You are absolutely correct that, because our constitution gives a great deal of power to the states to determine voting processes, there is a great ability for the dominant political party in that state to expand voting participation in a way that benefits it.

However, I believe our stance should be non-partisan. We believe that if there is a right to vote, consistent with security and integrity of the vote, our country should be making it as easy as possible to vote everywhere. Over time, our courts and our elected officials have outlawed a variety of obstacles to voting, including poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and testing processes designed to keep classes of people from voting.

The point I have made is that our country needs to recognize that there are certain voting requirements that making voting more difficult and have no reason for being. For example, many developed countries have voting on weekends. We have Tuesday elections as a vestige of an era when farmers had to travel a full day to get to a polling place, and we did not want them to travel on Sunday, a day of rest. Ironically, a designation of Tuesday was really designed to making voting more convenient for farmers. Today, it makes voting more inconvenient for the majority of our citizens.

There are other subtle problems with a one-day, face-to-face voting requirement. People often work not only during the day, but have second jobs during the evening. Polling places are exceptionally crowded outside normal working hours, at times when most people are able to vote. In some communities, parking becomes a challenge. In other urban and suburban areas, traffic congestion can become an obstacle for someone leaving work and going to a polling place.

The other problem with voting on election day is that, if a voting machine breaks down at a polling place, the recovery process, particularly at the tail end of an election day, can be a massive inconvenience to voters.

For these reasons, I favor a system similar to California’s, in which voters are given choices: voting in person or by mail. I would go further and say that the voter should be able to come in at any time within two weeks prior to the election and vote in person. We should make voting as convenient as possible for as many people as possible.

California goes one step beyond this and mandates the sending of ballots through the mail with explanatory materials. I favor giving as much information as possible to voters to help them make informed choices.

Your concern about one party gaining a temporary advantage over another because of dominance of the machinery of government in a state is valid, but that evens out over time. However, I would note that political parties do not always get what they expect. When I was in high school, I would hear that Democrats favored giving people between the ages of 18 and 21 the right to vote because they assumed most young people, being anti-war and for civil rights, would support the Democrats. They were surprised to find out that the young people who voted pretty much followed the voting patterns of the broader adult population. Moreover, candidates like Ronald Reagan attracted young people across the political spectrum.

Along these lines, one of the great books I have read recently is Mark Penn’s Microtrends. Among other insights, Mr. Penn makes two major points:

• Many stereotypes are wrong, because, within broader interest groupings, there are micro-segments that behave very differently. For example, he uses the example of Protestant Hispanics, who vote very differently from Catholic Hispanics. As time goes on, candidates will figure this out. Michael Bloomberg, whom Mr. Penn assisted in his two campaigns, figured this out.
• Lower-income and less well-educated Americans actually have a far better grasp of the issues and make better, more refined, decisions on candidates than do better-educated Americans. The idea that political parties and candidates can “control” a population of new voters may be flawed.

For these reasons, although you make a valid point, I would continue to move toward making voting easier.

– mike

All the candidates seem to support lobbyist agendas and the cursed North American Union, SPP, destruction of our national sovereignty, for ultimate One World Totalitarian Government.

Why are WTO protesters called “anarchists”, yet they never interview any on MSM?

USA is falling like Roman Empire, eaten up from within.