Bryan Fischer
Why early voting is a really bad idea
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Early voting is a bad idea for one simple reason: voters who vote early are voting without all the facts.
In every campaign, information surfaces late that may have a material effect on voter decisions. But for those who have voted early, that information will come too late.
Oregon is a case in point. In the Republican senatorial primary, there is a vigorous contest (which will be decided today) between the GOP's establishment candidate, Monica Wehby, and the tea party guy, Jason Conger.
There are pronounced differences between the two candidates. For example, Wehby is pro-abortion and supports sodomy-based marriage. Conger is pro-life and favors natural marriage.
What early voters found out about too late is that Monica Wehby may be a serial harasser. A 911 tape surfaced late last week, from a call placed in 2012 by an ex-paramour of hers. Wehby wouldn't wouldn't leave him alone when they broke up, made incessant phone calls to him and to his coworkers, and eventually entered his house and roamed through it uninvited to look for him.
For relief, he had to escape from his own house, jump in his car, and drive to his lawyer's home where he called the police for help. (Now apparently they are friends again, and her ex-boyfriend has even donated to her campaign.)
But it turns out this may not have been her first rodeo. Reports surfaced just yesterday that she had had a similar altercation with her then-husband in 2007.
In other words, a profile is beginning to emerge of a woman who may not be that emotionally or mentally stable. While we may never know the answer to that question for sure, these disturbing stories are a matter of public record and ought to be weighed by every intelligent voter. Alas, voters who were foolishly allowed to vote early are now stuck with a vote they might otherwise have been inclined to change.
Access to late-breaking information is especially important in any race which is close and is decided by a small number of votes. Election outcomes may well be different in many races if voters vote with full knowledge of the candidates rather than partial knowledge.
Now of course we do want to maintain the practice of absentee voting, for those who simply cannot show up at their polling place on election day due to travel or physical incapacitation. But the classic American tradition of election day being a day of decision, in which everyone physically gets himself to the polls to punch a ballot, still ought to be the standard.
An informed voter is a good voter. An uninformed, misinformed or underinformed voter is not. Early voting guarantees that in any number of races voters will be voting without the information they need to cast an intelligent vote. And that's never a good idea.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
May 21, 2014
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Early voting is a bad idea for one simple reason: voters who vote early are voting without all the facts.
In every campaign, information surfaces late that may have a material effect on voter decisions. But for those who have voted early, that information will come too late.
Oregon is a case in point. In the Republican senatorial primary, there is a vigorous contest (which will be decided today) between the GOP's establishment candidate, Monica Wehby, and the tea party guy, Jason Conger.
There are pronounced differences between the two candidates. For example, Wehby is pro-abortion and supports sodomy-based marriage. Conger is pro-life and favors natural marriage.
What early voters found out about too late is that Monica Wehby may be a serial harasser. A 911 tape surfaced late last week, from a call placed in 2012 by an ex-paramour of hers. Wehby wouldn't wouldn't leave him alone when they broke up, made incessant phone calls to him and to his coworkers, and eventually entered his house and roamed through it uninvited to look for him.
For relief, he had to escape from his own house, jump in his car, and drive to his lawyer's home where he called the police for help. (Now apparently they are friends again, and her ex-boyfriend has even donated to her campaign.)
But it turns out this may not have been her first rodeo. Reports surfaced just yesterday that she had had a similar altercation with her then-husband in 2007.
In other words, a profile is beginning to emerge of a woman who may not be that emotionally or mentally stable. While we may never know the answer to that question for sure, these disturbing stories are a matter of public record and ought to be weighed by every intelligent voter. Alas, voters who were foolishly allowed to vote early are now stuck with a vote they might otherwise have been inclined to change.
Access to late-breaking information is especially important in any race which is close and is decided by a small number of votes. Election outcomes may well be different in many races if voters vote with full knowledge of the candidates rather than partial knowledge.
Now of course we do want to maintain the practice of absentee voting, for those who simply cannot show up at their polling place on election day due to travel or physical incapacitation. But the classic American tradition of election day being a day of decision, in which everyone physically gets himself to the polls to punch a ballot, still ought to be the standard.
An informed voter is a good voter. An uninformed, misinformed or underinformed voter is not. Early voting guarantees that in any number of races voters will be voting without the information they need to cast an intelligent vote. And that's never a good idea.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
