By David Marcus
Monday, October 31, 2016
Eleven days before the presidential election, the FBI
reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of confidential
emails. New information has come to light through a probe into former
congressman Anthony Weiner’s sexting relationship with a 15-year-old girl.
The case against Clinton, which the FBI had effectively
closed months ago (much to the chagrin of conservative critics), is suddenly
alive again. It is sure to sway votes in the upcoming election—except for those
votes cast before this new revelation.
Luckily for Clinton, millions of Americans cast their
ballots before the FBI decided that maybe it wasn’t case closed, after all.
Those votes are already in the bank. This is not the first time a presidential
election has been rocked by an October surprise, but it is the first time in
the era of widespread and excessive early voting.
The supposed value of giving voters several weeks in
which to cast their ballot is that otherwise they might not have the chance to
vote. But in today’s news media age, three weeks is a lifetime. Since voting
began in some places, not only has the FBI relaunched a criminal investigation
into the leading candidate but the trailing candidate has also been accused,
multiple times, of sexual assault. Can anybody truly claim that those who voted
in early October possessed all the facts they needed to make a truly informed
decision?
Who Benefits From
Early Voting?
One of the ironies regarding those who support excessive
early voting is that many are the same people who decry the influence of money
in politics. Along with television and radio ads, one of the most important
uses of campaign money is the get out the vote (GOTV) effort. Campaigns hire
workers to call people, give them rides, and generally encourage them to go
vote. Guess what? They use voter data to show campaign workers exactly where
they should, and more importantly should not, employ these efforts. Not all
early votes are equal.
In the old days, there was one day when you could spend a
bunch of cash on GOTV and try to pump up your candidate’s numbers. Now you can
do it for a month. If your opponent has less cash on hand to run his operation,
each and every one of those days gives you a very real and important advantage.
So who really benefits from long-term early voting? Do
any of us really need three weeks to find the 20 minutes it takes to vote? Or
are the real winners the incumbents and moneyed interests who can sustain a
long-term GOTV effort that their opponent is helpless to match?
Are there nurses, doctors, truck drivers, and police
officers who work long shifts and therefore might have trouble getting to the
polls on the first Tuesday of November? Sure. It is reasonable to make
accommodations for them. A secure absentee ballot is an option, as is perhaps
allowing voting the weekend before the election.
A combination of those two ideas would surely create a
timeframe conducive to facilitating voting for people with unique time
challenges. It can be that simple. Allowing weeks for voting is not designed to
help busy Americans—it is designed to help politicians with deep pockets.
The Bomb Has
Dropped
As early voting has swept across the country, its
opponents have regularly pointed to the potential of a game-changing moment
happening after millions of people have cast their ballots. Now it has
happened. The gravity of this situation is obscured by the incompetence and
depravity of Donald Trump and his campaign. Voters who wish they had their vote
for Clinton back in light of the recent unpleasantness will likely not tip the
election. Trump will lose by his own devices.
But one can easily imagine a much closer general election
in which the GOP had not nominated the least-liked candidate since Jesus ran
against Barabbas. In such an election, a few thousand votes for or against Ted
Cruz or Marco Rubio in Florida and Pennsylvania could well have tipped the
scales. Whatever voter remorse may exist today might well have proved decisive
among those who pulled the lever based in part on the clean bill of legal
health the FBI gave Clinton in July.
This should serve as a wake-up call. Too much can happen
in a month to allow the American people to make as important a decision as
their vote until all the cards have been laid on the table. People of good
faith on every side of American politics should accept that the excessive early
voting so prevalent in our system is helping politicians, not voters.
Our elections, for better or worse, have always been vast
narrative dramas. They have beginnings, middles, and often operatic endings. It
is irresponsible to allow so many to vote during intermission.
Let’s Do This
Ourselves
For the reasons stated above, incumbents have every
incentive to maintain and even expand early voting. It is the ultimate home
field advantage. It is unlikely that any serious attempt to arrest excessive
early voting will emerge from office holders. But that doesn’t mean any of us
have to vote early. In fact, we never should.
As participants in the oldest democracy the world now
knows, we should challenge ourselves to find the time on Election Day. We
should wait and stew and study, relishing the moment when our fully formed and
educated opinion may be cast into the sea of our fellow citizens’ ruminations.
We should revel in it, not get it done with as if we were getting the oil
changed.
What is a vote? Is it a cog in a demographic wheel that
turns inevitably towards progressive ideals? May we assume that certain types
of people will vote certain ways and therefore fight over giving them more or
less extended access to the ballot box? Maybe we could just fill out the
ballots for them to save time.
Or is a vote a scared trust? Hasn’t the vote, since the
Greeks scratched theirs on ostracon, always been the expression of power over
government, of the fact that we consent to be governed? That is not a trust we
should only execute if we happen to find the time.
There may be too many lessons from the 2016 election for
our society to ever learn. Perhaps it has exposed the fundamental flaws of
democracy. As a friend of mine recently mused, out of 350 million American
people, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump turned out to be our A team.
Reopening, after early voting had begun, the criminal
investigation into the woman very likely to be our next president should make
this lesson clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment