This article was a less than serious discussion about an otherwise serious topic. It seems the author implies that any vote that is not cast on a day exactly contemporaneous with the election day calendar lacks validity since "different electorates" are voting. What silliness.
There are all sorts of different electorates out there viewing campaigns through many different prisms. Time is only one element in a campaign. Some voters are sorted out by age, by history, by education, by experience, by geography, by gender or ethnic background. It is impossible to "level the playing field" for all these diverse electorates. The author might prefer the bad old days when campaigns can manufacture "a late hit" or an "October surprise" that is designed to influence voters at the last minute and leave no time for rebuttal. If anything, early voting introduces a degree of stability in the judgment of the electorate and still promotes a reasonably contemporaneous expression of the public will. That expression over a small amount of time--a few weeks--can smooth out the distortions of media frenzies in favor of one candidate or another whom the media decrees has momentum or is the preferred flavor of the month.
The author's example about jury members leaving the court before the case has been presented is a poor analogy and not valid for the electoral time line. A juror must hear the entire case in chief of both the prosecution and the defense before being given instructions by the judge prior to collective deliberations and voting. There is no requirement that jurors sit forever to listen to the same two arguments over and over again once they have heard the basic facts presented.
This article was a less than serious discussion about an otherwise serious topic. It seems the author implies that any vote that is not cast on a day exactly contemporaneous with the election day calendar lacks validity since "different electorates" are voting. What silliness.
There are all sorts of different electorates out there viewing campaigns through many different prisms. Time is only one element in a campaign. Some voters are sorted out by age, by history, by education, by experience, by geography, by gender or ethnic background. It is impossible to "level the playing field" for all these diverse electorates. The author might prefer the bad old days when campaigns can manufacture "a late hit" or an "October surprise" that is designed to influence voters at the last minute and leave no time for rebuttal. If anything, early voting introduces a degree of stability in the judgment of the electorate and still promotes a reasonably contemporaneous expression of the public will. That expression over a small amount of time--a few weeks--can smooth out the distortions of media frenzies in favor of one candidate or another whom the media decrees has momentum or is the preferred flavor of the month.
The author's example about jury members leaving the court before the case has been presented is a poor analogy and not valid for the electoral time line. A juror must hear the entire case in chief of both the prosecution and the defense before being given instructions by the judge prior to collective deliberations and voting. There is no requirement that jurors sit forever to listen to the same two arguments over and over again once they have heard the basic facts presented.