Courant makes a mostly accurate case for and against amendment that would increase voter convenience and absentee vote fraud.
What is a voter to do? We suggest:
Evaluate the evidence, read this post, read the Courant article, study some of our past posts on this issue and absentee fraud in Connecticut.
Courant story: High Ideals and Partisan Politics Mix In Amendment Issue <read>
Here are the facts and ramifications we believe are accurate:
- The amendment would allow the Legislature to enact no-excuse absentee voting and/or early voting.
- It is very likely that our Democratic Legislature would pass no-excuse absentee voting on a close to partisan vote in 2015. A supporter, Governor Malloy, would sign it into law. A Governor Folley would likely follow his party and veto it. Perhaps they and the other candidates on the ballot should each be asked that question.
- No excuse absentee voting would increase convenience for some lazy and less committed, less interested voters.
- No excuse absentee voting would increase the opportunity and level of absentee fraud, the most prevalent type of election fraud, with the possible exception of undetected insider fraud.
- No excuse absentee voting, unlike statements in the Courant article, would be likely to decrease or not change turnout.
- As the Courant states, it only matters in close elections, yet little else matters except when elections are close.
- Most Democrats are for this amendment for partisan reasons.
- Most Republicans are for this for partisan reasons.
- It is unlikely that early voting will be passed and implemented in Connecticut as it would be expensive and logistically challenging, especially to small towns, given our town by town voting system – or moderately expensive, less satisfactory, likely discriminatory.
What is a voter to do? We suggest:
- Evaluate the evidence, read this post, read the Courant article, study some of our past posts on this issue and absentee fraud in Connecticut here and here.
- As CTVotersCount readers know, we come down against no-excuse absentee voting, and for early voting, if we are willing to pay for fair and safe early voting.
Here we want to elaborate on a couple points from above:
- No excuse absentee voting, unlike statements in the Courant article, would be likely to DECREASE turnout.
- We suggest reading our posts on what we believe are the most scientific studies of turnout, absentee voting, and same day voter registration. <here>
- Read the statements of Professor Doug Chapin, an expert on election administration, invited by the Secretary of the State to speak to her Elections Performance Task Force, who has read many studies and agrees with the ones we find most convincing <hear>
- These studies conclude that no-excuse absentee voting actually DECREASES turnout. And that Election Day Registration (EDR) alone increases turnout, and in combination there is not increase or decrease in turnout caused by no-excuse absentee voting. (Yet we speculate that Connecticut’s unique low cost, inconvenient EDR system will not add significantly to turnout, nor stem a decrease caused by early voting)
- As the Courant states, it only matters in close elections, yet little else matters except when elections are close.Here in Connecticut close elections happen, and matter:
- <Colchester 2014> <Easton 2013> <Windsor/Hartford 2012> <Cromwell 2010>
- Each one of these could have been decided by a small absentee vote fraud. And in other places there have been cases of large absentee fraud <here> and within a couple miles north of Connecticut <here>
