45 Days of Early Voting Is Ridiculous and Bad
But it’s the law of the land, so….
Yesterday was the first day of school in Vermont, and this weekend we celebrate Labor Day – two milestones at which point voters, so says conventional wisdom, start paying attention to politics. Let’s certainly hope so, because live ballots will be mailed out to all voters on the checklist in less than a month!
While allowing for some early voting does make sense to help alleviate lines on election day and allow for folks to more conveniently schedule a time to visit the polls (or Clerk’s office), a month and a half of early voting is absolutely, positively idiotic.
We know why less than ethical political operatives love early voting, because paired with mailed ballots it gives them a month and a half to “harvest” those ballots outside of the oversight of election officials. Cheating takes time!
We know why local incumbents love early voting, because it shortens the time voters take to find out who it is who’s running against them. When voters receive their ballot in the mail sometime soon after September 23rd, the impulse is to fill it out right then and there. Yes, you may be eager to vote and put a personal end to a presidential race that has been going on for eighteen months, but Vermont State House and Senate candidates weren’t certified via the primaries until mid-August. Who are these people? Who knows? Go with the name you’ve heard (likely the incumbent) or leave it blank. Then wonder why in the hell your property taxes went up 27 percent in one year!
Encouraging participation is good, but informed participation should be the goal, and forty-five days of early voting undermines the latter objective, certainly for the down ballot races.
But beyond these fundamental negative impacts on “our democracy” (or if you prefer our Constitutional Republic), forty-five days of early voting exacerbates other aspects of elections that everybody – not just voters -- says we hate: seemingly endless, money-driven campaigns and all that entails.
Yes, early voting increases the need for money in politics, which is something we all say we want less of. It used to be that in Vermont we had local campaigns that began six weeks before Election Day and culminated in a 72-hour get-out-the-vote effort. You could run a Vermont House race for the price of a few dozen lawn signs, some flyers, a couple of ads in the local paper, and a sturdy pair of shoes. Now candidates – if they really want to win -- have to start campaigning more than a month before early voting begins, and then sustain forty-five days (did I mention how utterly ridiculous this is?) of get-out-the-vote activity.
To be successful, this involves multiple direct mail pieces (we all love getting those), six weeks of pestering phone calls and robo-texts (also fun) and watching our social media feeds fill with paid political messages (delightful). Lawn signs necessarily dot the landscape like mushrooms for months on end, the tireless efforts of thieves not withstanding, instead of a few weeks. And all of this costs a lot of money, so we’re constantly being pestered to make contributions – which we had better give it if we want our candidates to win!
It’s not uncommon now for a competitive Statehouse race to exceed $20,000. This means, as noted before, fewer people can afford to run for office and when folks do run, they more often than not can’t raise enough money to be competitive challengers. That’s great for incumbents, great for well-off donors and special interests looking to buy influence, but bad for good governance and, as such, bad for society on the whole.
All this said, these are the rules by which the current political game is played, and the only way to change the rules in the future is to win elections today – and forty five days of early voting and universally mailed ballots are the rules today. So, suck it up, buttercups! Get out there, get involved, help your candidates do what it takes to succeed in November! Er… actually September and October. The election effectively will be over by around October 15. Them’s the rules!
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.
Media Notes: Rob Roper will moderating a “Meet the Candidates” event in Manchester, VT, from 5:30-7:30 pm at the Manchester Community Library.
The problems described arise because we've elevated office holding - legislating - "ruling" and regulating to such an exaggerated level it's become an unwieldy intrusion. I dream of laws/ regulations with sun-set expiration dates...legislators convening on week ends to vote on which their constituents want to keep.
I've been cogitating on this idea for some weeks. Why can't we just make a flat rate for all candidates and that would take out those with deep pockets? It would require more creativity and ingenuity on the candidates part. Maybe force more in person appearances.
And limit the time frame (in addition to all the other voting reform that should happen in our state).
I know there are aspects I haven't thought of and of course all rules can be both violated and circumnavigated.
As I sit here enjoying a beautiful summer afternoon, I know very soon I will have to pull up my big girl drawers and start knocking on doors. Getting my head in the right place for starters. In the end, my desire to run is almost identical to my personal mission as a home care nurse. I want to keep folks, in their homes, independent and safe. (As opposed to being admitted to a long term nursing facility). I want them to be able to enjoy their lives and family, and community for as long as possible.
I see that being severely impacted forany of my former patients and families.
Good article. Hoping you'll tell me what you think about my idea.