Schlafly’s Terrible Arguments Against Early Voting

Schlafly’s Terrible Arguments Against Early Voting February 16, 2013

Phyllis Schlafly has a blog post and audio message about why early voting is a terrible, horrible, no good idea. The headline — Early Voting is Unfair to Voters — should tip you off that she’s about to spew some really, really bad arguments on the subject.

Early voting prevents voters from changing their minds up until Election Day.

Right. Because I’m sure Phyllis herself was torn between Romney and Obama right up until the last minute and needed every second to make up her mind. Does she think people are going to go and cast a vote early if they’re unsure of who they want to vote for?

Early voting encourages uninformed voting because last year many voted before the presidential debates were held.

Again, I’m sure that Schlafly was glued to the presidential debates because she was seriously considering voting for Obama. Right? If not, this argument is bullshit. And there’s no way in hell she ever considered for a millisecond voting for Obama.

Early voting is unfair because it makes campaigns more expensive by lengthening the campaign period and calling for more advertising.

So early voting is bad because many voters make up their minds early, and it’s bad because the campaigns have to work to keep convincing voters. And the premise is absurd; the campaign period is exactly the same length regardless.

Contrary to liberal propaganda, early voting decreases overall voter turnout.

Uh, why? How could it possibly do that? Who decides not to vote that would have otherwise voted if only there wasn’t any early voting?

Early voting harms third party candidates who lack a political organization to get out early voters.

Which applies equally well to every single facet of an election. Third party candidates can’t turn out voters any better on election day than they can a week before election day. By her “reasoning,” we should cancel election day too.

Early voting is a misnomer. More accurate names would be premature voting, uninformed voting, or political machine voting.

The overwhelming majority of people know who they’re going to vote for long before the election. If that is uninformed voting, so is their vote on election day. Voting early doesn’t make it any less uninformed.

Early voting even violates federal law, which for more than a century has required national elections to occur on the same day.

Notice she doesn’t cite the actual law. There’s a reason for that.

Early voting disenfranchises Election Day voters by determining the outcome before Election Day. What if jurors were allowed to decide they are tired of a lengthy trial and want to convict a defendant mid-way through the trial and go home? Isn’t it just as important for voters to hear all the facts about candidates before voting?

Still a ridiculous argument the third time she uses it.

"It just proves that gene duplication is not a blind and mindless process."

Behe Continues to Ignore Evidence Against ..."
"If you understood the paper you would understand why gene duplication is not a blind ..."

Behe Continues to Ignore Evidence Against ..."
"An expert on the immune system examined the literature the lawyer presented. Not one of ..."

Behe Continues to Ignore Evidence Against ..."

Browse Our Archives