We often assume that the reason behind the low voter turnout in the U.S. is due to institutional challenges (i.e. voter ID laws, registration, costs). Therefore, reformers most often focus on offering and improving various forms of convenience voting to increase turnout. Skeptics such as Graeme Orr argue that “voting whenever, from wherever, is a ‘lifestyle’ option.” Another skeptic, Adam J. Breinsky, argues that convenience voting has “perverse consequences on election reform” and that encouraging political engagement is more valuable than pursuing institutional changes. Although convenience voting offers flexibility and comfort, it is imperative not to overlook what Election Day is supposed to be: a communal event. Therefore, we must work towards a hybrid system where voting on Election Day is made more convenient.
Forms of convenience voting serve their purpose: making it more convenient for voters to vote. For instance, they influence infrequent voters more than frequent voters. It is also believed that it may particularly help voters of color who are institutionally disenfranchised by voting costs, voter ID laws, etc. However, there are no guarantees to the positive affects of convenience voting (e.g. early voting backfires
…show more content…
“Elections are events,” says Orr, arguing that convenience voting takes the historical and communal factors out of the voting equation. The idea of voting on days other than Election Day is still deemed untraditional even though, for instance, postal voting has been around for over a century now. People use convenience voting as alternatives to Election Day, they do not use Election Day as an alternative to convenience voting. This indicates that there is something special about voting on Election Day. Arguably, had voting been convenient on Election Day, people would rather that than use any forms of convenience