I am not an American citizen, but like the rest of the world, I am watching this election with a combination of hope and dread. From what I can see, most Americans proclaim that they are either Democrats or Republicans, just like saying you're Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. It must be hard to fight that internal push to vote within your chosen tribe. But I am asking all of you to vote with your heart and logic, and try very hard to forget about what you historically belong to. Examine what has been said, what has been promised, and what your country will be like depending on who wins the election. And know something else - not voting then eliminates your right to complain. Sounds perhaps like a cliche, but if you want to live in a true Democracy, then practice what makes it so. I believe this to be the most important election since Abraham Lincoln put your country onto a new and enlightened path. Good fortune to you all.
I'm from a country that has had voter's IDs for over 30 years now. There are still claims of fraud after every single election. It's not the magical solution you think it is. Losing side can make up whatever they want and there will always be a lot of people who believe them.
"Requiring a voter ID seems to me perfectly reasonable." Most privileged people born on at least First Base believe so. I'm confident you at least don't believe you hit a single.
This essay actually makes an implicit argument against the need for voter ID. Voting fraudulently is a felony. You could be sent to jail if caught. That’s a huge risk. The reward is…one vote cast for whatever candidates you favor. Doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me, especially if it's impossible for my vote to matter.
Fun Fact: In 2008 a group of nuns was turned away from their usual polling place because they couldn’t show ID that conformed to Indiana’s strict new voter ID law. The nuns, all in their 80s and 90s, didn’t have drivers’ licenses, and didn’t have any other kind of photo ID mandated by the law because of their vows of poverty. Passports aren’t cheap, and at their ages they weren’t likely to use them for anything else.
What made the ID requirement especially outrageous is that their polling place was in an assisted-living facility where they were residents. So everyone who lived and worked at the facility knew their identities and could have vouched for them, but that isn't acceptable under the law.
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. The amount of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID is vanishingly small, on the order of a handful of votes per billion votes cast.
The only purpose of onerous voter-ID laws is to keep certain voters from voting, invariably those who intend to vote for Democrats. IF you really want to have Voter ID, then you need to fix the problem with access to obtaining Voter ID.
Pelosi HR1 which passed the House but not the senate would have outlawed assigning voting by precinct exactly so no one would notice “hey weren’t you already here this morning?” If enacted who knows what the SC would do with it but that’s true of a lot of stuff now.
Well, literally everyone walking by my gate could take my name and address from the sign on my postbox and could go vote instead of me. It's not only me who have their names at publicly visible locations. Yes, that's a single vote, but this ruse could be played by a single person about 5-6 times, in nearby polling stations and with very low risk of detection if the wrongdoer goes early to the polling stations. Could be easily multiplied if a couple does it and they cast two votes. Yes, it still might be 10 or so votes, but I seem to recall one particular general election here where an MP candidate won by 60 votes and the winning party got exactly the number of MPs required to achieve supermajority.
I do believe everyone has to go to a particular voting station, you cannot just show up at any polling location. Even if you spaced it out, someone would probably notice you were there earlier. In lieu of that, your signature will be compared to the one on file. Sorry Charlie, but the odds of that plan succeeding is very very low.
It's public that people from which address needs to go to which polling station. I'm talking about heavily built up areas, 40000 people in a 2x1 km area, that's 28 electoral precincts in an area that one can walk around in an hour. That's 5 distinct polling stations where nobody will notice that a person already voted 500 meters away.
On the other hand, if there government already knows the signature of every voter (that's required to check it, isn't it?) - they could easily issue voting IDs for everyone and avoid this whole mess.
It’s as if there’s a bit of motivated reasoning at play with Mr. Easterbrook. I love his football columns and he has such fun thought provoking insights, but he really seems to have a blind spot. The both sides argument from him is disappointing
Certainly agree. I debated whether to make that comment or address this doozy--
"My hope is Harris wins by a comfortable margin, so the stolen-election claims – which Democrats make just as often, and just as implausibly, as Republicans – finally cease."
Get real, Mr TMQ.
One party's presidential candidate has been crying--LYING--about a stolen election non-stop since before the votes were even cast last time. Literally with no proof! And there is precisely zero corollary on the Democrat side. None whatsoever. And don't quote me some technical Congressional objection 12 years ago that went nowhere, meant nothing and was immediately forgotten.
This concerted effort at trashing our beloved democratic electoral process has no modern parallel. It has led millions of our fellow citizens down a black hole of misinformation and lies, where the only 'truth' comes from the man who sowed the seeds in the first place.
It's disgusting. It's appalling. And insisting both sides do it equally is normalizing this nonsense.
158,397,726 people voted is a good reason to expand early and mail voting. There is no way 158 Million voters could all vote on Election Day within the constrant of current Poll hours. Here in Mississippi-stan, early voting is extremely limited to vetus album homines.
Whether voting is a right, a privilege or both, we need to make it easier for citizens to cast their ballots. more polling centers, early and mail voting required by law.
I've never voted in person in my life in Washington. I had an absentee ballot while away at college after i turned 18. When I moved back the rules had changed to "no-excuse" absentee, where you didn't need to have a reason so I left it. Then we just quit the tapdance and went to all-mail.
It's wonderful. Sometime in that 3ish week window I sit down after dinner with my voter's guide and make my educated choices at my own pace, seal and sign the envelope, and then take it to whatever drop box is closest to where I'm going that day. There's even a sticker.
As for security, my ballot has been rejected once or twice because my signature has (d)evolved over time--especially since it's basically the only time I ever sign my middle name. I cleared it up with some "yes I'm me" paperwork and all is good.
Zero reason it shouldn't be that easy for everyone. That some still hold Election Day and going to a polling place as a holy ideal seems like just "we've always done it that way" inertia.
It's a massively parallelizable task to organize voting. There were more than 350 million eligible voters in the latest EU parliamentary elections. There were negligible number of early voters, so more than 180 million people voted on the 4 days of elections (but I think no country had more than two days of voting). It's not that complicated if there's a will...
Excellent article (as usual) sir, I will be early voting in VA tomorrow and share your opinion that the country will survive either major party candidate being elected. I think most "average" Americans believe the same, despite the hysterical MSM suggestion otherwise.
I admire your belief in the US Constitution. I believe, according to the US Constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war - yet, somehow the US invaded both Grenada and Panama without Congressional authorisation.
20 hrs ago·edited 20 hrs agoLiked by Gregg Easterbrook
"After losing a presidential election, partisans always foresee doom for American democracy. It’s never happened and I’ve got ten bucks that says it never will."
Anyone else find it ironic, humorous and a bit disconcerting to read that on a Substack titled "All Predictions Wrong"? 👀🤞🤞🙏
I did early voting this past Tuesday in Nassau County, NY. 35 minute wait and I encountered many neighbors. Line was probably longer than had I voted on election day because there are many more precincts than early voting centers. While my Presidential vote will not matter in terms of picking the winner suddenly my district is a battleground congressional district. Not only should people vote for President they should fill out the ballot completely and in the case of NY this year flip the ballot over and vote on the proposition.
What is the meaning behind the note that Pennsylvania will continue voting for 3 days after Election Day? My understanding is that absentee ballot counting may take a while, but there is no actual additional voting beyond Nov 5.
One of the issues in Florida 2000 was whether a satchel of APO ballots received two days late could be counted. Till 2020 the standard was a ballot had to physically be turned in by the end of Election Day to count
The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed a ruling that mailed ballots with missing or indecipherable postmarks could be counted if they were received up to 3 days after Election Day. A recently passed law allowed for mailed ballots with a postmark to be counted if received by the Saturday after Election Day.
Washington's law since we switched to all-mail voting 20 some years ago has been "postmarked by election day" which is in keeping with principles established in contracts law (as I recall them from an introductory business law class nigh 30 years ago). I was taught a contract is considered "executed and transmitted" once it is signed and turned over to a reliable courier like USPS (or UPS or FedEx, but not Fred's Speedee Courier and Dry Cleaning) for delivery. Whether the other party has received it isn't material. No reason the same consideration shouldn't be applied to the "civic contract" of voting.
They still voted. It’s similar to your argument about not announcing results until they’ve been counted in full. Just because the vote hasn’t been received the same day doesn’t mean it was recorded after voting day. I agree with the premise that we should have a smaller voting period, but voting in such a large federalist republic is easier for more people to participate in when there are more opportunities to vote.
Would you argue that voting a third party candidate "sends a message" to the two majority party candidates or that those votes would be largely ignored by them? Do you think we'll ever see a third party make a real challenge to the two current major parties?
The two parties cooperate on keeping third parties out. You’d need some kind of national legislation to level the playing field and the two parties would cooperate to prevent
Two parties are a natural result of our “first past the post” voting system. The growth of third parties options could be possible with reforms like Ranked Choice voting.
Washington DC notwithstanding, there is one elector per congressional district and 2 for each senate spot: the elector for the congressional district should go to the candidate that wins the vote in that district, the two electors for the senate should be based on the statewide winner.
This avoids direct election of the president while still avoiding direct election of the president as was the original intent of the Electoral College. Conservative states like mine - Kansas - has Kansas-3 which encompasses Kansas City and typically votes democratic but our votes have no impact; under the above approach Kansas-3 would typically go to the Democratic candidate. The inverse would apply to conservative alcoves in Democratic states.
I am not an American citizen, but like the rest of the world, I am watching this election with a combination of hope and dread. From what I can see, most Americans proclaim that they are either Democrats or Republicans, just like saying you're Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. It must be hard to fight that internal push to vote within your chosen tribe. But I am asking all of you to vote with your heart and logic, and try very hard to forget about what you historically belong to. Examine what has been said, what has been promised, and what your country will be like depending on who wins the election. And know something else - not voting then eliminates your right to complain. Sounds perhaps like a cliche, but if you want to live in a true Democracy, then practice what makes it so. I believe this to be the most important election since Abraham Lincoln put your country onto a new and enlightened path. Good fortune to you all.
hear hear!
I'm from a country that has had voter's IDs for over 30 years now. There are still claims of fraud after every single election. It's not the magical solution you think it is. Losing side can make up whatever they want and there will always be a lot of people who believe them.
"Requiring a voter ID seems to me perfectly reasonable." Most privileged people born on at least First Base believe so. I'm confident you at least don't believe you hit a single.
This essay actually makes an implicit argument against the need for voter ID. Voting fraudulently is a felony. You could be sent to jail if caught. That’s a huge risk. The reward is…one vote cast for whatever candidates you favor. Doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me, especially if it's impossible for my vote to matter.
Fun Fact: In 2008 a group of nuns was turned away from their usual polling place because they couldn’t show ID that conformed to Indiana’s strict new voter ID law. The nuns, all in their 80s and 90s, didn’t have drivers’ licenses, and didn’t have any other kind of photo ID mandated by the law because of their vows of poverty. Passports aren’t cheap, and at their ages they weren’t likely to use them for anything else.
What made the ID requirement especially outrageous is that their polling place was in an assisted-living facility where they were residents. So everyone who lived and worked at the facility knew their identities and could have vouched for them, but that isn't acceptable under the law.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/07/uselections2008.usa
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. The amount of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID is vanishingly small, on the order of a handful of votes per billion votes cast.
The only purpose of onerous voter-ID laws is to keep certain voters from voting, invariably those who intend to vote for Democrats. IF you really want to have Voter ID, then you need to fix the problem with access to obtaining Voter ID.
Pelosi HR1 which passed the House but not the senate would have outlawed assigning voting by precinct exactly so no one would notice “hey weren’t you already here this morning?” If enacted who knows what the SC would do with it but that’s true of a lot of stuff now.
Well, literally everyone walking by my gate could take my name and address from the sign on my postbox and could go vote instead of me. It's not only me who have their names at publicly visible locations. Yes, that's a single vote, but this ruse could be played by a single person about 5-6 times, in nearby polling stations and with very low risk of detection if the wrongdoer goes early to the polling stations. Could be easily multiplied if a couple does it and they cast two votes. Yes, it still might be 10 or so votes, but I seem to recall one particular general election here where an MP candidate won by 60 votes and the winning party got exactly the number of MPs required to achieve supermajority.
I do believe everyone has to go to a particular voting station, you cannot just show up at any polling location. Even if you spaced it out, someone would probably notice you were there earlier. In lieu of that, your signature will be compared to the one on file. Sorry Charlie, but the odds of that plan succeeding is very very low.
It's public that people from which address needs to go to which polling station. I'm talking about heavily built up areas, 40000 people in a 2x1 km area, that's 28 electoral precincts in an area that one can walk around in an hour. That's 5 distinct polling stations where nobody will notice that a person already voted 500 meters away.
On the other hand, if there government already knows the signature of every voter (that's required to check it, isn't it?) - they could easily issue voting IDs for everyone and avoid this whole mess.
"Requiring identification would silence claims of voter fraud"
Sure. Because no one would dream of claiming voting machines flipped votes or anything equally ridiculous, right? C'mon, man.
It’s as if there’s a bit of motivated reasoning at play with Mr. Easterbrook. I love his football columns and he has such fun thought provoking insights, but he really seems to have a blind spot. The both sides argument from him is disappointing
Certainly agree. I debated whether to make that comment or address this doozy--
"My hope is Harris wins by a comfortable margin, so the stolen-election claims – which Democrats make just as often, and just as implausibly, as Republicans – finally cease."
Get real, Mr TMQ.
One party's presidential candidate has been crying--LYING--about a stolen election non-stop since before the votes were even cast last time. Literally with no proof! And there is precisely zero corollary on the Democrat side. None whatsoever. And don't quote me some technical Congressional objection 12 years ago that went nowhere, meant nothing and was immediately forgotten.
This concerted effort at trashing our beloved democratic electoral process has no modern parallel. It has led millions of our fellow citizens down a black hole of misinformation and lies, where the only 'truth' comes from the man who sowed the seeds in the first place.
It's disgusting. It's appalling. And insisting both sides do it equally is normalizing this nonsense.
Pretty sure you're better than this. I hope.
158,397,726 people voted is a good reason to expand early and mail voting. There is no way 158 Million voters could all vote on Election Day within the constrant of current Poll hours. Here in Mississippi-stan, early voting is extremely limited to vetus album homines.
Whether voting is a right, a privilege or both, we need to make it easier for citizens to cast their ballots. more polling centers, early and mail voting required by law.
I've never voted in person in my life in Washington. I had an absentee ballot while away at college after i turned 18. When I moved back the rules had changed to "no-excuse" absentee, where you didn't need to have a reason so I left it. Then we just quit the tapdance and went to all-mail.
It's wonderful. Sometime in that 3ish week window I sit down after dinner with my voter's guide and make my educated choices at my own pace, seal and sign the envelope, and then take it to whatever drop box is closest to where I'm going that day. There's even a sticker.
As for security, my ballot has been rejected once or twice because my signature has (d)evolved over time--especially since it's basically the only time I ever sign my middle name. I cleared it up with some "yes I'm me" paperwork and all is good.
Zero reason it shouldn't be that easy for everyone. That some still hold Election Day and going to a polling place as a holy ideal seems like just "we've always done it that way" inertia.
It's a massively parallelizable task to organize voting. There were more than 350 million eligible voters in the latest EU parliamentary elections. There were negligible number of early voters, so more than 180 million people voted on the 4 days of elections (but I think no country had more than two days of voting). It's not that complicated if there's a will...
Excellent article (as usual) sir, I will be early voting in VA tomorrow and share your opinion that the country will survive either major party candidate being elected. I think most "average" Americans believe the same, despite the hysterical MSM suggestion otherwise.
I admire your belief in the US Constitution. I believe, according to the US Constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war - yet, somehow the US invaded both Grenada and Panama without Congressional authorisation.
"After losing a presidential election, partisans always foresee doom for American democracy. It’s never happened and I’ve got ten bucks that says it never will."
Anyone else find it ironic, humorous and a bit disconcerting to read that on a Substack titled "All Predictions Wrong"? 👀🤞🤞🙏
I will never have to pay the $10!
As a Christian agnostic, I hope to God you never have to part ways with that Hamilton!!
Not they are either Hitler or Stalin, but if one is equally (although differently) repulsed by both, it’s defensible to say “neither.”
I did early voting this past Tuesday in Nassau County, NY. 35 minute wait and I encountered many neighbors. Line was probably longer than had I voted on election day because there are many more precincts than early voting centers. While my Presidential vote will not matter in terms of picking the winner suddenly my district is a battleground congressional district. Not only should people vote for President they should fill out the ballot completely and in the case of NY this year flip the ballot over and vote on the proposition.
may I quote you?
Sure
just did
What is the meaning behind the note that Pennsylvania will continue voting for 3 days after Election Day? My understanding is that absentee ballot counting may take a while, but there is no actual additional voting beyond Nov 5.
One of the issues in Florida 2000 was whether a satchel of APO ballots received two days late could be counted. Till 2020 the standard was a ballot had to physically be turned in by the end of Election Day to count
The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed a ruling that mailed ballots with missing or indecipherable postmarks could be counted if they were received up to 3 days after Election Day. A recently passed law allowed for mailed ballots with a postmark to be counted if received by the Saturday after Election Day.
it's the same bad idea -- election season rather than election day. I speak as a former Chicago poll judge!
Washington's law since we switched to all-mail voting 20 some years ago has been "postmarked by election day" which is in keeping with principles established in contracts law (as I recall them from an introductory business law class nigh 30 years ago). I was taught a contract is considered "executed and transmitted" once it is signed and turned over to a reliable courier like USPS (or UPS or FedEx, but not Fred's Speedee Courier and Dry Cleaning) for delivery. Whether the other party has received it isn't material. No reason the same consideration shouldn't be applied to the "civic contract" of voting.
They still voted. It’s similar to your argument about not announcing results until they’ve been counted in full. Just because the vote hasn’t been received the same day doesn’t mean it was recorded after voting day. I agree with the premise that we should have a smaller voting period, but voting in such a large federalist republic is easier for more people to participate in when there are more opportunities to vote.
In newspaper news-the star ledger, nj's biggest newspaper, will discontinue printing physical papers in 2025.
thanks for flagging me will mention
Would you argue that voting a third party candidate "sends a message" to the two majority party candidates or that those votes would be largely ignored by them? Do you think we'll ever see a third party make a real challenge to the two current major parties?
The two parties cooperate on keeping third parties out. You’d need some kind of national legislation to level the playing field and the two parties would cooperate to prevent
Two parties are a natural result of our “first past the post” voting system. The growth of third parties options could be possible with reforms like Ranked Choice voting.
Voting 3rd party is a good way to let marginalized groups know that your abstract principles are more important than their very real lives.
Some common sense as usual ..thanks, and will be sharing this
Great stuff as always Gregg! One small nit: Ronald Reagan was distressed to see your statement that Grover Cleveland won the 1984 election :)
thanks fixed
Washington DC notwithstanding, there is one elector per congressional district and 2 for each senate spot: the elector for the congressional district should go to the candidate that wins the vote in that district, the two electors for the senate should be based on the statewide winner.
This avoids direct election of the president while still avoiding direct election of the president as was the original intent of the Electoral College. Conservative states like mine - Kansas - has Kansas-3 which encompasses Kansas City and typically votes democratic but our votes have no impact; under the above approach Kansas-3 would typically go to the Democratic candidate. The inverse would apply to conservative alcoves in Democratic states.