[enumerated]

I understand there are legitimate reasons to vote early, such as the case where one must be out of town on business on Election Day.

Also, I understand that early voting is encouraged in some states, and has become commonplace, whereas in other states it is both rare and discouraged.

However, I find some of the discussion on FR about early vs not early voting a bit disturbing. For example, one FReeper actually referred to waiting to vote on Election Day as “procrastination”.

The justifications for voting early seems to fall into three groups;

1) convenience (avoiding long lines, avoiding a schedule conflict by expanding the possible voting days, avoiding a trip the the voting place).

2) psychological advantage (the appearance of momentum, or countering the same on the opposing side).

3). Avoiding an unforeseen event that may occur on voting day that might prevent voting when it’s too late to find a workaround (a natural disaster or machine malfunction).

Hold on just a minute.

Shouldn’t the pros and cons of allowing early voting all be subordinated to the overriding objective of getting a fair and accurate vote?

Whatever advantages an early voting period provides, can’t we all admit that it’s effect on the probability of getting a fair and accurate vote can only be negative?

Maybe we can sacrifice some security for convenience, but let’s at least admit that’s what we are doing.

For example, it has been argued that asking for ID may be a hardship and “suppress voting rights” of certain classes. Ok, I disagree, but if we do accept voting without ID to make it easier, let’s admit that’s the reason and that we’ve just sacrificed some degree of certainty that we have a fair and accurate vote. Because if the goal is “one citizen, one vote”, by not requiring ID, the ability to assure only voting age citizens vote, and only vote once, has just been weakened substantially.

The same can be said for early voting. All manner of voter monitoring and checking is complicated exponentially by increasing the period of time, the various ways, and the number of places in which a person can vote.

I wish there was one Election Day, where everyone must present ID in front of many witnesses and dip their right index finger in a bowl of indelible ink. Before voting, each voter must hold their inkless right index finger in the air for all to see that they have not yet voted. All voting would be done behind a curtain, but all votes would be counted in full view of the public on the day of voting.

Obviously, this isn’t the most convenient system. Adding more days, more ways, more locations, fewer witnesses, more automation, fewer restrictions, would make voting more convenient.

But we should all be honest with ourselves that EVERY change made for convenience is also a weakening of security, and a sacrifice to the accuracy and fairness of the vote. Even if voters were given the convenience of dipping not just the right index finger, but any finger they choose - the task of checking fingers for ink has just increased tenfold.

This is like saying that when I park my car, it is not worth taking my car keys out of the ignition, removing valuables, and locking my car, because then I have all this stuff to carry, I have to fumble for my keys, risk losing my keys, when I return I have to unlock the car, reload my valuables, and put the keys back in the ignition.

There is no question that doing all those things is inconvenient, but whether or not it’s WORTH doing all those things - that is a completely different question.

[Milton Miteybad]

Shouldn’t the pros and cons of allowing early voting all be subordinated to the overriding objective of getting a fair and accurate vote?

I don't see where these objectives must, of necessity, be mutually exclusive.

Whatever advantages an early voting period provides, can’t we all admit that it’s effect on the probability of getting a fair and accurate vote can only be negative?

You may admit that if you wish, and it may be the case in your particular state. Here in Texas, the safeguards against voting multiple times in person make it nearly impossible for someone to vote in person more than once per election.

When you participate in early voting in an urban county in Texas, your voter registration number is electronically tagged in the county voter registration database the minute they issue the access code for the voting machine. At that moment, you are shown to have voted, and if you subsequently present yourself at another early voting location in that county and request a ballot, the database will show you to have already voted. The election judge will then decline your request, pointing to the fact that you voted at another location half an hour ago. If you wander across the county line to a neighboring county and request a ballot, that election judge will also decline, because you aren't registered to vote in that county.

Now, to be fair, there are rural counties in Texas where these procedures aren't used, and therein lies some potential for voter fraud, but the potential impact is commensurately lower due to the vastly reduced number of voters, most of whom are known by the local precinct personnel. If you were to ask whether Texas has sufficient safeguards against ineligible persons registering to vote, then I would have to say they are far from optimal. But that's really a different question altogether. Expanded early voting helps many more people participate in the process when they would be excluded otherwise if elections were still merely one-day affairs. And, as the Texas example demonstrates, early voting need not be a electoral fraud free-for-all.