In spite of a
U.S. District Court ruling
in Ohio this summer expanding early voting by three days, the Columbus
Dispatch’s analysis
shows that longer early voting periods do not result in a higher overall
election turnout.
In February
however, Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, said
he believes that early voting creates the issue of early voting regret due to
poor information access.
At a Senate Rules Committee hearing in February, he told the story
of how there was, “a situation in a Maine
election recently where we had very early voting. . . . [I]t was a month or
more before the election. The dynamics of
the election changed in the last several weeks. And we actually had people going into their town offices
trying to retrieve their early vote, to
change it because of developments in the election.”
King went on to say, “I do think that there's a legitimate issue about how far in advance. Because elections do tend to sometimes come into focus in the last several weeks. And we actually had that experience. I knew people that went to their town office and said, ‘How can I get my vote back? I want to change it,’ and they couldn't.” Senator King then asked the witnesses at the hearing, “[h]ow widespread is it? Is it a national problem or is it extremely localized?”
King went on to say, “I do think that there's a legitimate issue about how far in advance. Because elections do tend to sometimes come into focus in the last several weeks. And we actually had that experience. I knew people that went to their town office and said, ‘How can I get my vote back? I want to change it,’ and they couldn't.” Senator King then asked the witnesses at the hearing, “[h]ow widespread is it? Is it a national problem or is it extremely localized?”
The truth is, early voting regret is not
limited to small town mayoral races, but it extends to presidential elections. As
determined by USA Today,
Florida voters regretted casting their early ballots in the 2012 Republican
primary before seeing the results from other state primaries and watching the
candidate debates.
The first
presidential debate in the 2012 election occurred
on October 3. In post-debate analysis, MSNBC’s Chris Mathews said
that, “[Obama] was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. What was Romney
doing? He was winning. If he has five more of these nights, forget it.” Joe
Scarborough, also of MSNBC, said
the debate, “has been a real Emperor has no clothes moment. . . . ”
The key swing
states of Ohio and Florida both began early
voting on October 2, 2012 before that first important presidential debate. In an op-ed by the
St. Petersburg Times, the paper warns its readers about early voting
regret saying, “voters who choose to
vote early, do so at their own risk. If candidates are going to pull any dirty
tricks in a campaign, they often do so in the last couple of weeks before
Election Day. No doubt, there are voters who have cast an early ballot and
wound up wishing they could get that vote back.” Undoubtedly, the premature
early voting period led to voter regret after the debate.
It
is difficult to deny the influence of Presidential debates. During the October 6, 1976 debate,
President Ford sealed his fate with his notable gaffe about the Soviet Union. Similarly, in October 1980, Ronald Reagan asked the
famous question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” during his
debate with Carter. These late-breaking debate highlights can sway even
resolved voters.
A study published by the Boston
University Political Science Department analyzed the 2012 Presidential race in
Colorado, concluding that “instant gratification” mobilizes voters, which
impacts a broad range of elections. The study found that, “the presidential campaign
visits to swing states . . . were often timed to coincide with the start of the
early voting period in order to generate news and excitement so as to inspire
the casting of early ballots.”
There is also scholarly support
for this premise. An article published in the
Election Law Journal finds that early voters in the 2008 California
presidential primary election, “did not fully incorporate information about
candidate withdrawals and momentum,” and “presumably failed to incorporate
other potentially vote relevant pieces of late information.” The article
concluded that, “this suggests that convenience voting could have important
effects on general election outcomes,” and that it, “may become grounds for
individuals to question the legitimacy of an election.”
No comments:
Post a Comment