Road Apples by Tim Sanders
Nov. 1, 2010

The pros and cons of early voting

Share |

Barring voting irregularities and the resulting legal challenges which would extend this year’s election well into next spring, November 2 will mark the end of the 2010 mid-term election cycle. Inspired by stirring political rhetoric broadcast over television, radio, and the Internet, and reminded on a daily basis by those helpful dinnertime telephone calls and attractive roadside campaign signs of their patriotic duty to get out and vote for the candidate of their choice, millions of Americans will arise, march to the polls tomorrow and shout: “THERE, I VOTED! SO SHUT UP, ALREADY!”

But have no fear, another election cycle is just around the corner. Within a couple of months 2011 will be here, and shortly after its arrival campaigning will begin for the 2012 presidential election. So now is probably the best time to discuss an election cycle trend which has been growing in our nation. No, I don’t mean candidates embarrassing themselves by explaining huge federal budget deficits to Kermit and Miss Piggy on Sesame Street or by appearing on Mythbusters and causing a totally awesome eruption using Mentos and Diet Coke. I refer to EARLY VOTING. Early voting, for periods of time ranging from four days to 50 days, either in person or by mail, is now allowed in 34 states. Alabama is not yet one of those states, but you can never tell. We do have fire ants now. And armadillos.

Early voting was introduced in various states to a) increase voter participation, b) relieve congestion at the polls, and c) allow nearly deceased individuals who would most certainly be dead by election day to vote. There were reports that in one unnamed Midwestern City, the early vote option allowed over 14,800 individuals to participate in the 2008 election despite having been, technically speaking, dead since the Taft Administration. (NOTE-The Cook County, Illinois Clerk’s Office has issued the following statement: “First of all, that unnamed city is not Chicago, and secondly, the 14,800 number is a gross exaggeration.”)

Here are some of the reasons I, as a deeply concerned hack investigative journalist, oppose the early voting option.


• Election officials are every bit as honest as most other political operatives. I’ll leave it to you to decide just how honest that is. Tallying votes on election day and fudging the results is not very easy given the usual time restraints. With early voting, however, those tallies may be tabulated and re-tabulated several times before the actual election in order to produce the desired result. A precinct vote counter can get very creative in 50 days.

• Political campaigns can turn on a dime. I’m not sure what that means, but Tom Brokaw said it once, and it sounded very impressive. What I think it means is that all kinds of goofy things can happen in the last few days of a campaign. Let’s say, for example, that you live in Georgia, where early voting is allowed up to 45 days before the election. Now let’s say that on September 30 you cast your early ballot for Candidate A, who for some reason only has an initial as a last name. But just three days before election day, Candidate A, a fine, upstanding, churchgoing, non-bigoted, culturally sensitive individual, admitts that the Nigerian dwarf he’s supported for years is actually a Nigerian Dwarf goat named Eleanor with “lovely black and white hair, very expressive ears, and the kind of seductive brown eyes a man could get lost in.” Now this might well give a good percentage of Candidate A’s supporters pause for thought, but since you’ve already cast your vote over a month ago, you’re stuck with it. You throw in enough early voters, and Candidate A and his goat mistress could well wind up holding state office.

• Early voting could do away with the self-canceling non-voter option. Many voters have very deeply held political convictions, and yet they have friends whose political convictions NEVER coincide with theirs. They may get along perfectly well discussing sports or religion or amateur dentistry, but they avoid discussing politics at all costs. To quote the George Armstrong Custer character in “Little Big Man,” these people, politically speaking, serve as “reverse barometers.” Due to some genetic or environmental anomaly, each can be sure that the other will disagree with him on everything political. Years ago I knew a married couple in Atlanta who were like that. He was a staunch Republican, and she was a solid Democrat. Very solid. Since their votes invariably cancelled each other out, rather than waiting in long lines at their polling place, they both agreed to just not vote.. Since neither trusted the other wholeheartedly, they always did something together on election day. Sometimes they played golf, or went shopping, or spent the day fishing. It was an equitable arrangement. I don’t know if they are still married, but I do know that now, with Georgia’s early voting option, their self-cancelling non-voter agreement would never work. Even spending the entire election day on the lake would be futile, because old Lester could easily have slipped off and cast an early vote in the past 45 days, and Beatrice would be none the wiser. So despite those good intentions, that silly early voting scheme would have increased the congestion at the polls by at least two, and possibly by thousands, in the Metropolitan Atlanta area.


On the other hand, if you are a fan of the “vote early, vote often” rule, the good people of Georgia (and several other states) have had ample opportunity to vote earlier and oftener this year, and will have ample opportunity to do the same in 2012.