10 Reasons Our Laws Should Encourage In-Person Voting on Election Day: With early voting already underway in some states, it's time for my biennial missive on why we should encourage, and design laws to encourage, in-person voting on Election Day. The most important is #10, so be sure to scroll down. 1. Counting every ballot. Ballots cast by mail are about 10 times more likely to be disqualified and not counted than are ballots cast in person. Most mail ballots--over 98%--are cast correctly and counted. But virtually all in-person ballots are counted. There are several steps where the voter can make an error that disqualifies the ballot--not properly signing and dating, or putting the ballot in the correct envelope, etc. Additionally, when you vote in person, if you make an error, you simply request a new ballot. Voting by mail, many voters try to correct their initial mistake, which frequently leads to the ballot being disqualified. If you want to make sure your vote is counted, vote in person. 2. Fraud. Make no mistake--fraud through mail-in ballots is relatively rare. No, there are not millions of people casting fraudulent mail ballots in presidential races. That said, up until 2020--and even today among experts--it is utterly uncontroversial to note that fraud is greater with absentee ballots, and always has been, for obvious reasons--there is weaker chain of custody, it is more difficult to verify the voter's identity, easier to bribe a voter because easier to verify that that voter voted as promised, etc. Furthermore, when there is fraud in American elections sufficient to overturn an election, it almost invariably comes in absentee ballots. So far as I am aware, in every election that a court has tossed out for fraud over the past 40 years, the problem was in mail ballots. And it is a huge invitation to fraud to count ballots received after Election Day. It is easy to fake or back date postmarks. Counting ballots received after Election Day allows a fraudster to know just where and how much fraud is needed to win. Want to prevent fraud? Cut back on mail ballots. 3. Short of outright fraud, mail voting also allows greater opportunity for coercion. Disabled individuals and senior citizens who are reliant on caregivers can be especially vulnerable to soft, or even quite threatening, coercion. Spouses lose their secret ballot. I really first became aware of this back when I chaired the Federal Election Commission, and attended a meeting with European election officials. This was one of the main reasons they gave for Europe's lack of mail voting (mail voting--especially no-excuse mail voting--is still rare in Europe). 4. Mail voting delays the results. It takes far longer to count mail ballots because they have to be removed from their envelopes, unfolded, etc. Think about it--if you've got 51,000 mail-in ballots in a jurisdiction (a low turnout House race), and it takes 20 seconds per ballot, that's 17,000 man hours. There are ways to alleviate this--e.g. opening outer envelopes before Election Day, etc.--but it's still an issue. One thing that leads to a lack of confidence is election results is late reporting of results. Want greater confidence in, and therefore acceptance of, election results in close races? Promote in-person voting. 5. A real problem today is that too many people do not accept as legit election results with which they are unhappy. One of the few things that has been found to improve confidence in election results is voting in-person. We don't know exactly why this is, but we can speculate that people voting in person see the process, and that makes a big difference. For confidence in election results, encourage in-person voting. 6. You think campaigns cost too much? Extensive early voting, whether in-person or by mail, raises the costs of campaigns by extending the campaign season and the need for get-out-the-vote efforts. (Those who know my views know I'm not much worried about the cost of campaigns, but others are, and in any event, there is little reason for a process that makes them more expensive). 7. The evidence simply does not support the notion that mail voting or early voting in person increases voter turnout over the long term. In fact, there is some evidence--though by no means conclusive--that it decreases it. This is because we lose the focus on "Election Day," and the mobilization drives that occur on that day, including the ubiquitous "I voted" stickers and such. When it is just another thing "I have to get to in the next couple weeks" it often becomes something one simply doesn't get to. 8. Voting is a snapshot of the electorate. Why not have perpetual early voting? Generally, it comports with our history and tradition that voters vote on a single day, with the same information. No state offered all mail voting until the mid-1990s. No state had no-excuse absentee voting 50 years ago. No state had early voting 30 years ago. 9. Extensive early voting is hardest on local elections. Most elections in the U.S. are for local office--township trustee, county commissioner, village council, etc. These races typically cost very little, and the campaigning largely takes place in the immediate run-up to Election Day. Because these races generate very little media coverage, it is not until late in the day that most voters know much about the candidates. In states with extensive early voting, many people are casting ballots before they have a chance to become informed about candidates in local races. This is undermining the foundation of democracy--local races, where we learn to campaign, to work together, to settle differences peaceably. 10. Voting is an individual right, but it also a civic duty. While our votes are secret, the act of voting should be done in public. Standing next to your fellow citizens in line for a few minutes--both the average and median time to vote in the U.S. are under 15 minutes--reminds us that this is about the common public good; that our fellow citizens are not the enemy, but collaborators in a great experiment of self-government; that we must be civil to one another. When we treat voting as a private act, to be done in one's home, people tend to think of it as a private act. This is unhealthy for democracy. I would not do away with all mail voting--I would allow it for people who have an excuse (out of town, disability, required to work election day, perhaps a few other reasons), but no excuse absentee voting is a bad idea. Early in-person voting should be limited to a short period--no more than a week, probably 3 days or so--before Election Day, for those who discover they cannot vote on Election Day too close to apply for an absentee ballot. Returning our focus to in-person voting on Election Day as the norm would improve our democracy and increase confidence in results. If you think all this is rubbish, ask yourself three simple questions: Are our elections better with the voting "innovations" of the past 30 years? Is our governance better? Is our political discourse better? If your answer to any of these is "no," you should at least consider that the changes we have made to how we vote--early in-person and no-excuse absentee voting--have contributed to the problem.