Talk:Early voting

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

US Map

The Illinois color is wrong. We have early voting at the polls and not just mail in. We've had it since 2006. I don't know how to change the colorDkriegls (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

vote banking

Um... I've never heard the term "vote banking" in reference to early voting. Can anyone back this up? - Electiontechnology 05:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Banking occurs when party supporters can 'bank' or count on their supporters to turn out and vote for their candidate prior to the official election date. 24.86.78.109 07:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So as I thought, something completely different. Withouth objection I'm taking out vote banking.--Electiontechnology 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

Texas

I removed this sentence from the top of the article: 'I believe early voting was first adopted in Texas and not Florida. Texas adopted in-person early voting in 1989 and it was first used in a Presidential election in 1992.' 135.196.2.145 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map

The map showing which states allow no-excuse early voting is inaccurate (perhaps outdated), since editors report that the portrayals of Illinois and Wisconsin are incorrect. I don't know how to change the states' colors on the map. Can someone help? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pitfall -- a candidate withdraws

Sometimes, a candidate will withdraw (especially in primary season) but has already received some votes from people who cast early ballots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading that some people might have turned against Greg Gianforte (special election for U. S. House seat in Montana in 2017). Those who had already cast early votes could NOT do this.

In Texas, there are complaints this year about wasted early votes in presidential primary. Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Tom Steyer dropped out but already had some people's early votes. There is no way of re-voting, or of listing more than 1 choice in order of preference (would vote for highest on the list who is still in the running).

Carlm0404 (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

Has there never been any noticeable criticism of obvious non-democratic aspects of this? Or even a motivation as to why this should be permittied for people who would be able to vote regularly, as opposed to the long accepted pillar of democracy: one day, one vote? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both questions, though at least in the United States, states have rejected such criticisms in favor of adopting early voting for various reasons. A neutral "reception" section may be useful for this article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest US map

I deleted the map, it is not accurate at all. California no longer has early in person voting, and hasn't in many years. We only have early voting by absentee mail in. --98.208.19.245 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to these up-to-date sources California has early in-person voting:

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Early voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Early voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Early voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content in lead section

I have removed a paragraph of the lead section that states: "The amount of voters who vote early has increased in recent years in many countries. As unconditional (no excuse) early voting has gained ground, it has been criticized as damaging to the democratic process."

This content is really terrible. Many different reasons for removal:

The cites don't support content. The cites are all about the U.S., not "many countries."
And in the U.S., early voting is not "unconditional" - voters must be qualified to vote and registered and must comply with regular rules pertaining to early voting sites/locations; early voting also takes place at the times and places set forth by state law. So this is nonsense.
The lead section is intended to summarize the body of the article. The body of the article does not discuss these claims.
Vague weasel words ("many countries"; "recent years"; "gained ground"; "has been criticized"; "the democratic process").
The citations are old and are hot, steaming garbage: Three op-eds (a 2012 The Week commentary wrapup that mostly summarizes random op-eds or quotes), 2014 (a few paragraphs of an op-ed from Politico), and 2016 (op-ed from Town Hall by Jeff Jacoby), all U.S.-specific, none of which bring forth any actual social science research.
This content, whether in the lead or the body, cited or not, is undue weight due to the low source quality and low relevance to the overall topic (old, apparently cherry-picked statements from random commentators, rather than good reporting from respected journalistic outfits, academic journals, books published by reputable publishing houses, etc.). Almost all experts on voting and election administration now agree that early voting can be part of a safe and secure election process. There is significant evidence that it facilitates voter participation.

Content must stay out per WP:ONUS unless and until a consensus develops for inclusion (which it cannot due to all the points above).

--Neutrality^talk 16:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur this is not good phrasing or sourcing for this to be in the article. Reywas92^Talk 18:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That item has been there for years. But I've been around for a long time (14 years logged in to Wikipedia and 14 US presidential administrations) and nowadays I know when to give up at once. More and more of us are leaning when to throw in the towel immediately and say "Have it your way". Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]