US election 2020: Early voting warps result

A woman casts her vote early in Chicago, Illinois, last month. Picture: Angus Mordant

US president-elect Joe Biden has argued that his election is a tangible expression of the will of the people and that electors, in casting their vote, have contributed to the maintenance of America’s precious democracy.

Most dictionaries describe democracy as a system of government by all eligible electors of the state, through elected representatives. The American election, however, has revealed that the concept of democracy is flawed because it can easily be undermined, perhaps fatally, by complicated and convoluted election laws which distort and ultimately demean the concept.

For democracy to reflect the will of the people, it is essential that, as far as is possible, electors exercise their right to vote on the day of the election. This ensures a level playing field as all electors would have had access to the same information, up to the date of the election, to make an informed choice.

Instead, election laws now enable electors to cast their vote, in some cases, many weeks before the scheduled election day. During the election campaign and the presidential debates, Biden encouraged electors to vote and vote early. But early voting deprives electors of an opportunity to assess the policies released by the candidates during the final weeks of the campaign.

If an appreciation of these policies would have changed the vote of electors, an early vote cannot be said to reflect their will. Hence, voting should be undertaken by all voters in person on the appointed date for the election. In doing so, electors would be able to reflect upon all the information up to the day of election and would also be in a much better position to compare the policies and temperament of the contestants.

During the recent American election, we saw that the incumbent was very active and energetic during the weeks leading up to polling day. Sometimes, the Trump campaign frenetically organised up to five rallies in different states on a single day. People encountered a vigorous President who defended his record in office, and explained proposed policies, using common sense language. In contrast, Biden only reluctantly appeared in public, occasionally to speak to a smaller crowd. It almost appeared as if Biden arrogantly took the election for granted and refused to enthusiastically communicate his message to the electorate.

This marked difference in temperament between the candidates could presumably have influenced the voting intentions of electors by enabling them to make an informed judgment about the physical capacity and mental insights of the candidates. As it happened, Donald Trump overwhelmingly won the vote of people who voted in person on election day, but badly lost the early votes that arcane election laws enabled.

Of course, sometimes special arrangements are required. Early voting or alternative voting methods will always be necessary and justifiable for electors who are overseas on polling day, or for soldiers stationed overseas, or people who are unwell. And we have postal and absentee voting to accommodate such cases.

Trump is right to question the validity of the American voting system. An interested observer would have found it odd that Trump’s huge lead on election day simply evaporated when, in subsequent days, his advantage slipped away spectacularly. It is reasonable for people to wonder what happened when, sometimes in the middle of the night, a carload of boxes with early votes arrived to be counted. Democracy surely deserves better.

Gabriel A. Moens is emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland.