Early Voting
Two of the biggest turn-offs to voting (other than bad candidates) are inconvenience and delay. Though it seems a touch silly to focus on inconvenience and delay as democracy destroyers, after we saw what Iraqis went through to vote, it simply makes sense to speed up voting as much as possible, while not compromising integrity. Also, given the cost of the new federal HAVA requirements (to be born largely by the counties), the State is interested in reducing expenditures for new machines.
In attempting to increase speed and minimize costs, the legislature is primarily looking at two options -- decentralized voting and early voting. Decentralized voting expands your options of places where you could vote. Now, you can vote only at your precinct location. Decentralized voting registers electronically that you have voted, thereby allowing you to vote at any station, while preventing you from voting in multiple locations. This might mesh better with people's lifestyles where they spend most of their day well away from their homes.
Another idea is early voting, meaning you're not just limited to the actual date of the election; you would be able to vote for some period before that date (say, a few weeks or maybe even a month). We already have limited versions of this, and they seem to work well.
The D-News editorializes in favor of decentralized voting but against early voting. The editorial worries that early voting could damage democracy by changing the nature of last minute blitzes in a campaign and by unwisely allowing people to vote before 11th-hour developments might be unveiled (like "scandals or last-minute accusations") .
I'm not buying it. Campaigns are awfully long. Way too long. There is plenty of time to get out legitimate messages. Last-minute scandals and revelations often are nothing more than cheapshots delivered so that the other side does not have time to refute the allegations. In my book, such tactics disrespect democracy. For a candidate to respect the process, I'd say, get your information out early and give voters adequate time to process it.
The only interest to suffer from early voting would be the media. When last minute scandals hit, big media outlets dominate. Other outlets, like candidate mailers, small blogs, and word-of-mouth, simply take longer to circulate facts. Take for example, the Bush National Guard story. In the week that big media dominated the story (imagine if that had been the week of the election), a uniformly poor picture of airman Bush's military record was presented to voters. However, as other voices emerged, it became clear that the story was hooey. To the extend early voting might address the plague of last-minute garbage in elections, I say it's a good thing.
In attempting to increase speed and minimize costs, the legislature is primarily looking at two options -- decentralized voting and early voting. Decentralized voting expands your options of places where you could vote. Now, you can vote only at your precinct location. Decentralized voting registers electronically that you have voted, thereby allowing you to vote at any station, while preventing you from voting in multiple locations. This might mesh better with people's lifestyles where they spend most of their day well away from their homes.
Another idea is early voting, meaning you're not just limited to the actual date of the election; you would be able to vote for some period before that date (say, a few weeks or maybe even a month). We already have limited versions of this, and they seem to work well.
The D-News editorializes in favor of decentralized voting but against early voting. The editorial worries that early voting could damage democracy by changing the nature of last minute blitzes in a campaign and by unwisely allowing people to vote before 11th-hour developments might be unveiled (like "scandals or last-minute accusations") .
I'm not buying it. Campaigns are awfully long. Way too long. There is plenty of time to get out legitimate messages. Last-minute scandals and revelations often are nothing more than cheapshots delivered so that the other side does not have time to refute the allegations. In my book, such tactics disrespect democracy. For a candidate to respect the process, I'd say, get your information out early and give voters adequate time to process it.
The only interest to suffer from early voting would be the media. When last minute scandals hit, big media outlets dominate. Other outlets, like candidate mailers, small blogs, and word-of-mouth, simply take longer to circulate facts. Take for example, the Bush National Guard story. In the week that big media dominated the story (imagine if that had been the week of the election), a uniformly poor picture of airman Bush's military record was presented to voters. However, as other voices emerged, it became clear that the story was hooey. To the extend early voting might address the plague of last-minute garbage in elections, I say it's a good thing.
posted by steve u. at 6/20/2005
Subscribe
2 Comments:
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Part of me thinks inconvenience in voting isn't such a bad thing. People ought to sacrifice a little for our republic. But another part of me says we should move into the 21st Century and increase convenience.
However I am very worried about creating a mess like they still have in Washington with their last gubernatorial election. If we can guarantee voting fairness with early voting and decentralized voting, then lets' go for it.
That might require some streamlining of election policy throughout the state. Washington's problems lie in its failure to do this.
While, in general, I don't have a problem with decentralization as long as multiple voting is made impossible, I don't agree with the DMN's rationale. How inconvenient is it to hop in your car and go to a local school, business, or other polling place to cast your vote. Shoot most Americans drive their car farther than their polling place just to get a soda, they can make a short trip just to cast their votes.
Post a Comment
<< Home