It’s absolutely true that Republicans nationally and here are making up a crisis in voter fraud to justify measures intended to suppress voting among groups that tend to support Democrats. That’s what all this voter ID legislation is about.
But Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a national policy of a minimum 20-day voting period is a bad idea. In fact, I believe we should go back to an expectation that people should vote on a single day unless they have a good reason not to. (Other parts of Clinton’s proposal, like automatic voter registration for 18- year-olds, make sense.)
Clinton’s proposal is just another example of how we tend to focus on national races while downgrading local ones. In the same November, 2016 general election in which Clinton is likely to be on the ballot there will be races for congress, state legislature and, in many states, governor and U.S. Senate. And some states even run their local elections for offices like mayor, city council and school board in the fall. (Wisconsin holds those local races in the spring, but all 99 Assembly seats and half of the 33-member state Senate will be on the ballot.)
A three-week window for voting might make sense in voting for president. You have to be a complete idiot not to know who you’re going to vote for to lead the nation after the nominating conventions. The Republicans will nominate someone who will pledge to support policies that widen income inequality, do nothing about climate change, limit reproductive choices, oppose gay marriage and on and on. The Democrats will nominate someone, most likely Clinton, who will take the opposite position on all of those things. If you have any kind of coherent political philosophy — or views on life for that matter — this will not be a hard choice.
I’ve often felt that anyone who remains undecided on presidential election day shouldn’t be allowed to vote...or drive a car or own a gun or do anything that might harm themselves or society.
But what about all those other important races (or maybe referendum questions) on the ballot in the fall? Many of those races don’t really heat up until the final weeks because the candidates or the causes don’t have the endless dollars to start running ads months in advance. By encouraging people to vote prematurely in those cases we’re likely to produce less thoughtful results. Voting early means more people will go to the polls all fired up to cast their vote for president but more likely to stare blankly at the other choices on the ballot. More time means more chances that they’ll be able to learn something that will inform those decisions.
Hillary Clinton and other politicians who support early voting aren’t doing so out of altruism. They’re doing it because once they’ve sealed the deal with a voter they want to get her to the polls before she changes her mind. It’s smart political strategy, but it’s not good for democracy, especially at the local level where so much really gets done.
So, as a rule, anything that makes it easier for people to vote or that removes barriers to voting is a good thing, but encouraging early voting is not one of those. We should take our time, get to know all the candidates and the issues on the ballot and then vote...on Election Day.
