Regular readers of John Hood’s Daily Journal might remember this 2005 argument against early-voting:
Contrary to the glib assertions of far too many politicians and editorialists, there is nothing inherently desirable about increasing voter turnout. There?s nothing wrong with it either, mind you, but it is the wrong goal to set if you are trying to improve the electoral process.
I mean no offense when I say this, but frankly those who can?t follow the current rules on voter registration have no one else to blame. The rules are clear and reasonable. It makes sense to require would-be voters to prove their identities with appropriate documentation and for elections officials to have sufficient time and resources to ensure that voters are who they say they are, do not end up registered in multiple jurisdictions, and indeed have not already voted in another jurisdiction in the same election.
Now George Will questions the value of early voting in his latest Newsweek column. He laments first the fact that early voting truncates “the campaign process of informing and persuading.”
The second problem with early voting is that one of its supposed benefits is actually a subtraction from civic health. The benefit is that it makes voting easier?indeed, essentially effortless. But surely the quality of the electoral turnout declines when the quantity is increased by “convenience voting.”
A word describes most of the people who will vote only if a ballot is shoved through their mail slot: “slothful.” What kind of people will not bestir themselves to exercise their franchise if doing so requires them to get off their couches and visit neighborhood polling places? People who are barely interested, and hence probably are barely informed.
The requirement that voters go to a polling place is a slight filter that has the negative function of screening out people who are almost completely uninterested.
