to log on to your ballot with voter ID and password but can change your vote any time before the cutoff would be convenient and flexible. Just need to move voter ID measures to Skype when registering to vote so they can check your image against your state DMV in real time before giving you your password/PIN.
Amen
Gives dems weeks to vote again and again in toss up states
Early voting should be ended for obvious reasons.
My family too. This would be like celebrating Thanksgiving in October. What’s the point? (I understand some families have to have Thanksgiving dinner perhaps early or later due to family obligations). But this early voting stuff is crazy. I like going to vote on election day. It is much more exciting to do so my self.
Democrats like early voting because it lets them know how many ballots they need to “produce” on Election Day.
There was a time when the USA had a single day for voting and absentee ballots for those who could not vote on election day.
We are a lawless country.
Early voting allows more opportunity for voter fraud, is unfair to surging candidates, and, overall, makes the results less convincing.
Are there any other countries that support early voting? How are they doing?
Voting again and again, under multiple identities, without cutting in to meth-cooking, siesta and midnight basketball.
Same here. Early voting was set up just to help the Rats steal elections.
Voter ID, no absentee ballots, vote in person, on election day, and purple fingers if that’s what it takes to insure an honest election.
Not enough time to read.
Totally against this banana-republic Democrat weaseling action.
OK, good points all, but what about....
WHO IS DEAD **ON** ELECTION DAY, AND ARE THEIR PRIOR VOTES TOSSED OUT?
We complain about the dead voting; well here you are. Why should it be more than 24 hours window to vote? Where does it end? Now, we still have official Elections on 2nd Tuesday in Nov. People can vote, then die before ED! This ain’t right.
Sorry to say, but the horrible bus crash here yesterday made me think of this again. How many of those now suddenly dead voted early, and still get a say even though it is not 1TuesNov?
Yes. I think I looked it up on Wiki and was dismayed not only at our system, but all over. Not surprising, though, as so many are not truly great systems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.