Today's Poll: Should the state amend laws to allow for early voting in elections?

Just out of curiosity. Why would anyone not want voting to be easier? Limiting the right to cast your vote to just one day with an absentee application that demands a reason 'why' you are unable to make it to the polls is discouraging not encouraging. People deserve more opportunities to exercise this very important right.

In other countries they vote on Sunday or have an election holiday.

Lets face it -- people that may have trouble getting to the polls are working people that may be unable to take time off to go vote and may not have the time to wait in a line. Early voting and an amendment on the requirements for an absentee ballot would take a lot of the burden off of people and may encourage more participation.

Lorie, well written and you make sense.
Maybe we'll get someone to come in and give the other side.
I can't imagine what it would be but some off the wall thoughts come to mind:
One benefit to not allow early voting is the income lost, by the media, who carry the last minute paid political ads. I wonder how many minds have been changed by then. I'll bet not many.
Most voters know early in a campaign where their vote will go.
Think of how much the lawyers would lose if the absentee ballot became a thing of the past.

Lorie ,,I agree ,should alway make it easier to vote..whats wrong with a voting week in Nov..Make it 7 days...I notice the Batavia library just had there vote during the week for one day from 12-9..seems like they make it so their isnt strong voter turn out...Good Post Lorie..

I am for a competency test to be taken before voting.

The stupid who have no clue what is going on in the political arena obviously don't care about the state of the country and should therefore not be allow to decided the fate of it by electing leaders.

As for the working people not having time, everyone know you vote on the second Tuesday of November. You can adjust your plans for one day to ensure you get to the polls which are open for 15 hours.

Peter

Who are these “smart” people that should vote?

Who gets to write the questions for the competency test?

What if you’re not deemed to be a smart person because the people in power wrote the questions so you couldn’t pass?

I think people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for and the laws should be changed to make it easier to vote. In fact, voting should be mandatory.

d

I agree with Mark, voting should take place over the course of a week.

Howard-New York has some very arcane election laws that need to be reformed.

I agree with Howard. I don't like absentee ballots either. (just a joke for those who know why)

Posted by Peter O'Brien about 50 minutes ago
I am for a competency test to be taken before voting.
The stupid who have no clue what is going on in the political arena obviously don't care about the state of the country and should therefore not be allow to decided the fate of it by electing leaders.

Not everyone is a political scholar. Who will decide what degree of knowledge, in the political arena, qualifies one to vote?
The freedom to vote is a hard fought right. It is up to those to take the time, be it by early election, absentee ballot, or on Election Day to exercise that right. Which bipartisan group would be directed to construct such a test that would deny U.S. citizens that right?
The early vote is far more convenient than an absentee ballot.
Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have the ability to make it to the polls on Election Day. Our world isn't perfect. The early vote might even increase the number of people who exercise thier right to vote and eliminate the long lines that resulted in being locked out of the voting process as we witnessed in the last election. Isn't that a good thing?

Posted by Timothy Paine about 27 minutes ago
I agree with Howard. I don't like absentee ballots either. (just a joke for those who know why)

Perfectly pitched joke and caught!

Peter i do not agree with you.So only college grads should vote?everyone know you vote ^

Sample test for right now.
1. Who is your current representative in in the House?

2. Name your two senators

3. Name three big issues involved in this election

4. What part of the government does the Vice President cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie?

5. Who came first Napolean or Lincoln?

6. Circle your state on this unlabeled map

7. If the supply of a good is high and the demand is low will the corresponding price of that good be high, low, or in the middle?

8. Should students who get A's distribute their grades to those who get F's so that everyone has an equal chance to go to college?

9. Name a current event that is happening in the world of politics right now.

10. What war is considered the Forgotten War?

My bet is that 50% of this country could not answer half of those questions correctly.

Posted by Peter O'Brien about 2 minutes ago
My bet is that 50% of this country could not answer half of those questions correctly.

So, only those who answered what percentage of your questions would be qualified - in your eyes to vote?
Since we are not all on the same wave length, who determines that a person isn't qualified because they indicate three important issues in a campaign that differ from the author of this 'test'?
What if a person's interest in a 'current event' is different than the author of the 'test'? Who decides that the person's interest doesn't qualify him or her to vote.
You are still not addressing the 'right to vote' that was so hard fought. Or is that a freedom you wish only on the elite?

Peter,
Your proposal would backfire on you. Highly educated people tend to be more liberal and thus vote for Democrats. That being said; I'm all for it! LOL!!!

It would not backfire as much as you think. Those so called highly educated don't follow politics for the most part.

As for current event it would just have to be something in the news. And 3 important issues is pretty wide open but if oyu remove those two questions the test is basic civics and voting base knows nothing about it.

I agree with the premise Peter is trying to make. Voting is a civic duty. If you're going to vote, a basic understanding of civics should be required.

Also, very few elections hang in the balance of the highly educated Liberal elite. I doubt they're the folks being bused in by the hundreds in some districts. Last I knew, very few transients went to Harvard or UC Berkley.

Peter, question 5. a. should be "how does one spell Napoleon." Or isn't spelling one of your criteria? Several days ago you referred to yourself and your "fiance". This clearly indicates that you are engaged to a man since the spelling for a female who is engaged is "fiancee". Judging from your other positions, it surprises me to see that you support same sex marriage! I'm just busting your chops. I think even you should be able to vote! Just be careful that you don't vote for the wrong person because you can't spell the name.

When the french have elected only one person in my life time worth his weight, why should I take the time to spell their language?

Peter, we ended the poll tax on January 23, 1964 with the 24th amendment. A test would amount to a violation of equal protection issues and violates our constitution. Any legally registered citizen has the right to vote.

The 24th amendment only prohibits taxes. Not competency tests. I believe you're thinking of the comprehension and basic literacy tests that were part of the Jim Crow laws.

What Peter is proposing wouldn't be violating equal protection because every single voter would have to take this competency test, instead of just a specific nationality.

Early voting works and is a great idea. Election Day should just be the last chance day to vote not the only chance day to vote. I like vote registration drives, it's a great way to get involved in some kind of government function. As for literacy tests it was tried during the Jim Crow era, I hope it's not something we revisit. EVER! Now I want to answer those sample test questions: 1.Chris Lee, but I think that's a poor representation of a US Representative.
2. I have 3 Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and Ranzan-something. Specify State or US please?
3. Important to who? This is asking for an opinion on what one thinks is important.
4. US Senate.
5.Actually Napoleon III ruled France at the same time as Lincoln was President. I spelled Napoleon correctly do I get extra credit.
6. What map?
7. Does this matter when it comes to voting. My one vote costs more than anything on this planet and it's not for sale.
8.If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?
9. Dick Cheney won't stop talking. He has a right to remain silent.
10.I forgot.
Well this was entertaining for an early morning post.

Posted by Peter O'Brien yesterday
When the french have elected only one person in my life time worth his weight, why should I take the time to spell their language?

Since you hold an educated, informed population in high esteem, what exempts you for demostrating the very intelligence you demand from others?

Onofrio, good answers.

Chris, my comment on the amendment was a generalization to point out that we certainly don't want to go back to the time of Jim Crow, poll taxes and literacy tests or tests of any kind for that matter.

Yet on the subject of voter suppression there will always be subtle and not so subtle ploys to keep certain people from voting -- the way it is done now is much more sneaky and underhanded. Examples: sending people cards stating that their fines need to be paid before they can vote, informing people that their voting day has changed, or it may be as subtle as not enough voting machines at certain precincts. Anything to discourage voting. The good news here in Genesee County -- we don't see this.

Discrimination at the voting booth is intolerable -- for any reason.

Posted by Lorie Longhany about 31 minutes ago

Discrimination at the voting booth is intolerable -- for any reason.

AMEN!

Requiring the Basic understanding of Civics is not discrimination.

If you voted for Obama because he's for "change" but you didn't know what those changes are going to be or how he was going to accomplish them, you shouldn't be voting. Your reasons for voting for him do not stem from any understanding other than his slogan.

If you don't know the names of your representatives in Congress, you don't care enough about policy in this country to warrant voting.

Its simple, either understand how government works and why it works the way it does or go back to American Idol because more people can name the finalists then can name their representatives.

People that vote without knowing the possible consequence of that vote deserve what they get. So to all you Obama voters who have lost your jobs, Congratulations on getting what you voted for.

I'm not trying to determine who is smart enough to vote, just those that care enough about the country to vote.

And for the record I have only a high school education and my training in the military and 6 courses in college 4 of which were Math

Yes Peter, you're right. Obama is 100% to blame for this recession even though it started well before he was elected.

The only basic qualification to exercise the right to vote is that one be a citizen.
It isn't up to you or me or anyone to decide which thought process is the correct one for making the decision to vote for a candidate.
To do so would be to skew the vote in one direction or another.
That might be your hope, but it doesn't make it right. To deny someone the right to vote because their process of choice differs from your process may very well indicate that you, not them, lack the basic fundamentals of civics.

Why not, the government is deciding if you should be punished more based on your thoughts why not include your thoughts when it comes to voting?

I'm not trying to skew the voting, I am trying to make a more informed electorate. Simply by instituting a basic civics test, the average voter will take the time to inform himself of what he needs to know.

As for Obama and the recession, it would have righted itself by now if Obama wouldn't have been Mr. Doom and Gloom and would have just let Chrysler and GM go into bankruptcy as they should have. Not to mention the billions of stimulus that is helping no one.

Posted by Peter O'Brien about 2 minutes ago
Why not, the government is deciding if you should be punished more based on your thoughts why not include your thoughts when it comes to voting?

Please give an example of where the average citizen is being punished for thoughts.

I'm not trying to skew the voting, I am trying to make a more informed electorate.

Not trying to skew the voting, as long as those who pass the test think exactly as you.

Simply by instituting a basic civics test, the average voter will take the time to inform himself of what he needs to know.

Based on who's criteria?

As for Obama and the recession, it would have righted itself by now if Obama wouldn't have been Mr. Doom and Gloom and would have just let Chrysler and GM go into bankruptcy as they should have. Not to mention the billions of stimulus that is helping no one.

Ah, the crux of this exercise. Do you feel that anyone who voted for Obama would not pass your infamous test?

no many would have but the bs star following he had thanks to Entertainment Tonight and day time talk wouldn't have had the impact it did.

Howard, it's not quite as simple as all that. You'd be surprised to know the number of people who would like to register, or re-register, or join a party, or something of that nature but think that the process is a lot more difficult and time consuming than it actually is. Voter registration drives help people to get done what they want to get done--nobody's being forced to participate, after all.

Getting people to vote and to register to vote is one of the most difficult things to do in this country. However, the government and some registration campaigns have made it simpler.

One of the main problems is we assume people are privileged enough to have the time to do the research on how to register. We also assume many of them have internet, computers, envelopes, and stamps available to them.

The trouble doesn't stop once a person is registered. A person working 60 hours a week to support a family, might not have the flexibility to rearranges schedules in order to vote. Absentee voters can have some even larger problems. You have to send in your paperwork so many weeks in advance, and postmark it by a certain date.

For college students it can be even MORE confusing. In some areas, college students are encouraged to vote in the college's district, as students generally spend more than 8 months a year at college. Some areas tell colleges students they need residency in order to vote in that area, and then they need to get on the absentee ballot boat. This doesn't even include students who are studying abroad or who are attending school in a different country (say an American attending school in Toronto).

The country and politicians have fought long and hard for years to have higher voter turn out. If you solve the problem of registering and getting people to vote, without making it obligatory, send the idea to your favorite public representative.

My first experience with early voting was in California in 2000.
California sent a thick booklet to each registered voter. You had the choice of voting early or you could take the booklet to the polls to help guide you through the voting process.
Since the polling place was less than a block from my home, I chose to wait until Election Day to vote. How hard could that be?
My first indication that this was going to be a different experience was discovering that they didn't have voting machines. They had a high table where you stood to complete your ballet.
The ballot, I learned later, was exactly the same as used in Florida. You used a pin to punch out your vote. Can you say hanging chads?
The ballot was as thick as the booklet sent in the mail. It went on for pages. You needed the booklet, with your choices already marked, to speed up the process.
That day marked the 12th Presidential election in which voted. When I walked into that polling place I was confident in my ability to cast a vote.
I found that the actually voting process, for me, took forever. I kept looking behind me and watched as the line grew longer. I was flustered and embarrassed that I was holding up the line.
Since the polling place was so close to my home and only three blocks from my place of work, I chose to cast my ballot on the way to work. When I finally left the building and walked the three blocks I felt drained.
It was then I learned that most of my colleagues elected for the early vote. Now I know why.
The democratic process will survive whether people vote on Election Day or have a choice for the early vote. The convenience of the early vote is an option that should be open to New York voters. However, if it doesn't fly, it won't stop those who believe that their vote is their voice.

In October 2008, the radio program This American Life put out a podcast with a segment about a voter registration rally in State College, PA.

A statistic I would like to see is of those who register to vote at a rally, how many of them actually do?

I listened to the podcast more than six months ago, and I don't remember if I liked it or not, but if you have an hour, check it out: http://www.thisamericanlife.com/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1267

My providing the link is niether an endorsement or criticism of the episode. Thats for you to decide.