This past Friday, more than six weeks before the election, 244 voters had already cast their ballots in Virginia’s crucial Fairfax County. Early voting has already started, and it will spread to a number of states in the coming days.
About 22% of voters voted early in 2004, and the AP reports that a full third of the electorate could do the same this year. In some states (particularly Nevada and Colorado) as much as half of voters are expected to vote early; and let’s not even talk about Oregon, where voting is done entirely via mail and where a ballot needs to be have been received by November 4th.
Back in May, in the final stretch of Oregon’s primary campaign, Republican candidate Mike Erickson (OR-05) was brutally attacked by an opponent over an abortion-related scandal. Erickson looked all but certain to lose his party’s nomination, but when ballots were counted, he emerged as the winner. The drama had unfolded too late to damage Erickson in a state in which most voters cast their ballot early, and many who might have turned away from Erickson had already locked in their vote before the scandal erupted.
Now, a similar scenario could very well play out in the presidential race, as some voters are starting to cast their ballot before even the first presidential debate. That could very well blunt the impact of an October surprise, of a candidate’s last minute gaffe or of a meltdown in the third debate. That said, those who vote early tend to be voters who have already made up their mind and who are unlikely to change their vote no matter what happens in the final weeks of the campaign. But that certainly does not mean that early voting is not a crucial organizational challenge.
First, a significant number of weak supporters are bound to find themselves locking in their votes before Election Day, especially in states like Colorado with a high share of early voting. It is up to the campaigns’ to identify these voters and shove them towards early voting sites (or towards filling absentee ballots) before they have time to change their mind.
Second, the fact that an early voter would not have voted differently had he waited does not mean that he would have voted in the first place. This is the whole point of a turnout operation: unreliable voters and newly registered voters often do not show up on Election Day, however successful the preliminary contacts have been. But now, early voting gives campaigns weeks (rather than days or hours) to get those voters to the polls.
In other words, early voting, like most factors of the ground game, benefits whichever side has the better organization. Whichever campaign has the strongest machine to reach out to their unreliable voters (voters who would be certain to vote for one party if they were to go to the polls but who generally do not do so) will get the biggest boost out of early voting.
In the past two elections, the GOP’s turnout machine crushed the Democrats’ best efforts, but the Obama campaign appears to have a far stronger operation this time. The campaign has spent much of the summer identifying hundreds of thousands of unreliable voters (especially African-Americans). They have also spent months registering hundreds of thousands of new voters (for instance college students). Now, the Obama campaign will work day and night to convince all those voters to actually go and cast their ballot. If they negotiate the next few weeks as they should, Obama could go into Election Day with a small cushion.
This will be particularly important in Ohio, where Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued a ruling that could make the 6 days between September 30th (the beginning of the state’s absentee voting) and October 6th (the deadline for registering) the week in which Ohio is won or lost. Brunner ruled (over Republican objections) that a voter could register and vote at the same time in that 6-day window during which both acts are permitted.
This is the first presidential election in which any registered voter can cast an absentee ballot, so there is no blueprint for the campaigns’ as to how they should best use this 6-day window, but Democrats are undoubtedly the most excited. Getting newly registered young voters and African-Americans to the polls is always a challenging part of an election for Democrats, and the Obama campaign is hoping to lock thousands of votes during those 6 days, for instance on college campuses. Republicans will do their best as well, but at least this year Democrats stand to gain more from such an opportunity.
In coming weeks, we will start getting some exact numbers as to how many people have voted early in what state, what county - perhaps even some partisan breakdown of early voters. Just as voter registration numbers has given us some clues as to which states Democrats can expect to gain, we will closely monitor early voting data in the weeks ahead.
The early voting effort was visible at the Denver convention, booths set up in the hallways both at Pepsi and at the stadium. The idea is precisely that - nail both those who are notorious for not showing up on election day, and capturing momentary enthusiasm for those who might be swayed in the other direction by subsequent events.
Aside from the likely advantage this would give to the superior Obama organization, I have philosophical concerns about conducting what amounts to a rolling election. Conceivably, large blocs of voters could be frozen in place, with no ability to pivot and react to critical intervening events. It would also render tracking polls far less meaningful in certain states as the election approaches. While data from those who haven’t voted may be accurate, it’s harder to weigh it for those who have.
Do any of these states provide running statistics, showing weekly how many early voting ballots they’ve received?
Zoot - I can understand your philosophical concerns. But I think for most people the campaign has gone on for many months - many times longer than in other countries and 80-90% of the population have their minds made up by this point so let them vote. No-one is forcing the undecided to actually vote early. It may be suggested, but they can say no and wait until 4th November.
I agree with Guy that for many people this campaign has gone on for long enough. I have to admit that even for a political junkie like me, I’ve been getting really tired of it. I was wondering what other people thought this. I hope that we aren’t entering a state of perpetual campaigns, where the next election begins shortly after the last one. I was wondering what other people here thought about this. Whether or not we’ll being seeing similarly long campaigns in the future, or if 2008 is just an anomaly.
Chris - this campaign has gone on longer than usual because of the contested nature of the primaries. Usually they woul dhave been over quickly and without too many big named, popular politicians running (like 2004 or 2000). Then you would have a break until mid summer.
I definitely agree that the contested primaries dragged out coverage, but I was wondering if people thought that other things like the need to raise more money than ever before, the need to build up name recognition etc would begin to force politicians to openly begin running two or maybe even three years before the presidential election.
We’re seeing this happen in the California governor’s race already. With one candidate, Lt Gov Garamendi having openly declared his run already, and two others, Gavin Newsom, and Tom Campbell having set up exploratory committees months before the November election.
I’m with Chris on mental exhaustion even for junkies, but does that really address concerns about early voting?
Any cut-off date is arbitrary, but with a single voting day - except for those who must cast absentee ballots - at least those voters still paying attention have access to the same data flow. Early voting changes that dynamic. Basically, you have different cadres of voters operating from different information databases. As an Obamatron, I like it in practical terms but am concerned about its broader implications….which it seems is where I started.
I don’t see how we ever regulate the length of campaigns, given First Amendment concerns, except through campaign finance reform, and constitutional principles have made that difficult too. The price we pay, I guess.
Regardless of who wins, we’ll see the next presidential campaigns start soon after this election is over.
If Obama wins, Republicans will have to get out early to start raising their profile and money to compete with Barack’s enormous donor list. Also, Obama will have to continue his campaign mode with regular high-profile, lofty speeches to help keep his approvals up since the economy is likely to continue to struggle during his first term and he will likely face Congressional losses in 2010 (as is the historical trend).
If McCains wins, Obama and Hillary will both have to keep raising money and stay high profile at the risk of one giving the other an advantage for the 2012 nomination. I don’t see McCain doing much campaigning during a first term, which I think will put him at a disadvantage for re-election against either Obama or Clinton, and will leave him dealing with an even larger Democratic Congress after 2010.