Category: Mail/Absentee Voting

Not everything you want, is a solution to every problem

In Wednesday’s print edition of the Courant, one in a series of editorials setting an agenda for the State, Agenda Toward A More Open Government. There is much to like and agree with in the editorial: Stronger investigative subpoena for state prosecutors; closing the cash spigot for campaign finance; and strengthening the watchdog agencies.

While we are skeptical of the benefits of open primaries, their potential, and ultimately the value of “more moderate nominees”, we are particularly in disagreement with one section, Do-Over for Early Voting.

Its been said that when you only have a hammer, you see that as a cure to every problem.

In Wednesday’s print edition of the Hartford Courant, one in a series of editorials setting an agenda for the State, Agenda Toward A More Open Government,<read>. There is much to like and agree with in the editorial: Stronger investigative subpoena for state prosecutors; closing the cash spigot for campaign finance; and strengthening the watchdog agencies.

While we are skeptical of the benefits of open primaries, their potential, and ultimately the value of “more moderate nominees”, we are particularly in disagreement with one section, Do-Over for Early Voting:

It’s a shame that voters turned down a ballot question that would have removed rigid language in the state constitution that restricts voting to just one day and the voter to one polling place. Lawmakers should put the question on the ballot again.

The measure would have permitted the General Assembly to authorize early voting, no-excuse absentee voting and voting by mail — reforms that make voting more convenient for busy people and increase turnout.

Thirty-four states have early voting, which means the polls are open longer hours or for days before Election Day. Any of these reforms would have been an antidote to the kind of official incompetence that shortened voting hours in Hartford on Nov. 4.

As we have covered in several posts before the election, <here here here here> we have several concerns with no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting.  While we support in-person early voting, we doubt that the Connecticut Legislature is ready to pay for the expenses and call for the reorganization necessary to support in-person early voting.

With regards to this specific editorial, we point out that:

We do not get a link between the problems in Hartford in 2014 and an obvious cure in early voting or no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting.  One view is that absentee check-off and list printing was too much work to get done in time for election day opening – increasing early voting would only add to that.  Another view is that it was some combination of incompetence and arrogance that caused the problems – more early voting would not solve such problems.

Its been said that when you only have a hammer, you see that as a cure to every problem.

In the past it was argued that the problems of Hurricane Sandy would have been solved by early voting – that also is hard to understand unless voters appropriately predict a storm and voted early, while officials were able to expand early voting to cover an unanticipated volume.  Or conversely the storm hit during early voting and the post-office managed to still get the votes in, while officials were able to increase capacity on election day to make up for unexpected lower early voting.

Also early voting in none of its forms increases turnout, in actually DECREASES turnout. Once again, we have covered this in several posts over the years <e.g. here>.  As we pointed out last time, the Courant does not listen to computer science and security professionals when it comes to connecting our voting machines to the Internet. Here they should be listening to political scientists who show that early voting decreases turnout.

Close vote highlights concerns with mail-in elections

There is a very close vote on a GMO issue in Oregon, creating a statewide recount and lots of controversy. Brad Friedman has an excellent summary of the controversies and also election integrity concerns: <read>

Oregon GMO Ballot Measure ‘Recount’ Highlights Concern About Excluded Vote-by-Mail Ballots
With razor-thin 812 vote margin, proponents charge 4,600 ballots remain illegally uncounted due to ‘problems’ with signatures
Questions about state procedures underscore shortcomings of Vote-by-Mail balloting…

There is a very close vote on a GMO issue in Oregon, creating a statewide recount and lots of controversy.  Brad Friedman has an excellent summary of the controversies and also election integrity concerns:   <read>

Oregon GMO Ballot Measure ‘Recount’ Highlights Concern About Excluded Vote-by-Mail Ballots
With razor-thin 812 vote margin, proponents charge 4,600 ballots remain illegally uncounted due to ‘problems’ with signatures
Questions about state procedures underscore shortcomings of Vote-by-Mail balloting…

The entire article is worth reading.  Without taking sides here (although personally, I strongly favor GMO labeling) from an election integrity standpoint:

  • It seems likely, if all the ballots were counted, the Yes would win.
  • Unless there was significant organized votING fraud most of those ballots would in an ideal world deserve to be counted.
  • There will always be legitimate questions based on the potential for such organized fraud, since it has been proven to occur quite regularly.  There will be charges with or without proof, and claims of lack of proof indicates a lack of fraud.
  • Its very difficult to accurately compare large numbers of signatures without many that should be questioned are not be questioned and with many that are questioned being actually legitimate.
  • Any signature check should be subjected to peer-reviewed evaluation of its legitimacy to detect fraud, and avoid false negatives as a prerequisite for considering mass absentee or mail-in voting. (We are not aware of any such evaluation of any system in use for elections).
  • Beyond the risks to actual integrity, credibility is lost on the part of all those who question fraud and all those who question rejections of ballots. Legitimately both are in question here.

In the specific case here:

  • We agree with Brad than citizens should be able to observe elections, and the requirement of being an elector in Oregon is too restrictive.
  • On the other hand, there needs to be limits on the number of observers who can observe closely, legitimate representatives of both sides, especially those from Oregon deserve some level of priority.
  • And there must be limits on behavior of observers, and protocols for the surfacing and the handling of objections.
  • We believe that it was sufficiently demonstrated that there were significant disruptions in the 2000 Florida recount that should have been controlled. Without more details and perhaps video’s we are not in a position to judge the extent and legitimacy of the charges of disruption in this case, in Oregon.

Connecticut not alone in election adminstration challenges

MapSince the election on November 4th we have had all sorts of complaints about Connecticut election administration. Claims that we are the slowest, with the most clueless election officials. And all sorts of cures proposed including more mail-in votes, electronic calculation of results, and reorganization of election administration.

We agree with that their are many problems. We agree with the general outlines of some of the cures. Yet, we caution against knee-jerk reaction, and change without planning and analysis.

We suggest looking at the best practices from other states. Yet, we can also learn from the mistakes and foibles of other states. Often those employing some of those very cures proposed for Connecticut.

MapSince the election on November 4th we have had all sorts of complaints about Connecticut election administration.  Claims that we are the slowest, with the most clueless election officials. And all sorts of cures proposed including more mail-in votes, electronic calculation of results, and reorganization of election administration.

We agree with that their are many problems. We agree with the general outlines of some of the cures.  Yet, we caution against knee-jerk reaction, and change without planning and analysis.

We suggest looking at the best practices from other states. Yet, we can also learn from the mistakes and foibles of other states. Often those employing some of those very cures proposed for Connecticut.

Lets look at the recent news:

11/17 NJ not so quick in reporting results  Using equipment from the same vendor as Connecticut, NJ has problems, delays, and investigations  of slow accumulation/reporting of results electronically. Then again, some other states below reported fast, with much less accuracy than Connecticut or New Jersey.

1/25 Mail voting: Not so fast, not so easy, not so simple Take Oregon and their all-mail voting, please.  A highly charged ballot question is yet to be decided. In fact they have just counted enough votes to realize they need a recount.  Here is the issue, some  13,000 votes were not counted because of possible signature mismatches.  So advocates contacted voters after the election to see if they actually voted and requested they come in and sign their ballot or show their signature changed..  We have some of our own issues with all this:

  • Just how good is their signature matching? Has anyone evaluated their methods. What are the odds they missed more questionable signatures? How many of those 13,000 should not have been questioned?
  • Does the result depend on which side got more voters to come in and sign (demographics can indicate how a voter might have tended to vote)
  • And we complain that some results in Connecticut were not available until Nov 5th?
  • PS: This problem will never happen in Connecticut as we never match signatures.  (See no evil…)

11/25 MN lowest turn out since 1986 Many claim, anecdotally and incorrectly, that no-excuse absentee voting is a panacea for increasing turnout. Apparently, anecdotally, it has not helped Minnesota all that much.

11/25 The Maine question: Will 21 mystery ballots change looser into winner? Connecticut has problems with ballot counts not matching check-in list counts, and a greater problem with some officials not checking that those numbers match.  At least in Maine there is a recognition that this might be a problem, especially if extra ballots are found after the initial count.

1/26 Electronic result totals not alwasy even close to accurate Here we go again with that electronic tallying of votes.  They only missed about one-third of the votes.  Fortunately, a news outlet found the error.  They say the problem has been fixed, yet sounds more like the error has been corrected in the results of this one election. They are not counting accurately in Kansas any more.

Final Warning: Don’t say “Who could have imagined?”

Many of our friends are on the other side of this vote. Some say the Legislature will hold hearings and do the right thing – even though they are upset at what the Legislature has done with election financing. I would support secure in-person early voting, but that is not on the ballot and unlikely to be the result of a “Yes” vote.

Many of our friends are on the other side of this vote.  Some say the Legislature will hold hearings and do the right thing – even though they are upset at what the Legislature has done with election financing. I would support secure in-person early voting, but that is not on the ballot and unlikely to be the result of a “Yes” vote.  Here are my predictions:

  • The Constitutional Amendment will pass with a moderate margin 10%-20%
  • The Legislature will hold hearings, and no matter what the testimony, they will enact no-excuse early voting, Governor Malloy will sign it into law
  • To great fanfare it will begin in November 2015.
  • Although it will slightly decrease turn-out, statics will be presented to say it actually increased turnout, maybe not in 2015, but soon
  • Sometime down the road, there will additional cases of alleged and proven votING fraud via absentee voting
  • Some will attribute it to the new law, some of those will say “Who could have imagined?”
  • In any case, the claim that any voting reform proposed will increase turnout will prevail

Make your choice on Tuesday.

The Perfect Storm meets illegal, disasterous voting

" When hurricane Sandy hit the east coast, New Jersey exposed the vote and voters to additional risks.
New report from Rutgers:

The Perfect Storm: Voting In New Jersey In The Wake of Superstorm Sandy

" When hurricane Sandy hit the east coast, New Jersey exposed the vote and voters to additional risks.

New report from Rutgers: The Perfect Storm: Voting In New Jersey In The Wake of Superstorm Sandy <read>

CONCLUSION

After Superstorm Sandy, there was no structure in place to make sure that emergency voting directives were followed. There was mass confusion among county officials and voters, alike. Emergency measures such as Internet and fax voting not only violated New Jersey law, but also left votes vulnerable to on-line hacking. Internet voting should never be permitted, especially in emergencies when governmental infrastructure is already compromised.

As the May 2014 National Climate Assessment issued by the U.S. government makes all too clear New Jersey is highly likely to be impacted
negatively by more Superstorm Sandy-like disasters in the near future. This means that it is critical for New Jersey to enact and implement emergency voting procedures that comply with existing election law, and that protect every vote. As such, those emergency measures should
not include Internet and fax voting as an option, under any circumstance.

The report is a quicker read than its size would indicate. It is packed with details that expose the risks of email and fax voting.

Warning #3: Yes, Connecticut, your votING fraud is in the mail

When it comes to mail-in, no-excuse absentee voting we can learn a lot here in Connecticut and New England. You will hear many claim that we need stronger voter ID because of rampant votER fraud and others say there is no problem with expanding absentee voting since there is no votER fraud. They are both wrong, wrong, wrong!

Voters considering the Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this November and legislators considering what to do if it passes, need to pay heed to the facts and experience of early voting in other states. When it comes to mail-in, no-excuse absentee voting we can learn a lot here in Connecticut and New England. You will hear many claim we that we need stronger voter ID because of rampant votER fraud and others say there is no problem with expanding absentee voting since there is no votER fraud.  They are both wrong, wrong, wrong.

  • There actually is very little fraud by individual voters.  You are risking a lot to intentionally vote when you are not eligible. Risking a lot going to a polling place and risking detection.  Especially if you are an illegal alien who risks deportation for much less.
  • Actually individual votER fraud is easier and much less risky by absentee ballot. Some say it is frequently done by parents voting for their children away at college. We are not so sure how prevalent that is. It is very hard to prove and detect.
  • There is another type of fraud, mass votING fraud by insiders and candidate supporters who, without the knowledge of voters in one way or another create, intercept, or destroy absentee votes mailed-in.

We have been covering some of this in our recent blog series “It happens all the time.” All over the place <read> A sampling of our “favorites”:

It is apparently routine in Bridgeport: <read>

In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.

We could highlight more recent allegations in Bridgeport, but lets consider Hartford and a State Rep fined for absentee vote fraud – not the kind of oversight we expect from the legislature: <read>

The Connecticut Appellate Court on Tuesday ruled against state Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, in an absentee ballot case in which she was fined by the State Elections Enforcement Commission. The commission imposed a $4,500 civil penalty on Gonzalez for four counts of election-law violations, concluding she was “knowingly present” while four voters filled out absentee ballots in the town clerk’s office in Hartford City Hall in the fall of 2006.

Who said” that sort of thing just isn’t done in Massachusetts?”  East Long Meadow, MA: <read>

The Boston Globe is reporting, that a Republican candidate [Jack Villamaino] decided to try and win a primary by sending in hundreds of absentee ballots on behalf of hundreds of voters. State election officials were tipped off to the potential voter fraud when a suspiciously large number of residents of the Springfield suburb of East Longmeadow suddenly changed party registration from Democrat to independent, making them eligible to vote in the upcoming Republican primary.

At least they were caught, not so in Florida, in a similar fraud, likely by  insiders, followed by a cover-up: <read>

As we detailed at that time, some 2,500 absentee ballots were fraudulently requested online for three different 2012 primary elections in Miami-Dade, FL. One race involved requests for Democratic absentee ballots in a U.S. House primary, the other two involved requests for Republican ballots in two different Florida State House primary races. All of the fraudulent “phantom” ballot requests are said to have been flagged as such at the Supervisor of Election’s office and, therefore, never fulfilled… It was not until excellent investigative reporting from The Miami-Herald discovered that a number of the requests came from IP addresses located in the Miami-Dade area. For reasons currently chalked up to administrative confusion, the Elections Division never gave those Miami area IP addresses to the grand jury.

We really disagree with the prosecutor in the above case: ‘Absentee voting is the source of all voter fraud’ – it is votING fraud, no voters required!

Warning #2: Defying Common Sense, early voting DECREASES turnout

Voters considering the Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this November and legislators considering what to do if it passes, need to pay heed to the facts and experience of early voting in other state. Common sense is not always a reliable guide.

Did you know early voting of all types (polling place, no-excuse absentee, and mail-in) actually reduces turn-out?

Voters considering the Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this November and legislators considering what to do if it passes, need to pay heed to the facts and experience of early voting in other states. Common sense is not always a reliable guide.

Did you know early voting of all types (polling place, no-excuse absentee, and mail-in) actually reduces turn-out?

We have said it before, based on the best studies available. Early voting DECREASES turn-out. The only exception is that early voting coupled with election day registration does not decrease the turn-out generated by election day registration. (But in Connecticut we have a more time consuming, more effort election day registration than those states that have found it increases turn-out. Our bet is that election day registration done our way will have little impact on turn-out. We also warn that measuring its effect will be quite a challenge)

Unfortunately advocates and legislators rely on common sense, rather than the best research, e.g.: <read>

Rep. Livvy Floren of Greenwich, a former member of the Government Administration and Elections Committee who worked on the bill, was one of the two Republicans to vote for the proposal.

“I’m in favor of anything that increases voter participation,” she said. Floren said she received no pressure from her party to vote the other way.

Warning #1: Your absentee or mail-in vote might not count

Voters considering the Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this November and legislators considering what to do if it passes, need to pay heed to the facts and experience of early voting in other state. Common sense is not always a reliable guide.

Did you know that when you vote absentee or mail-in, you might be disenfranchised at a much higher rate than if you voted at the polls?

Voters considering the Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this November and legislators considering what to do if it passes, need to pay heed to the facts and experience of early voting in other state. Common sense is not always a reliable guide.

Did you know that when you vote absentee or mail-in, you might be disenfranchised at a much higher rate than if you voted at the polls?

There are three major reasons that we are aware of:

  • Your ballot might not be received in time to be counted.  It might be delayed or actually lost in the mail. In Connecticut such votes must be received by 8:00pm to be counted.
  • You might have made a mistake in the somewhat complicated process of placing your ballot inside outer and inner envelopes, or forgetting to properly fill out the envelopes. The law requires that ballots  with certain errors be rejected.
  • You might have overvoted i.e. voted for more candidates than allowed. This can happen when you make an inadvertent mark in a bubble or if you miscount the number of votes in a vote for multiple race. Such errors are caught for you when you vote in a polling, where the error is explained and you are offered a chance to vote again on a new ballot.

Here is a recent article on a study covering some of those problems, in California where mail-in voting is an increasing factor in elections California: Mail-in-ballot rejections analyzed in study | <read>

Voting by mail surpassed 50 percent of votes cast in a general election in California for the first time in 2012. A new study shows that nearly 69,000 mailed ballots, or about 1 percent, were not counted, and why they were rejected. The top three reasons mail-in ballots were rejected: not arriving on time, not being signed or because signatures could not be verified…

Romero said. “People have taken the time to study the issues, fill out the ballot and mail or deliver it. They trust it is going to be counted.”

Please Review the Facts – Constitutional Amendment on Ballot in Nov

Courant makes a mostly accurate case for and against amendment that would increase voter convenience and absentee vote fraud.

What is a voter to do? We suggest: Evaluate the evidence, read this post, read the Courant article, study some of our past posts on this issue and absentee fraud in Connecticut.

Courant makes a mostly accurate case for and against amendment that would increase voter convenience and absentee vote fraud.

What is a voter to do? We suggest:

Evaluate the evidence, read this post, read the Courant article, study some of our past posts on this issue and absentee fraud in Connecticut.

Courant story:   High Ideals and Partisan Politics Mix In Amendment Issue <read>

Here are the facts and ramifications we believe are accurate:

  • The amendment would allow the Legislature to enact no-excuse absentee voting and/or early voting.
  • It is very likely that our Democratic Legislature would pass no-excuse absentee voting on a close to partisan vote in 2015. A supporter, Governor Malloy, would sign it into law. A Governor Folley would likely follow his party and veto it.   Perhaps they and the other candidates on the ballot should each be asked that question.
  • No excuse absentee voting would increase convenience for some lazy and less committed, less interested voters.
  • No excuse absentee voting would increase the opportunity and level of absentee fraud, the most prevalent type of election fraud, with the possible exception of undetected insider fraud.
  • No excuse absentee voting, unlike statements in the Courant article, would be likely to decrease or not change turnout.
  • As the Courant states, it only matters in close elections, yet little else matters except when elections are close.
  • Most Democrats are for this amendment for partisan reasons.
  • Most Republicans are for this for partisan reasons.
  • It is unlikely that early voting will be passed and implemented in Connecticut as it would be expensive and logistically challenging, especially to small towns, given our town by town voting system – or moderately expensive, less satisfactory, likely discriminatory.

What is a voter to do? We suggest:

  • Evaluate the evidence, read this post, read the Courant article, study some of our past posts on this issue and absentee fraud in Connecticut here and here.
  • As CTVotersCount readers know, we come down against no-excuse absentee voting, and for early voting, if we are willing to pay for fair and safe early voting.

Here we want to elaborate on a couple points from above:

  • No excuse absentee voting, unlike statements in the Courant article, would be likely to DECREASE turnout.
    • We suggest reading our posts on what we believe are the most scientific studies of turnout, absentee voting, and same day voter registration. <here>
    • Read the statements of Professor Doug Chapin, an expert on election administration, invited by the Secretary of the State to speak to her Elections Performance Task Force, who has read many studies and agrees with the ones we find most convincing  <hear>
    • These studies conclude that no-excuse absentee voting actually DECREASES turnout. And that Election Day Registration (EDR) alone increases turnout, and in combination there is not increase or decrease in turnout caused by no-excuse absentee voting. (Yet we speculate that Connecticut’s unique low cost, inconvenient EDR system will not add significantly to turnout, nor stem a decrease caused by early voting)
  • As the Courant states, it only matters in close elections, yet little else matters except when elections are close.Here in Connecticut close elections happen, and matter:

 

What price convenience? Another confirmation that the Holy Grail of voting is not found in conventional wisdom

When you vote in November, consider: What price convenience? What cost convenience? What individual effort is Democracy worth?

To listen to elected officials and many activists, the Holy Grail of Elections, would seem to be Turnout. Given the emphasis you would think that almost nothing else matters: Integrity, candidate access, campaign finance, media bias, or costs – when focusing on turnout, it seems everything else is forgotten. A report from Ohio, confirms earlier studies that early voting does not increase turnout,

To listen to elected officials and many activists, the Holy Grail of Elections, would seem to be Turnout. Given the emphasis you would think that almost nothing else matters: Integrity, candidate access, campaign finance, media bias, or costs – when focusing on turnout, it seems everything else is forgotten.

We posted a news item from Ohio, earlier in the week from the the Columbus Dispatch: Early voting hasn’t boosted Ohio turnout <read>

Early voting has not led to more voting in Ohio, at least not in terms of total votes cast.
A Dispatch analysis of the vote totals from the past three presidential elections in the state shows that overall turnout in the 2012 race, when Ohioans arguably had the most opportunities in state history to vote early, was lower than in the 2004 election, when there was virtually no early voting in Ohio.
Turnout in 2008, the first presidential race in which Ohioans had no-fault absentee voting and also the first time an African-American was on the ballot, was about 1 percent higher than in 2004.
“People who vote early are people who are typically going to vote anyway,” said Paul Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University. “So, early voting hasn’t really succeeded in turning out more people to vote. We’ve made it a lot easier to vote, but on the other hand, some people are very discouraged about politics and might not care how easy it is to vote.”

This November voters in Connecticut will vote on a Constitutional Amendment to let the General Assembly to chose early voting methods, if any, for Connecticut. Conventional wisdom is that early voting will significantly increase turnout, wrong! That ignores the evidence. Proponents will tell us that there is almost no absentee voting fraud, wrong! that ignores the evidence.

We posted the evidence almost years ago: Researchers: Early Voting alone DECREASES turnout <read>

States have aggressively expanded the use of early voting, allowing people to submit their ballots before Election Day in person, by mail and in voting centers set up in shopping malls and other public places. More than 30 percent of votes cast in the 2008 presidential race arrived before Election Day itself, double the amount in 2000. In 10 states, more than half of all votes were cast early, with some coming in more than a month before the election. Election Day as we know it is quickly becoming an endangered species…

But a thorough look at the data shows that the opposite is true: early voting depresses turnout by several percentage points…Controlling for all of the other factors thought to shape voter participation, our model showed that the availability of early voting reduced turnout in the typical county by three percentage points…

Even with all of the added convenience and easier opportunities to cast ballots, turnout not only doesn’t increase with early voting, it actually falls. How can this be? The answer lies in the nature of voter registration laws, and the impact of early voting on mobilization efforts conducted by parties and other groups on Election Day.

That was just one, will conducted study. Here in Connecticut, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill created an Election Performance Task Force. Election administration expert Doug Chapin summarized his review of available studies, covered here: Elections Performance Task Force: Technology Fair and Doug Chapin <read>

  • Early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and voting centers are strong trends. They can provide voter convenience. They can save money or add to costs. Data does not support significant changes in participation.
  • Once you start early voting, taking it away can have an impact, once people are accustomed to it. (As taking away local polling place voting may also have a similar impact)
    Survey voters to determine their levels of satisfaction and confidence in the process.
  • Do not expect increases in participation based on changes or reforms in election administration. Satisfaction and convenience can be increased but not participation.

Thus the Ohio research tends to confirm the other studies. (We say “tends to confirm”. It is not as thorough a study as the early ones, since it covers whole statewide elections and is not a thorough comparison between matched districts in states with and without early voting – there are a lot of factors which affect turnout, so just comparing elections in a single state cannot attribute differences to any one factor.

Plus we highlight many instances of votING fraud after almost every election via absentee voting, in Connecticut and across the country <here>

Here is the bottom line:

  • Early Voting (unlimited absentee voting or in-person early voting) does not increase turn out. Alone it decreases turnout.
  • Election Day Registration increases turnout (Except perhaps in Connecticut, where we have implemented in a much less convenient way than in states where it has proven effective)
  • When Early Voting is combined with Election Day Registrati0n (maybe not in Connecticut) turnout is not harmed or helped by Early Voting.
  • In-person Early Voting would be expensive or impossible in Connecticut, given our New England style town by town election administration and jurisdictions. It might be done expensively, and in a way biased against some populations.
  • Fraud has been demonstrated in absentee voting. In Connecticut with excuse absentee voting, it occurs frequently.
  • It does increase convenience.

When you vote in November, consider:  What price convenience? What cost convenience? What individual effort is Democracy worth?