I’ve made my political leanings on many topics clear in this blog, but I encourage readers of all political persuasions to vote tomorrow. I’ve worked on several voter registration drives over the years, and I have probably registered more people who vote contrary to me than I have supporters. But I believe in the importance of every eligible citizen weighing in on the issues of the day, and tomorrow’s election is no exception.
In recent years, many states have loosened their requirements for early voting. Some states permit voting more than a month before election day. Other states (including Washington and Oregon) now conduct their elections completely by mail, without any polls on election day.
I have worked most of the elections in my precinct for about six years now, and I see pros and cons to early voting and mail-in balloting. First, readers should realize that a common election day was not required early in our nation’s history. The first time the United States had a common election day for the Presidential election was in November 1848.
The advantage of early voting is that citizens can vote when it is more convenient for them, which should increase turn out. However, a disadvantage is that when voting is permitted over a long period, citizens cannot include information that surfaces during debates or in the media and last-minute developments in their decision-making.
Moreover, I see value in citizens coming together on a common date (or narrow window) to decide on their elected representatives. It just feels more democratic when we all act at the same time.
Balancing the pros and cons, I support early voting of a week or two before election day. Six weeks feels entirely too long. But I can see allowing citizens a free opportunity—without having to explain their need to vote before election day—to vote the week before the election for their personal convenience.
With respect to mail-in voting, one advantage is that voters can research the candidates and issues as they cast their ballot, and their choices might therefore be more informed. However, in every jurisdiction, voters who care can research their decisions and take that information into the voting booth with them. So this advantage is only important if voters won’t do research before going to the polls, but would if they voted at home.
The disadvantage of mail-in voting is the increased possibility of fraud. When a ballot is voted at home, there is no way to ensure that someone else does not complete the ballot for the voter and simply tell them to where to sign. This could happen when a parent completes the ballot for a college-aged child, or if an adult child or other relative or friend completes the ballot for an elderly person who may not be able to see well or may even not have the requisite mental competence to vote. Or parties or candidates could buy votes and demand to see the completed ballot before making the payment. All these fraudulent situations are easier in the absence of supervised polls.
Based on my experience as a poll worker, mail-in voting is more likely to result in fraud than the absence of photo identification cards, which is the issue being debated in many states this year (though I support reasonable photo ID requirements for voting as well).
What does any of this have to do with corporate America? I believe that workers who are educated about and engaged in the political process are more likely to be educated about and engaged in their jobs as well.
What do you think of the loosened requirements for voting in recent years?