It’s Election Day, Not Election Month

Posted by Chris Berry on October 3, 2008 in Elections and Voting

Early voting for the November 4th election began in several states this week, and the number of people voting by absentee ballot is expected to reach record levels this year. High voter turnout is a sign of a healthy democracy, but is it really a good idea to turn election day into election month? Should it be the aim of a democratic society to make voting so effortless that no thought is required on the part of the voter?

The percentage of people voting by absentee ballot has been increasing steadily over the past several election cycles. Absentee voting was originally intended to accommodate the needs of people who were out of the country on election day, such as members of the military and expatriates working abroad. In recent years, however, absentee voting has become the preferred method of those who simply find a trip to the polling place inconvenient. If you are truly incapacitated and unable to make it to the polls in person, then by all means you should be provided with an alternative method of casting your ballot. On the other hand, the system should not be used to accommodate those people who are simply too lazy to stand in line on election day.

Our last two presidential elections have been extremely close and fraught with allegations of voter fraud and irregularities. Increasing the number of votes cast by absentee ballot will only serve to intensify this problem. Certifying and counting these ballots adds tremendously to the complexity of an already difficult process, and the potential for abuse is unacceptably high. It also has the potential to prevent us from knowing the outcome of the election for days or even weeks. As citizens we need to have confidence that our elections are conducted fairly. Any suspicion that the process is manipulated will only serve to undermine the ability of the winning candidate to lead the country.

Voters who choose to cast their ballots weeks in advance are doing themselves and their fellow citizens a potential disservice. While the majority of voters had made up their minds months ago, there is no way to be certain that events in the coming weeks won’t bring about a monumental shift in public opinion. One of the candidates could suffer a complete meltdown during a debate, or worse. There is no second chance if you cast your vote prematurely for a candidate who is later discovered to be a tax cheat, a wife beater, or to have a wide stance in airport restrooms. Our elections cycles drag on for far too long, but this process affords us the opportunity to see the candidates at their best and at their worst. We should not pick a winner until they both cross the finish line.

If you enjoyed this post, please bookmark it to help new readers find it.

Print this Article
Return Home

5 Comments on It’s Election Day, Not Election Month

By Danny Thornton on October 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Hey Chris, firstly the U.S. is not a true democracy (where all the people vote on every issue) but rather a representative democracy (where we elect someone who is suppose to generally represent out perspective). This representative is not bound to be our proxy and can, and often will vote differently then the wishes of the people. The just passed “bailout” was opposed by nearly 70% of the populace, for example. Our power as citizens is to choose the representative that we believe will most consistently support our perspective. When they fail to do so, we have the prerogative to select someone else whom we deem can better fulfill the obligation of a government “of, by, and for the people.” Doesn’t it make sense to have a system in place that will promote the greatest involvement of the citizentry? Or, perhaps our forefathers had it right when they only allowed land owners and men to vote. What say you?

By Chris Berry on October 3, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Danny,
We should absolutely promote the involvement of the citizenry, but we must also recognize that voting is a responsibility we should not take lightly. Making the process easier for apathetic voters is not the same as promoting citizen involvement.

By Danny Thornton on October 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm

There are plenty of uninformed folk that pull the voting lever every election day. I suspect there are many informed voters that don’t get a chance to vote for whatever reason. The truly apathetic won’t vote if you take the voting machine to their house.
I suspect, in our lifetimes, one will be able to vote at home from a computer (just as you pay your bills, bank, etc. right now). I also believe most will think long and hard before they push “select.”

By Matt on October 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I agree with Chris on this one.

Citizen involvement should be more than blindly casting a ballot weeks in advance. Making a *good* decision requires some research and taking into account everything that happens up to Election Day.

I might be a little different than others, perhaps. I wait until the final few weeks before the election, then start reading debate transcripts, fact-checking organization sites, individual nominee sites, etc. I prefer to make a fully informed decision, rather than simply voting along ‘party lines’ (which, honestly, is not the best way to vote, in my opinion).

The above is why I have little empathy for those who complain about their elected officials. If you vote without any real knowledge of the candidates, you can’t act surprised when they vote for/sign a policy of which you don’t approve.

By Chris Berry on October 6, 2008 at 8:07 am

I suspect, in our lifetimes, one will be able to vote at home from a computer (just as you pay your bills, bank, etc. right now). I also believe most will think long and hard before they push “select.”

Voting by computer is going to be problematic for several reasons. For the sake of preventing fraud and properly identifying eligible voters, a robust system of user IDs and passwords will be required. To preserve the secrecy of the ballot, this voter ID system must not be able to trace the actual votes cast by online voters. The mere suspicion that the government can track votes and voters will have privacy rights advocates and conspiracy theorists up in arms.

If voting rights groups can claim that requiring a valid identification card places an undue burden on the poor and elderly, how will they react if a computer is required to vote? What happens if some people are allowed to vote from the comfort and convenience of their homes while others still have to go to the polling places to cast their ballots? Will the government provide PCs and internet access for everyone?

Please feel free to share your thoughts. Without your comments, I'm just some guy talking to myself. Let me know if I'm right, wrong, or completely full of sh*t.