Early Voting Will Warp Super Tuesday Results

How likely is it that the Super Tuesday results will give us an accurate read of public sentiment regarding the Democratic presidential race? Not very.

With millions of voters casting "early ballots" -- some of them marked and sent weeks ago -- a substantial portion of the votes will reflect sentiments framed before the contest took its current form.

Thus, major developments like Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama, or the Illinois senator's big win in South Carolina -- in a race that caused many Democrats to rethink their feelings regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton -- won't be reflected in the the final results from critical states.

Additionally, there is every reason to believe that hundreds of thousands of early votes in California and hundreds of thousands more nationwide have already been cast for candidates who are no longer in the race, such as John Edwards.

Early voting has become increasingly common in states across the country in recent years. Promoted as a procedural shift to increase participation in elections, it has been embraced by political parties and candidates as a vehicle to "lock in" votes before election day.

Little examined for its impact on actual results, early-voting's influence could -- and should -- be one of the big stories of Super Tuesday.

Early-voting patterns will warp Tuesday's results -- perhaps dramatically.

Consider the case of California: In the "Super Tuesday" state with the largest number of delegates at stake, it is estimated now that as many as half the votes will end up having been cast prior to February 5. That's more than 2.3 million votes, some of which were cast around the time of the New Hampshire primary.

Among the other Super Tuesday states that allow "no-excuses" early voting -- as opposed to the old tradition of tightly-controlled absentee voting -- are Illinois, Arizona, Georgia, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah. And the patterns are similar to California. In Tennessee, for instance, a record number of presidential primary votes were cast in the form of early ballots -- 320,939 -- by the time early voting ended this week.

In Georgia, estimates are that roughly 200,000 early votes have been cast, another record.

In just one Illinois County, Cook, voters in Chicago and its suburbs have cast more than 130,000 early ballots. That's Barack Obama's home county, so he can feel good about those numbers.

But, in most other states, Hillary Clinton is the one who is likely to get a boost from early voting -- since many of those ballots were cast at a point where she was the clear front-runner in the race.

This certainly seemed to be the case in Florida.

One quarter of Florida Democratic primary voters said they cast their ballots early -- usually in the form of "no-excuses" absentee ballots. Among these voters, Clinton won 50 percent, Obama won 31 percent and Edwards took 14 percent.

Among voters who said they decided in the final days before the primary and cast their ballots after the early-voting period had closed, Obama won with 37 percent to 34 percent for Clinton and a significant 24 percent for Edwards.

None of this means, of course, that if early voting was eliminated the final results on election night would precisely reflect the sentiments expressed by those late deciders. Some early voters are the most committed partisans, and would carry their choices through to the end. But, certainly for Edwards and Dennis Kucinich voters in California and other states, developments that took place after they cast their ballots would have been likely to change their choices. And, if we believe the shift it polling positions over the past month, the same can be said for a number of early Clinton backers.

Bottom Line: There is a very good chance that, for all the hype, Super Tuesday will not present America with a precise reading of who Democrats want as their nominee.

Comments (18)

1. What is does mean is that Super Tuesday will not present America with a precise reading of who Democrats want as their nominee.

   Sure it does. I voted for Kucinich on Dr. Martin Luther King Day, when he was still in the race. I'd vote the same way again if I were to cast my ballot on election day. It simply is a small measure that off-sets this pairing down of candidates until there is no choice left.

   Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 10:04am

2. The primaries have been & continue to be a circus, a simulacrum of democracy, a great op for corporate buyers of poltical influence & a huge boon to TV ad sales. But it has not been & will not be democratic. A long, ultimately tiresome show for the suckers who think they're getting a real choice & that, when it comes to matters of real substance, this circus matters. VIDE: '00, '04, '06.

   Posted by sloper at 02/02/2008 @ 10:15am

3. Posted by SLOPER 02/02/2008 @ 10:15am

   Cast your whole vote, my friend, and don't despair. The ballot box is a poor weapon, but it's not the only weapon. It also has its uses.

   By all means, engage in direct action, be careful how you cast your vote with your dollars, and be the change you want to see in the world. But there is nothing wrong with taking some time out and voting, and if you don't like the options, write in yourself. I think it is much more of a powerful message than just staying home and having people fool themselves into thinking that silence is tacit consent. Take a moment to raise your middle finger to let people know you know what is going on, and you don't like it.

   Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 10:30am

4. I wouldn't cast my vote early. Most of the time they don't even count absentee ballots unless the contest is close. I just bought a great bumper sticker at Hillary Divides Bumper Sticker [hillarydivides.com]

   Posted by indep2008 at 02/02/2008 @ 11:15am

5. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=sloper

   so what do you suggest?

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 11:18am

6. NICHOLS: Super Tuesday will not present America with a precise reading of who Democrats want as their nominee.

   No, it won't! There, it's been a while where we agreed, Mr. Nichols!

   I'd further extend the timeline of an INprecise "reading" even past the Convention if NO Dem candidate leads by large margin, say 20%, and the Nominee is decided by a Super Delegates and/or the Edwardian `kingmaker'.

   On Early Voting, esp. by months in advance, it's akin to investors entering a NON-cancelable Buy or Sell orders at Market Price on their states' Primary days. I own Yahoo (YHOO) at about even price.....that is, until yesterday when the Microsoft's takeover proposal was announced (Thurs. evening). YHOO popped by $9+ on Friday! Imagine had I entered a NON-cancelable Sell order last November for execution this past Thursday........would've been pretty dumb NO matter how much I hated (or liked) YHOO up till November.

   Stock (and voting) tip of the day brought to you by the HAPPY CAPITALIST!

   Posted by Happy at 02/02/2008 @ 12:16pm

7. If Edwards gets a combination of early votes and votes by people who either don't know he is out, or don't care that he is out, and breaks 15% in some congressional districts, does he still get delegates, or do these get split up as if he didn't get 15%? I would rather see his total go up, on the small chance that his delegates could make a difference at the convention, but I don't know how the law works.

   Does it matter for these purposes that he said he was suspending' his campaign? If he had said he was terminating his campaign would that have triggered something that 'suspending it didn't? I remember that Kerry toyed with the idea of trying to extend the period where he could spend primary dollars by not actually saying he accepted the nomination at the convention. Apparently the words used potentially mattered there, so I wonder whether they matter here.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/02/2008 @ 1:36pm

8. i don't know...i know that the campaign i've worked on helped registered voters who may not have been able to get out on voting day, like the elderly, pre-vote. which does not seem so bad to me.

   i'm thinking both parties need to get their shit together and reform the mess. at first i thought putting all the primaries on the same day was the answer, but have come to think that setting up a rotating schedule where all primaries are held in the month of march or february. each year different states would go first, second, etc., with the biggest chunk (at least half the delegates decided all at once as the finale of primary month). this would give outsiders and insurgents an opportunity to target early primaries and rise, and limit the money burning season some.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2008 @ 2:21pm

9. I actually think there is a benefit to having small states first. Candidates without much money can win in Iowa, NH and SC. Having states with low populations, as long as you found a couple of more to make the early schedule more ethnically and economically diverse, allows time and hard work to make up for the inability to purchase lots of air time. Edwards and Huckabee could not have competed in California or New York, for instance, the way they did in Iowa, because there are too many people to visit in rallies and town halls and those left out will still be hit by the ads from the well funded candidates. If you combined an all at once format, or a rotating staggered schedule, with a mandatory public funding system with spending limits, that would be best I think.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/02/2008 @ 3:07pm

10. this is displaying my first comment at the top despite the fact that I submitted it about an hour and a half ago.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/02/2008 @ 3:07pm

11. The primaries have been & continue to be a circus, a simulacrum of democracy, a great op for corporate buyers of poltical influence & a huge boon to TV ad sales.

    SLOPER, Baudrillard would probably say the 'the primary election is not happening.' I am not about to agree. If the primary and all the media fervor is in fact a simulacrum of democracy, then it was in 2000. Remember we as a nation simulated in a media image the nomination of GW Shrub. The body count in Iraq and Afghanistan shows how real the stakes are.

    Posted by madesoterica at 02/02/2008 @ 4:20pm

12. You think if Hillary wins on the "no excuses" votes....she's going to CARE if it "presents America with a precise reading of who Democrats want as their nominee"???

    Or is she (like she did with Florida and Michigan) gonig to say "F.U....I won...send Dumbo-ears back to the Senate for some more "present" votes" and call it a "mandate"? (Dubya given new meaning to THAT word!)

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2008 @ 7:27pm

13. We have an imperial presidency now, appropriate enough for an empire. Which leading candidate has clearly indicated a willingness to return to a constitutionally based republic? None is apparent.

    "There will be more wars, my friends ..." The straight talker got that one right.

    And as long as there is no draft & no pay as you bomb & invade tax policy, the empire & its wars continue, regardless.

    Posted by sloper at 02/03/2008 @ 01:31am

14. "There will be more wars, my friends ..."

    Posted by SLOPER 02/03/2008 @ 01:31am

    and fewer friends,

    my friends,

    and just where this ends,

    depends,

    on the message he sends.

    (and whose money he spends)

    for stupidity tends,

    to never make ammends,

    and sanity he only pretends.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 02:19am

15. Comments here seem to have missed Nichols point: early voting encourages voting on the basis of incomplete information.

    I have always opposed it because of this.

    If we want to encourage participation, help people get to the polls on election day, not to vote early.

    (BTW, even before i became a door knocker and poll worker i always enjoyed the ritual of seeing my neighbors at the polling place. This emotional attachment to the process is unimportant though, by comparison with the problem that early voters don't have full information.)

    Posted by randcbruner at 02/03/2008 @ 1:41pm

16. John,

    A lot of people don't know this, but in many states it is possible to show up at the polls on election day and vote, even if you had previously cast an absentee ballot. Absentee votes are not counted until the week after the election, so if you vote live and in-person that vote will supercede your absentee vote. There may be some states that specifically prohibit this, but I'm 99% certain that in NY and CA you can do this, which would give Edwards supporters the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote for either Obama or Clinton.

    Posted by global yokel at 02/04/2008 @ 02:04am

17. The reason behind early voting is a lack of faith in voting machines. Paper ballots by mail for everyone might help with this problem, but there still would be early voting.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/04/2008 @ 11:48am

18. I am ther only candidate who passed nuclear waste legislation- Obama--liar! it never passed, tsk, tsk more of the same and I thought you were diffrent. :(

    Posted by jabusso at 02/04/2008 @ 5:07pm