Early Voting and Democracy

The current method of early voting absolutely cheapens democracy.

Many a Democrat on this forum and in the mainstream press talk about the majesty of our democracy and how we must protect it. How does early voting---at least how it is done at the present--fall in line with the Democrats' supposed care for democracy, "our democracy," as they put it?

Let me use the Fetterman-Oz US Senate race as a case in point. Before the November elections, more than 9 million Pennsylvanians voted early. Fetterman supposedly won by less than 200,000 votes, at the time of this writing. How many of those 9 million who voted before would have switched their vote, if they could, especially considering Fetterman's pathetic debate performance in which he could barely speak and lied, especially about his position on fracking? How does early voting before a formal debate fall in line with Democrats' supposed care about democracy?

If we are going to have no limits on who can vote in this country, then we need to understand that for many people the debates can be the first and only glimpse they see of the candidate. With that understanding, shouldn't early voting, if we are going to have it, be after, not before, debate(s)?

 

fetterman won due to early voting and debate dodged for this very reason
I mean, Republicans are allowed to use the same dirty tactics, nobody is stopping them.

 

All my Repub friends in US vote early.

 

I did also, because its an option. It should NOT be a thing though. Especially before debates happen.
I don't mind sucking it up in an annoying line every couple of years to make sure the voting is done SAFELY. Look at all the machine drama they have having in AZ now (and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine)
cheating bastards!

 

I agree completely. When you vote before the race as developed, you run the risk of not knowing the facts. I dare say that many of the people who voted for Fetterman had no idea that he had had a stroke and was impaired. They only had to chance to see it in the debate, which will held very late in the campaign. Now we might have six years of a considerably diminished senator if he survives that long.

 

It's standard practise everywhere. This is a a hard ask.

 

Hm, sounds like one of those "telling people how to think" scenarios. Surprising to hear this from conservatives.

 

I voted in person, and I have never voted early, especially by mail-in balloting, which has a positive correlation with fraud, as it is "more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show." But let's not wander into trivial anecdotalism. Instead, let's focus and stay on topic. Answer the question. If we are going to have no limits on who can vote in this country, then we need to understand that for many people the debates can be the first and only glimpse they see of the candidate. With that understanding, shouldn't early voting, if we are going to have it, be after, not before, debate(s)? If we should not make early voting eligible only after debate(s), then explain how that falls in line with Democrats' supposed care for democracy, and how it does not cheapen it.

 

I agree.

What dirty tactics? And how would they not be stopped? Sure, putting a stop to early voting--or at least trying to push it to happen after the debates--would be characterized as "dirty tactics," "voter suppression," "Jim eagle," and so forth, by Democrats and the press (but I repeat myself). But I don't see how the jelly-spined Republicans would withstand a modicum of mainstream media pushback.

 

I don't know. I guess I didn't think that one through. It isn't like debate dodging would help out republicans so disregard that statement, thanks

 

Interesting that the Democrats, who are supposedly the guardians of "our sacred democracy," are not for pushing early voting till after debates, so people can make a better-informed vote.

 

At this point, anyone convinced that mail in is filled with fraud, have absolutely no clue about all the steps it takes to get a ballot mailed in and verified.

 

This thread is about early voting. Please stick to the topic. Yes, I brought up mail-in voting, but it was meant as an aside to argue against personal anecdotes as a form of evidence.

Do you think early voting should happen before or after debates, and why?

 

I guess the talking points have been released — it has moved from fraud to now being because we can vote early.

I guess to make sure elections are good going forward we should only allow voting to occur on Wednesday between 9a to 10a with a copy of your most recent social security check to be eligible

You know, just so it’s fair for everyone

 

Early voting is absolutely about giving the machine an opportunity to turn out the vote, and Democrats are better at it than the GOP.

I think the GOP needs to get a lot better at it, and very quickly.

 

Abolish party voting. People vote before the debates because they are not caring who it is as long as they are the correct party. Its a horrible way to vote and we need to stop it.

 

Well, you found the fraud. 9 million PA residents voted early when less than 6 million votes have been recorded,

The article you linked referenced 9 million in the country, 635K in PA

 

Yes and because debates only prove that politicians know how to dodge questions and get back to the stump quickly. I already know that. I stopped watching debates years ago. I know how I’m going to vote, almost always.

 

Lol

 

You didn't answer my question, and I don't care how you vote. Should early voting happen before or after debates? Yes or no, and why?

 

I’m not opposed to early voting in any way. The timing of debates is irrelevant.

 

Again, this topic is not about electoral fraud, which, by the way, I think there is, and I think that helped shape this election, and the election of 2020. Just because this topic is about early voting does not logically preclude the existence of fraud. This topic is about early voting.

Do you think early voting should be before or after elections, and why?

 

So, you are for early voting before debates?

 

Ah, my mistake. 635 thousand Pennsylvanians voted early, and Fetterman only won by less than 200,000. The point still stands, but thank you for the correction.

 

I have said that twice already. This makes a third time. The debates are 100% irrelevant. I think the debates should be on February 30.