I believe the voting period for President & federal office should be reduced to not more than 2 weeks. Do you think it should be reduced?
If states wanted to expand voting for local issues or candidates they could. But, a federal law requiring a period of not more than two weeks for federal office and ending strictly on a set date would limit the chances for fraud. Agree or disagree?
I really am not "soliciting opinion". Despite that, "Anonymous" is brave enough to offer one of his/her own.
Good points Tmess2. So, until universal mail-in voting, I guess voter suppression was rampant. Maybe that's why ballots from illegal aliens and graveyards were needed to make up for all those suppressed voters. Perhaps mailing ballots 3 weeks ahead of the date and counting them no later than 24 hours after poll-closing time could be fair. How much grace period do we want in order to cover for suppressed voters who procrastinate?
- Tmess2Lv 71 month agoFavourite answer
Several problems. First, there are two types of early voting. There is mail-in and in-person.
First, given that mail-in relies on the post-office, it is necessary to mail out absentee ballots more than two weeks before the election to assure adequate time for voters to get the ballots and return them.
Second, every state has different period for in-person early voting. Some, like my state, do not have in-person early voting at all. If every state was required to have two weeks of early voting, that is a compromise that supporters of early voting could live with. But if it's merely a maximum of two weeks and states can do less, then that's not acceptable.
Third, it's not just when early voting opens, it's the number of locations and the hours. Again, if counties were required to have a certain number of locations based on population and have so many hours, that might justify a shorter period. But if large cities have only one or two early voting centers and are open for only four or five hours per day, then you need more days.
Fourth, it's not realistic to expect states to have different rules for local issues on the general election. In most states, there is one ballot that covers both federal elections and state and local elections. It would be cumbersome to track who voted early for local offices and could still vote a federal ballot and those who had voted both. Such a rule would absolutely increase the potential for fraud.
Finally, the amount of fraud related to early voting is practically non-existent. Limiting early voting to prevent fraud is similar to other proposals to make voting more difficult to prevent fraud -- the cure is far worse than the disease. Every ballot box is sealed at the end of each day and unsealed at the start of the next day in the presence of multiple bipartisan election judges. While it's not impossible for the election judges to engage in fraud, the number of cases in which both parties have cooperated are few and far between (and mostly involve primaries in which one party did not care about cheating in the other party's races). More importantly, if the election judges are going to engage in fraud, it's just as easy to do if there is one day of early voting (or no days) as it is if there are three weeks of early voting.
The basic purpose of early voting is to try to spread out voting to reduce lines (the bane of election days in urban and suburban areas). Cutting short early voting defeats that goal while gaining no benefits other than making it harder to vote.
- 1 month ago
It would also make it harder to vote, and that is what Republicans desperately want.
- Jeff DLv 71 month ago
Yes, two weeks is more than enough.
- RobertLv 61 month ago
Two weeks is more than enough time. The longer the voting time, the greater the risk of voter fraud.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous1 month ago
"...a federal law requiring a period of not more than two weeks for federal office and ending strictly on a set date would limit the chances for fraud."
Do you have any empirical evidence to back up that assertion or are you just talking out of your @ss?
By the way, know that Yahoo Answers prohibits asking questions that solicit opinions rather than facts, qualifying it as a "chat" violation.