In other news this morning, Joan Vennochi has a fine column arguing that Baker’s silly story about crying at his daughter’s recital isn’t going to convince many women to vote for him. Money quote:
Women aren’t seeking a weepy governor…. What’s important is electing a governor who makes sure the numbers add up for the things that matter to families, like education and health care…. When [Baker’s] voice starts to crack, his hands start thumping the table and his eyes get that Jonathan Papelbon glare, frankly, it’s a little unsettling….
Baker’s math is sketchy. The next governor faces at least a $2 billion gap between expenses and revenue. Baker also promises to roll back the sales, income, and corporate taxes to 5 percent, creating another $2.5 billion drop in state revenue – with no cuts to local aid.
How does it add up? It doesn’t, according to Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Baker’s package of proposed reforms tallys only about $500 million, not enough to offset projected revenue drops.
Finally, the Globe has a truly appalling editorial regarding early voting – something that we don’t have in MA, but that has worked well in dozens of other states. The title:
The scourge of early voting
Whoa, hold on there, hoss. “Scourge”? That’s a pretty strong word – usually reserved for things like fatal diseases and terrorism. It’s also sometimes used sarcastically, to argue that something that some see as a real threat actually isn’t. But to claim, apparently not in jest, that “early voting” is a “scourge” – well, that’s going to take some hard evidence. Let’s see what the Globe has got.
[E]arly voting has badly chipped away at a shared civic ritual.
Oh for God’s sake. As though some aesthete’s airy ideas about “shared civic rituals” are more important than actually getting people to the polls. Frankly, I think we could all do without the “shared civic ritual” of standing in hours-long lines on election day. From a 2004 USA Today story:
Ground zero for long waits was Gambier, Ohio, where two electronic voting machines served 1,170 voters. The polling place had to stay open until 4 a.m. to accommodate everyone. Rita Yarman, deputy elections director in Knox County, which includes Gambier, says early voting would have helped. “I think it would be wonderful,” she says. “We’re certainly hopeful that that comes about.”
So is Maggie Hill, 21, a student from Maryland who registered to vote at her Kenyon College address in Gambier because her vote for John Kerry mattered more in Ohio. She got in line to vote at 1:30 p.m. and finally got to cast a ballot at 11. “I think I would consider doing the early voting” next time, she says. “There were just too many people.”
So what’s the Globe’s counter-argument?
[T]ens of millions of voters routinely make political decisions without the often crucial information that bubbles up in the home stretch of an election campaign: How did the candidates perform in the late debates? How did each handle the mounting stress of those frenzied last weeks? Who was endorsed by whom? What was their reaction to late-breaking news?
Hey, how about this, Globe editorial people? Let’s let people who are sure about their vote cast their vote when it’s convenient for them. If a voter is undecided and wants to wait for the late-breaking news, they’re of course free to do so. But many voters already know what they’re going to do, and no debate gaffe or newspaper endorsement is going to change that. For those voters, the benefits of early voting greatly outweigh the costs.
And speaking of the benefits, here’s the Globe’s thoughtful analysis (which completely ignores the issue of long lines noted above).
Early voting is touted as a boon for voter turnout, since it makes voting utterly convenient. In reality, it has had relatively little impact on turnout in most elections.
It’s hard to assess that statement, since the Globe doesn’t bother to identify its source. Here’s one I found:
Research by Curtis Gans shows that in the 24 states with no excuse absentee voting, turnout increased in 2004 in the aggregate by 6.7 percent, whereas it increased 6.2 percent for the other states. In the 11 states that had early voting in both 2002 and 2004, turnout increased by an aggregate average of 7.2 percentage points as opposed to 6.2 in states without early voting.
Data do exist pointing the other way, though I frankly cannot imagine why an early voting system should depress turnout. I’d be interested in more recent information, if anyone’s got it. In any event, it’s disappointing to see the Globe editorializing in such strong terms with so little evidence and such weak arguments.
<
p>Tens of millions of voters also routinely make political decisions without the often crucial information that bubbles up after election day. What would we say if more people had voted for Dianne Wilkerson and she squeezed through that 2008 primary only to be indicted – that the problem was that we held the election too soon and should postpone all future elections?
<
p>Okay, they do have part of a point: A lot of information comes out in the “home stretch” specifically because people know the election is almost here and it’s time to get and publicize what you can. In particular, the campaigns have known since the very beginning when election day would be, and they’ve planned for it, so their strategies may involve pushing particular messages near the end.
<
p>Here’s what the Globe misses: When you have early voting as a significant component in the process, everyone knows that too. The candidates, campaigns, press, etc., all know when early voting will begin, and can plan accordingly just as they would for an election day. In states with a lot of early voting, for example, campaigns run longer GOTV drives.
<
p>Maybe it’d take us a few elections to get used to the longer voting period, and how to work with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s better to vote all at once.
<
p>Amongst voters who decide in the last few weeks or days of a campaign in prominent races, they usually don’t decide based on political issues. Late-breaking voters aren’t likely going to be influenced by what the Globe seems to see as the weighty revelations that come out during the last phase of the campaign.
I can put the link up – great photo work: Great photo up on 10/10/10
AmberPaw’s link goes to whatever today’s Herald has up.
<
p>Here is the graphic she likes.
What a great poster that graphic would make, I think so anyway.
in early voting. Is it two days, two weeks, what? Too early, and important information might not get considered before coming to a decision. I know, many voters’ choices are set in stone long before election day, and could benefit from early voting, but you never know what is going to come to light at the last minute. A desire to get it over with, or avoid lines at the polling place, should not be the reason to vote early. Sure, turnout increases when the lazy don’t have to make the effort on election day and can just drop it in the mail, but what kind of indication do we have that John Doe of 123 Elm St, who voted early, is, in fact, John Doe? Also, with an increasing number of votes being cast in absentia, what confidence can I have they they are being tabulated at the right time, promptly, or at all? I would hate for them to be tabulated early and the candidate numbers get out, affecting election day turnout. I would also hate for sloppy voting administration (poorly handled or crooked) to result in my vote not getting counted, or wrongly tabulated. If they want to get serious about voting without having to go to a polling place, then solve the mechanics and security of online voting which would let voters hold off until the last moment before finalizing a decision about a candidate.
are all real. They are counterbalanced by the impressive problems that can result from requiring that everyone vote in the same 13-hour period – the poll workers, the machines, and the system generally can be overwhelmed.
<
p>There is no perfect solution to voting. The goal should be to come up with the best we can. IMHO, early voting, properly administered, can and should be a part of that.
<
p>Anyone else catch it?
<
p>
<
p>Ah, methinks the Globe editorial board doesn’t like the idea of people voting without considering what the Globe editorial board has to say.
<
p>The whole thing kind of strikes me as a childish “pay attention to me” temper-tantrum.
States that have real early voting have a clearly marked period when it begins – that’s when the early voting stations open and start accepting votes. If we set that up here, the Globe could publish their endorsements before the beginning of early voting.
We could start by allowing same-day registration, or at the very least reducing the waiting period between registering and voting. There’s simply no excuse for the 17(?!) day waiting period. It’s far too long. It’s a particular problem with September primaries, given that 100,000s of people in MA move into their new home on September 1.
<
p>We could also move to no-excuse absentee (early voting). Here’s a fun fact: let’s say that you run a business in Worcester, and you live in Worcester. You work hard, from before dawn to well after dusk. You can’t vote absentee — because both your home and business are in Worcester. If, however, one or the other were in North Grafton, then you could vote absentee. You must be out of town (or infirmed or have religious objections). Very busy but in the same town don’t cut it. It’s true that you can legally take unpaid leave from work (I think for 2 hours?) to go vote, but that’s a pretty unreasonable threshold.
<
p>Personally, I’d like to see party changes require a 1 day wait — thereby preventing unenrolled from voting in primaries, but that’s a wholly different kind of reform.
I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to the Globe’s broader argument about voting being seen as a “civic ritual.” It is somewhat of an “airy” and theoretical idea, but I do think voting shouldn’t be seen just as another thing to do, like paying the bills. One of the ways to encourage that perspective would be to make Election Day a national holiday, both to encourage the event as a shared “civic ritual” and to increase turnout. Maybe even better would be a “Deliberation Day”, like that suggested by Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, which combines the holiday idea with something like presidential primary caucuses.
<
p>However, I think David is quite right when he says that “actually getting people to the polls” is the most important thing. In that sense, early voting (and same day registration) are ultimately good for democracy.
<
p>Besides, I’m not quite sure about the Globe’s argument about early voting being bad because voters won’t know how the candidates perform down “the home stretch.” Well, with early voting, there’s still a “home stretch” — it’s just moved up and drawn out somewhat. And in any case, I prefer the slow-and-steady type of candidate than the one who has to make a splash in the final couple weeks to pull out a victory. Ultimately, it’s how you perform in the long-run (such as a long campaign) that makes somebody an effective legislator or executive, not one’s ability to employ some late-game gimmicks that the media (like the Globe) plaster on their front pages.
Although I cannot resist observing that the percentage of people who regularly pay their bills is probably higher than the percentage of people who regularly vote. So maybe the latter should be seen as more like the former! đŸ™‚