Despite its many advantages, early voting has caused a few caution flags to be raised. For one, the opportunity for such votes to be lost, ignored, or altered is increased. While such slip-ups or fraud may not change an election, even the appearance of it is a danger. On Election Day, there are far more poll watchers to keep things honest. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
I think this is the first story I've seen on early voting that has questioned the practice to this extent. I find this skepticism healthy. Although it's somewhat inconclusive -- using the passive voice at the end to deliver the platitude of weighing the pros and cons -- I appreciate what the Monitor has done here. They use decent logical and factual evidence to back their arguments. High marks for originality and relevance.
A good editorial in that it presents shortcomings of a phenomenon that has mostly been embraced by the media, as far as I can tell. However, the reasons given to be skeptical weren't all that compelling.
It points to some issues not often addressed, and that is useful. On the other hand, it doesn't address whether early voters wouldn't vote at all if they couldn't do early ballots.
Where I live "vote early and often" is a standard election day greeting! It's a real line from a (serious) song. I know this early voting isn't the same thing, but I love the quote.
Retrieving Comments
