Vote wait times (comparison)

[orathaic]

@Oct, one imagines that there would be no demand for early voting if voting on the actual day wasn't being suppressed.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I presume that early voting exists as a measure to reduce costs. If you have 1 full time job always working on a task and able to accept votes over the course of a month, rather than hiring 30 people to cover one day's work, then presumably there can be some savings (especially if you use civil service staff already working on the election)... But my second guess is that it came about in responce to poor wait times on election day. Some politician unable to correct the problem, realised they could introduce early voting, claim a cheap win and wash their hands of the issue... Either that or a shitty compromise (given recent years of animosity I sometimes forget compromise was ever a thing in the US)

[Le Plume]

In Canada we call them advance polls. I always thought there just a courtesy and to make voting more accessible.

[flash2015]

Flash, you have long since abandoned any claim at reason and are pushing the boundaries of harassment. If you continue down this route I'll have no choice but to ask the mods to take action.

Oh please. Give me a break. You are the one that called these people "idiots" and said they should have their ballots burned. What response did you expect to this nonsense? You can give it but "woe is me" if anyone calls you out?

[flash2015]

@Oct, one imagines that there would be no demand for early voting if voting on the actual day wasn't being suppressed.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I presume that early voting exists as a measure to reduce costs. If you have 1 full time job always working on a task and able to accept votes over the course of a month, rather than hiring 30 people to cover one day's work, then presumably there can be some savings (especially if you use civil service staff already working on the election)... But my second guess is that it came about in responce to poor wait times on election day. Some politician unable to correct the problem, realised they could introduce early voting, claim a cheap win and wash their hands of the issue... Either that or a shitty compromise (given recent years of animosity I sometimes forget compromise was ever a thing in the US)

A big problem with the US is that you don't have centralized election management. On election day you effectively have 50 different elections. It is up to each state to determine how they will run the individual election. Each state can run their election very differently and the competence of many states in running elections is appalling. Every election there are stories of broken voting machines, ballot errors, etc. It feels like most states would have trouble running a chook raffle.

The whole election process is incredibly heavily politicized, giving a boat load of additional influence to the party in power at the time the election is run. This is even more important in census years (like this year) where the majority party in a state will have the power to draw up the congressional maps for the next decade. Gerrymandering in the US is rampant and efforts to try and hold it in check have been quashed by the courts over the last decade.

[flash2015]

Just another couple of points about early voting in the US:

- it isn't like they open all the polling stations for 30/45 (or whatever) days before the election. Only a small percentage of the polling stations are open. For example, in my area the election day polling location is a few hundred yards from our house. If I want to vote early it is a good 10 minute drive. There are only two polling centers open early for our city of 200K people.

- Many countries (e.g. like Australia and I believe the UK) have an election season that at best lasts a couple of months. The parties will officially launch their platform a couple of weeks before the election.

In the US, the election season for president lasts almost 1 1/2 years (the earliest primary debates were the middle of last year). The parties officially launched their platforms two months ago in August. There is way more than enough information by now to make an informed choice in the election. The presidential debates are largely so that you can cheer for "your side" with very little of substance actually discussed. Whilst it shows a poorly run election system that we need early voting, I don't see the philosophical issue with allowing it.

[Octavious]

I am not interested in your justifications and excuses, flash. You have been informed of my position. Either act on it or I will ask the mods to act for you.

[orathaic]

@the 1 and a half year long election 'season', I think that is unhealthy for democracy. People tune it out (I have to say I've tried to avoid any Trump content I come across), a short election campaign 4-6 weeks in the run up to an election seems far better for healthy debate and public engagement.

We've discussed here before, but I think set terms are actually part of the problem, while others think that the ruling party being able to call an election whenever it suits them (as we see in the UK and Ireland at least, though moves have been made to change this) has its own drawbacks... But it also means politicians have more of a sprint during election season rather than a marathon (and can spend more time actually doong their jobs).

Perhaps the difference is the amount of time US politicians spend raising money, rather than the terms...

Regardless. Knowing exactly when your election is going to be should make it significantly easier to organise them...

[RoganJosh]

it's frankly ridiculous that early voting is even permitted

Maybe you already explained this, but why do you consider early voting so bad?

I can understand who some would prefer in-person voting. I mean, mail-in voting will have to be allowed for those that can't make it, but I can see why one would argue it should be an exception.

But early voting? If the polls are open for eight hour, twelve hours, sixteen hours, two days, four days, one week, two weeks.. What's the problem?

I do agree that long lines at the first day of voting is a minor thing. Especially with polls open two weeks in advance. Long lines on election day is much worse.

[Octavious]

The democratic choice is ultimately a snapshot of public opinion. The whole point of having multiple elections where each time you are asked your opinion is that you have the right to change your mind. What you believe is the best option 4 years ago may well be totally different today. But if hold a vote over a long period of time you blur the snapshot. You no longer have the people acting on the same information. A person voting a month early may miss crucial arguments, crucial debates, may find themselves on election day deeply regretting their choice.

Now this is likely to be quite small beer in the grand scheme of things, but to me it is clearly a less good option than a short voting period, so why tolerate a less good system when you can easily make it better?

Also it's more expensive, which is a real concern if a somewhat vulgar one.

If I was king I'd have voting held over a weekend (the UK tradition of voting on Thursdays is very odd) with campaigning forbidden during voting hours. Postal voting by request for people with a good reason for being unable to vote in person.

[RoganJosh]

In Sweden, anyone who votes early can change their vote until election day. I know that's not in place in the US, but it's possible. And it makes your argument void.

If a shorter voting period means that fewer people vote, then that's the less good system. That's much more important than some idea that the vote should represent a snapshot.

[Matticus13]

There isn't any new relevant information at this point for anyone paying attention. There hasn't been for months. The debates add nothing. The ads add nothing.

We've had nearly 4 years of a Trump Presidency and 30+ of Biden's political career. If you don't know who you're voting for by now, you're a nincompoop.

[Octavious]

In Sweden, anyone who votes early can change their vote until election day. I know that's not in place in the US, but it's possible. And it makes your argument void.

If a shorter voting period means that fewer people vote, then that's the less good system. That's much more important than some idea that the vote should represent a snapshot.

How is it possible to be able to change your vote and maintain strict voter anonymity?

[RoganJosh]

When voting early/mail your votes are put in voting envelopes, which are then placed in a larger envelope that has you name and voter id on it. Those envelopes are sorted, and delivered to the polling stations on election day.

Beginning of election day, all ballot boxes are empty. If you show up at your polling place to vote, they'll tick your name off in the list. Once the polling place is closed, they'll take out the early/mail votes. If your name is not ticked off in the list, then they'll open the bigger envelope, take out the votes (still in the voting envelopes), and cast your votes into the regular ballot boxes. If your name is ticked off, then the bigger envelope will remain unopened and will be destroyed.

That's the basic principle. I'm not sure exactly what they do with mail in votes that arrive late, etc. You can also vote early several times. They'll keep the most recent vote, and destroy the rest.

I think, the downside is that the counting is slower. Because after polls are closed, there is still like an hour of work for the volunteers before they can start counting. In many places in the US, I think they count the early votes already before election day.

[orathaic]

In Sweden, anyone who votes early can change their vote until election day. I know that's not in place in the US, but it's possible. And it makes your argument void.

If a shorter voting period means that fewer people vote, then that's the less good system. That's much more important than some idea that the vote should represent a snapshot.

How is it possible to be able to change your vote and maintain strict voter anonymity?

They must have some kind of sealed envelop which is identifiable, and a anonymous vote inside. So you can destroy the whole thing is you change your mind without anyone finding what way you voted.

[Octavious]

Ok. In all honesty it sounds a little unnerving having your name, address, and who you voted for sat in a government envelope, but the risk is probably low enough for people used to the system to not be concerned. Personally I'm not persuaded, but that may be more about what I'm used to than objective thought.

There is still the problem of violating the principle of electoral silence, however, which matters a lot to a great many people. All early votes will be cast in the full glare of political campaigning, making maintaining a free voting environment problematic.

[RoganJosh]

Yes, I'll accede that electoral silence can be a problem. They actually called a reelection in one Swedish town in 2010 partly because one party had their campaign tent to close to one of the early voting stations. That election had been decided by one vote.

But I would consider both electoral silence and your snapshot issue to be a practical problems, and not principal problems. It's possible to administer it as to reduce those effects. And if you compare that to people not being able to vote because they're sick / work / deployed / traveling / long lines / whatever ... It just doesn't compare.

[Octavious]

Long lines is only an issue when officials are incompetent or corrupt. They are a symptom of a different, deeper problem that is not solved by early voting (as the US demonstrates rather beautifully). Deployed military personnel are again a separate issue that can be catered for by postal voting or face to face voting at on base polling stations. People travelling for work or pleasure, and long term sick or disabled, can be served by a limited amount of postal voting, which I agree should be available at request for people with a genuine need. This solves the vast majority of your issues with minimal impact on electoral silence. I agree that they don't compare, but very much in the other direction.

[orathaic]

Ok. In all honesty it sounds a little unnerving having your name, address, and who you voted for sat in a government envelope, but the risk is probably low enough for people used to the system to not be concerned. Personally I'm not persuaded, but that may be more about what I'm used to than objective thought.

There is still the problem of violating the principle of electoral silence, however, which matters a lot to a great many people. All early votes will be cast in the full glare of political campaigning, making maintaining a free voting environment problematic.

Now that you describe it, I realise it may be possible they have an encryption, so you enter your name&address, and they add a secret key, and it generates a code which is printed on the outside of your envelope (don't know that they do this. Just that it could be done).

That way, arbitrary staff can still violate the rules and look at your vote, but they can't trace it back to you.

Of course that doesn't protect against accidentally destroying a huge number of votes, and being unable to trace who cast them... Which may be a greater concern than malicious staff.

[orathaic]

Yes, I'll accede that electoral silence can be a problem. They actually called a reelection in one Swedish town in 2010 partly because one party had their campaign tent to close to one of the early voting stations. That election had been decided by one vote.

I hope they made the party/individual responcible for breaking the rule and causing the second vote pay for the cost, ie the fine should have covered the cost.

[RoganJosh]

@Oct You ignored people that can't get off work. Including also people that might or might not be called into work on the morning of election day. Nowadays, this is a problem also in countries that designate election day as a holiday. Not to mention places like the US where elections are held on a (in most states) regular Tuesday.

@oratic If you've got arbitrary staff looking at votes, then you've got bigger problems. But, these votes are tracked from when they're casted until election day. If one goes missing, or if one envelope is opened before arriving at the polling place, then that will be noticed.