The many changes in the U.S. voting system, and the various controversies that surround balloting in the current environment, require an a closer examination.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that claims about voter ID limiting minority participation are wrong.” U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote …we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications.”
The Atlanta Constitution-Journal has found that Despite a voter ID law, minority turnout is up in Georgia, contrary to massive claims to the contrary. Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.
Other studies concur in the conclusion that “voter ID laws don’t “suppress” anyone’s vote. This latest study echoes the conclusion of others…finding that voter ID laws don’t reduce voter turnout, including among African-Americans and Hispanics. These voters were just as likely to vote in states requiring photo identification as in those that don’t.”
There are changes that have had a significant impact impact. Studies by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission reveal that “The total number of voters who voted early, absentee or by mail more than doubled from 24.9 million in 2004 to 57.2 million in 2016, representing an increase from one in five of all ballots cast to two in five of all ballots cast. The number of U.S. citizens voting early more than doubled from nearly 10.2 million early ballots cast in 2004 to 24.1 million early ballots cast in 2016. In 2016, 16 states showed a combined percentage of greater than 50 percent of votes cast early, by mail, or via absentee voting.
A Heritage Study by John Lott warns that “Early voting is a ‘reform’ that states should reconsider. Its disadvantages seem to outweigh its benefits. While early voting may seem more convenient, it appears to have the opposite effect of what its proponents sought… it seems obvious that early voting increases the already skyrocketing cost of political campaigns.”
An equally and perhaps more important issue concerns the information voters rely on to cast their ballots.
Unfortunately, much reporting is clearly biased. While both Democrats and Republicans can both point to sources biased for or against them, most media outlets tend to favor the left.
Indeed, there is substantive evidence that a left-biased Department of Justice pressured Facebook to censor the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Doing so many have altered the outcome of the 2020 election.
In reviewing just one race used as an example, The Washington Examiner found that 87% of GOP coverage was negative.
Beyond the quality of information, the growth of early voting has enhanced the lack of information voters may have available, particularly those who cast votes before candidate debates take place.
In Pennsylvania, Democrat John Fetterman suffered a disastrous debate loss against his GOP rival. Reporter Joel Pollak found that “Nearly half of all vote-by-mail ballots in Pennsylvania had already been cast before [the] U.S. Senate debate, which was judged a disaster — even by Democrats — after Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D), recovering from a stroke, struggled to form coherent sentences.”
The ease of casting a ballot by mail, internet, or in month-long voting periods increases the number of those participating in elections. However, it also encourages those with only a casual interest in the issues or the candidates to give their support without adequate research or before all the information is available.
Almost a century ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt worried that “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely.”
Illustration: Pennsylvania official govt. site