« Social Media Scorecard: Candidates for Governor of Tennessee | Main | Representative Stacey Campfield to Run for District Seven Senate Seat »
August 9, 2009
2008 GOP Victory Foils 'Convenience Voting' P(i)lot
As David Oatney tells it, the Knox County Election Commission—which as of this year comprises three Republicans and two Democrats, rather than the other way round—saved the Republican Party from certain ruin when it voted against starting a pilot project commonly known as "convenience voting."
The plan would have expanded on a concept that already exists. Voters would not be required to report to a particular polling location, but could go to any one of several centers that would be open for a number of days, instead of just one day. Some see this as a logical extension of the type of thinking early voting has introduced.
According to Oatney, such a plan would be disastrous for his party, because:
[I]n most East Tennessee counties, the Republican party is organized by precinct. Each precinct has a precinct Chairman and a number of precinct delegates who can be convened to district conventions if necessary. More importantly, these precinct organizations are what help with Republican get-out-the-vote efforts all over East Tennessee.[…]
Why would certain people want to take this "pilot program" to other East Tennessee counties, and then Statewide? Because Democrats know that in East Tennessee, Republican dominance filters down to the precinct level, and they can't beat Republicans at the polls, so they must destroy the party from within.
All ninety-five county election commissions in Tennessee were required by law to shift to Republican majorities this year after the GOP won majorities in both houses of the Legislature last November. (What kind of dumb law is that, you ask? It's the Democrats' fault. More on that in another post.) If the "convenience voting" idea is an insidious conspiracy to destroy the very fabric of Republicans' existence, chances are it won't get traction anywhere soon.
But what if it isn't? Could it be a mere attempt to modernize a system that came into being before the automobile and the two-career household? And here's another thing: since early voting introduced the idea, the number of people who show up at a "convenience center" on Election Day expecting to be able to vote there, instead of at their precinct polling location, is astounding. Believe me, I know. Wouldn't it help those (yes, under-informed) people to vote if there were election workers and machines available when they arrived? Isn't that a primary goal?
I do see another side to this, which is related to the wholly wholesome experience of voting in one's precinct on Election Day, and recognizing the faces, and feeling that small-town patriotism welling up. I get that. But the fact is that the lifestyles of many voters require different options: hence early voting.
However, the main reason I'm disappointed by the setback to "convenience voting" is that we are missing out on a chance for increased efficiency in our elections. Precinct voting costs more, and it requires far more trained election workers, than a convenience-centers system would. The budget should be a large part of an election commission's consideration if and when they discuss this. In fact, I'm going to start referring to it as "efficiency voting" to emphasize what I see as its main selling point. (You can tell I'm not a marketing guy. "Convenience" probably sells it better to the public.)
Finally, I have no doubt that a healthy political party would find ways to adapt to changes that would bring our elections into the 21st Century, were those changes to be adopted. If precinct voting were all that was holding the Republican Party together, then something else would come along fairly soon and just as easily kill it. David Oatney may think I'm naïve for saying it, but I don't think the destruction of a party was the reason for developing this project plan. That said, I have plenty of reason to believe that fear of losing control (if more people entered the voting process) would cause some to recoil from the idea and reject it outright.
Elections | By joe lance | 9:41 PM
Comments
I'm all for giving everyone a chance to vote, but how far should the gov't go in making sure that happens? How much "easier" or more "convenient" could voting be? Should we make voting as easy as getting 2 hotdogs for $1.99 at the Kangaroo? From what I remember last time, I had more than enough time to early vote, and had I forgot, I could have easily voted on election day...
Posted by: Jonathan at August 10, 2009 9:58 AM
Vote Centers sound good but have unanticipated consequences. Vote Centers do not "add" to choices for voters, but instead reduce choices for voters.
To pay for Vote Centers, sacrifices are made: Which precincts will be eliminated? Who decides? The number of voting locations and voting machines are cut by as much as 66% or more. Neighborhood election day precincts are often eliminated.
Certain segments of the population have a bigger burden in trying to excercise their right to vote. Vote Centers or Super Precincts don't serve the voter's needs or the precise requirements for democratic elections -- transparency being one of them. Vote Centers remove places from the neighborhood locations where voters without the means can have easier access.
With Vote Centers, you will see as many as 10,000 votes concentrated at one location, making it easier to commit fraud on a large scale in one fell swoop. The smaller neighborhood polling places offer a buffer against election fraud by keeping the number of votes in one location down to an average of 3,000 ballots or fewer. Voting machine malfunction or a rogue election worker can affect far fewer votes in a neighborhood precinct than in a consolidated vote center.
Larimer County is an example of how vote centers can disenfranchise large numbers of people when just one thing goes wrong:
Rocky Mountain News: Elections Nov. 7,, 2006. Voters at many of the city�s new 55 voting centers have been encountering long lines, computer problems and an inadequate number of computers to check proof
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5124795,00.html
If the goal is to improve access to voting, then the best solution is to offer a 2 week period of early voting which ceases the week-end before election day, and to continue with neighborhood polling places. This provides the best of both worlds, without creating a barrier to voting for the elderly and poor, and without exposing extremely large numbers of votes to software malfunctions and fraud.
See http://www.ncvoter.net/votecenters.html
Posted by: Joyce McCloy at August 11, 2009 7:39 PM