Requiring everybody to drive to the polls and stand in long lines on a single weekday - when many of those most affected by elections are at work and/or have childcare or family care obligations - is undemocratic.

Providing multiple ways to vote over a period of weeks leading up to Election Day allows more people to use their constitutional right to vote. It makes our democracy stronger by allowing more citizens to participate.

in fact its a great thing but, as in the case of the Montana special election, all those voters committed themselves before the great Montana meltdown occurred.

According to one report, the Montana Elections folks were getting hit with calls asking if early voters (mainly mail ins) could change their votes (they couldn't once the mailers were received).

It's as if somebody was ignoring all the warning signs about Trump until one last thing happened the day of the election.

race (or candidate) closely so I don't know if there were any obvious (or semi obvious) warning signs.

Montana elected a Democratic governor and with the right candidate we could win in 18...Quist wasn't the right candidate. I never though he would win...all this mess with the 2016 election has lead to chaos at the DNC and to a lesser extent the DCCC...need to end and let's get to work fielding appropriate candidates...we have to take the House and the Senate while more difficult would shut down Trumps packing of SCOTUS. Those who think a liberal candidate can win in red state are foolish...and those groups who primary sitting Democrats should be starved of cash and ignored.

Lines are a function of not building in enough capacity to efficiently service demand. That can be remedied if there were the will to do so - more competently staffed polling stations. Polls open at 6:00AM and close at 9:00PM for major elections in New York State. If that was in place nationally, and election day was declared a National Holiday there would not be crowded lines waiting before and after work for the minority of people who still have to work on a holiday and need to vote either before or after their shifts.

Yes this is only theoretical given the Republican voter disenfranchisement mind set. So for now, practically speaking, I reluctantly support early voting.

that go away would be Republicans. It was too late in Montana but that doesn't mean those living there OUTRAGED by this BS can't now speak out loudly that their vote was wasted on this THUG.

Giving more people, especially working people, the opportunity to vote, is far more important than safeguarding against a wing nut candidate having a meltdown on the day before the election. Now, if Republicans committing felonies the day before elections becomes commonplace (and it could) I might rethink my position.

A Democratic Governor defeated that knucklehead under the same system. Maybe we need to field more appealing candidates who can stay close in red states during the early voting so that once the republican blows up, the republican Pat's for the blowup.

They have the opportunity to campaign appropriately. What if he would have pulled this move the day after the election. Would we then be discussing "late voting"?

It's also my understanding that Quist was either ahead or tied in early voting. That means he lost on voting day big.

We need to have better candidates across the board. Assessing an election after the fact on the merits of your opponent, instead of your own merits, is a fools game.

early voting tends to favor Dems, while Repubs often make up the difference on election day.

That's why the Repubs in Montana tried to block the mail in voting at first.

singular events lead some people to make snap judgements on issues that require more introspection.

The internet has not improved that common human trait.

In the long term, and for the most part, early voting is a plus. Not just for Dems, but for democracy.

how short is the memory of the people of Montana?

He is against abortion

He opposes same sex marriage

He thinks the earth is 10k years old

Why would punching a reporter (deemed an Enemy of The People by Trump) cause his supporters to change their votes?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Gianforte

His supporters probably take in their media from the right wing where the assault was down played or the reporter was made to look like the aggressor.

Early voting is only useful for people who have already made up their minds and like the convenience of not having to travel to the polls. We should look to expand voting in every single way, not restrict it, especially not for fluke reasons.

Their in-person vote would cancel out the mailed vote, if they happened to change their minds.

I believe some places already do this.

People were literally calling the Registrar's office after the assault, asking if they could change their votes.

This solves that problem.

So it does not solve the problem...we need to keep things simple. Quist was a bad choice...early voting is good...leave it be...no need to stop something that works for us for this election which even if there was no early voting would have gone to the GOP...Quist was a bad candidate for that state.

matter what...A democrat was elected governor in 2016 and a moderate Democratic candidate should have run for this seat...Quist was never going to win.