What do you think of early voting?

My father could have mailed his ballot in 47 months ago.  He's voted Republican in every election for 3 straight decades, and Obama sure isn't going to be the candidate that changes that.  I think at this point Romney could introduce a polygamist second wife and Obama could release his Kenyan birth certificate and it still wouldn't change how the overwhelming majority of the population will vote.

As for voter fraud, you don't really think they're counting ballots do you?  They just sit back and wait for Fox News/MSNBC to call a state.

The flip side of this question is do you think you learn anything that would change your mind in the last 5 weeks?

What would it takes from Romney for you to vote for Obama? Probably something drastic like child molestation or something and even then I think he'd still have a decent showing.

According to a DoJ study it is  .00000013 percent. 

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Minnite.pdf 

Linked for reference.

So my question to you is that too much for you?  If so, how low do you think it should be?

There's in-person early voting, and mail-in/absentee early voting.

I think it's a good thing, as it gives more people a greater opportunity to participate.

We're probably all pretty fortunate to have jobs with enough flexibility to come in late or leave early on election day to vote in-person at our normal polling place.  That's not always the case for everyone or every polling station.  We see on the news every election of lines outside polling places.  I also see this as benefiting the person who has to travel for their job, and does not always know far enough in advance to request an absentee ballot.

Of the two types, I think in-person early voting is the better option to expand.  It's in-person, just like normal voting, so it mitigates the fraud concerns you raise.

Also, in most places ( check your applicable laws ), the absentee/provisional/mail-in ballots are not counted unless the margin of victory is less than the number of ballots outstanding.

My state is ALL mail-in ballots now.  Works fine, in fact I think there's probably more participation this way.

Edit:

Frankly, I have more faith in our postal workers than I do in our political system / people who handle polling stations.  Considering the bulk of OTHER mail that goes through their system, and the fact that mail-in voters don't all send their ballots on the same day, I think it'd be a monumental task to rig the system in the way you're describing.

And aside from that, I'd say partisan state governments mess with polling stations more than the mail system - for example - making them more spread out in districts they don't favor.

The mail-in balloting still requires voter registration, which is another trouble spot for partisan trickery, but on balance I think mail-in ballots work well.

And she was caught, and punished.  Sounds like the system worked.

Where's your outrage over this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/republican-campaign-worker-charged-with-voter-registration-fraud/2012/10/19/c07cc378-1a01-11e2-94aa-9240e72ee00b_story.html

The latter cast disenfranchises quite a few more voters than the case you cited.

Oh, and getting a good fake ID is nigh-on impossible I am sure.  Just ask any 19 year old...

Of course my name is McLovin.

We've gone from a country that decided that you only counted to vote if you were a free, property owning male, to one that has decided that all citizens are equally eligible to vote. We could certainly go another direction as a country - e.g. you can only vote if you shown the investment in the country to volunteer a significant chunk of your time in service to it (military, Americorps, Teach for America, etc). But we haven't. Being a citizen of the US is enough.

As others pointed out, and I would generalize, it is somewhat ironic that those who lean right and towards less government intrusion in our lives in general are for the most part, the same ones who want people to have to show papers to vote. I could choose to live off the land, in a remote part of the country, and not need to own a drivers license, not have utilities to prove my identity with bills in my name, not have any earned income that requires me to report to the IRS, not have a bank account, etc, etc. And I would like to keep it that way. If anything, I have a better reason to vote than someone who is fine with having the government keep track of them through their state and federal taxes, allowing them to track my movements through my E-Z pass and cell phone records, driver's license allowing them to randomly stop me at traffic check points, etc. 

To answer the OP, I think the things that make you nervous are not realistically issues. Voter fraud? Frequency is quite low - and in the day when it was common, it did not require people to vote earlier in the cycle, just earlier in the day (vote early and vote often). If you really think ID's and same-day voting are needed, change the procedure to have people vote on a single day (but not a mid-week work day), and then dip their fingers in indelible ink. And the idea that some brand new idea will come out and change your mind? I think part of the problem with elections in general is that so much money goes to swaying the "undecided voter" who, 2-3 weeks before the election STILL doesn't know who to vote for. Do your research - decide what matters to you, whose reporting on those issues, and what the candidate's positions are on those issues. And I suppose, if you believe that the candidate can be trusted to keep their word. Because frankly, if they are changing positions this late in the game, they are not to be trusted to follow through at crunch time post-win.

Well, what did the news reports say was going on? It could be blatant fraud. Or it could be drivers who volunteer to take homebound people to the polling places (older people, people from group homes, etc). I would be more suspicious if something like that was being publicized, and NO ONE from the local paper was doing ANY investigative work. Or at least having something in the paper responding to the rumors of blatant fraud.

Pretty scary. I conducted an experiment. I traveled to some of the contested states and registered to vote. With a little "manipulation" of the postal system I was able to mail off ballots and vote in 5 states this year. This appears to have only been limited by the number of states I was able to travel to after getting the idea to try it. I'll vote again on the 6th in my state.

Hey, I'm just kidding... right?

ETA - I'm headed to Denver tomorrow...

I discovered another thing I really don't like about early voting.  Gallup just released this today:

In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots

If you go down the page a bit it has this little nugget:

On election day nobody releases results on the east coast until after polling locations are closed because they're worried about the impact on people out West voting.  Remember when they called Florida early for Bush and people complained that it depressed the vote out West.

So, how is it OK to spread information like this that says one Candidate is way ahead or way behind.  Isn't that going to have an effect on voters?

On a side note.  Holy crap, Romney's really kicking butt.