Early voting option in Minnesota?

Has this been seriously considered in Minnesota? Just curious.

We had another one again this year and it went pretty smoothly overall. Anyone can vote absentee though before the election.

...on Election Day.

the privilege is pretty routinely abused. Lots of folks vote absentee even if they will be in the precinct on Election Day just to avoid the hassle.

If they observed the problems with counting mailed-in absentee ballots those voters might not be so sanguine. I've witnessed the absentee counts in my local precinct the past two cycles and around 3% of the absentee ballots had over-votes (and simply feeding in a thrice-folded mail-in ballot caused problems). I've also consistently seen ballots delivered to the wrong MN House district (which meant that those votes didn't count in the initial tally - not sure if the problems were eventually resolved).

I'm very much in favor of Early Voting.

my mother does for reasons of "illness or disability".

From what I could see when I had her at city hall (and quite a few people were voting) the clerks don't question anyone's reason for voting absentee. I did hear that they were glad to see so many doing it this year because it was hoped it would ease some of the lines at the polls on election day.

First, it is illegal (a felony - see https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=203B.03)

Second, if I lie to vote by absentee ballot, someone could easily tell the local election board to challenge my vote if they knew I voted absentee and could have voted in person.

Third, it is illegal.

As I reported before, there were many seniors at Plymouth City Hall voting earlier.

No, in Minnesota you can participate in the political process by following a very rigid protocol.

Be at the caucus at a specified time or your vote would not matter. You may be sick, or out of town, or work the night shift, or have to care for family members.. tough luck.

And then only the delegates to the various conventions can select the candidates.

I have to wonder: had we selected the Senate and 3rd District candidates in the primaries, instead by those few delegates; had we accepted it that a party endorsement is just that - and endorsement - and encouraged all the candidates to campaign to the primaries, whether the outcome of both races would have been different.

DFL candidates would have wasted the entire summer (and their money) campaigning against each other. Primaries are also not going to work when we don't have party registration.

The results in the Senate, 3rd and 6th CDs were affected by third party spoilers. Those results are more an argument for IRV, not a primary system.

You have a lot more faith in the voting public making better decisions that party activists than I do. Wellstone would never have had the money to win a primary race and then a general election in 1990. He needed the activists that showed up at the caucuses and he needed the endorsement and the party money and resources that come with that endorsement and he couldn't wait until September for that.

to be counted for the Presidential delegates.

I certainly do have faith in the voting public. I think that it is very elitists for some activists to determine for the rest of us who should be the candidates. After all, they represent all of us, or should. Two years ago there were actually 3 Democratic candidates in the primary for the 3rd and I had no idea who they were and what they stood for. This year, because I was a delegate to the Senate District, I was deluged with mailers and with phone calls.

Wellstone activists could have helped him by going door to door and distributing his material and talking to people. And he could have still used the money and the endorsements of the party, but whoever ran against him should have stayed in for the primary which should be a lot earlier than September. I remember how disappointed I was when I received the mailers from Franken, and Madia and Bonoff whose first sentence was that they would abide by the party endorsement.

When you have dedicated activists that knock on doors, distribute materials, stand in shopping centers to talk to voters and than make sure that they get to the polling place, you can overcome the shortage of money. I have done this in California. Oh, and one of our knocking on doors was to distribute requests for absentee ballots which is very common in California. As a matter of fact, many seniors, like my mother in law, are permanent absentee voters. They don't have to request one but one is automatically being mailed to them.

attending if you want to. The only criteria is that you live in the precinct.

Have you ever attended a precinct caucus? Or gone to the trouble of getting to know the party activists in your area?

In my county, we advertise our meeting dates in the local papers. Anyone who actually wants to be involved has all kinds of opportunities to get involved.

Just because some people cannot bestir themselves to the simple extent of making enquiries of their local political organizations isn't the fault of those political organizations.

sw

This is why this year was so zooy that, apparently, many just drove around, could not find a place to park and left in disgust.

We had 100 who voted for their presidential preference. Most, of course, have never been there before. They wrote their name and addresses, signed, wrote Obama on a piece of a post it note and then left. If any of them voted twice, or were not living in the district, or even in the state - if any one even checked that later it was too late.

After these "votes" were counted, there were only 25 of us that actually stayed behind to... well.. caucus. So, yes, I have attended my precinct caucus in 2004 and in 2008. They called me and wanted me to chair one in 2006 but I refused, saying that I was not that familiar with the proceedings. And, as it happened, on that date I had other important tasks to attend to.

I was a delegate to my Senate district. There were more than 500 of us and we were expected to select only 12 delegates for the congressional district. And there were really many from our group who wanted to go so I did not even try to put my candidacy for a vote.

And, yes, I did attend a meeting of local activists once.

What you and others do not understand is that one has a right to vote even if, especially if, one does not choose to become a party activist. Or if one does not bother to study all the candidates and the ballot measures.

I don't remember whether it was this year or two years ago that someone wrote a letter to the strib that the ones who do not bother to study the issues and the candidates should not bother to vote. Yeah, right, let's bring the tests that would determine who can and who cannot vote. I think that we got rid of this back in 1965. I seem to remember some who were murdered in Mississippi because they were fighting against any demands that would prevent anyone from voting.

and how parties select their candidates is up to them. After this last election, I wish they had more control over who gets to call themselves the party's candidate.

Look what happened in the 6th district where Tinklenberg had both the DFL and Independence party endorsements. Bob Anderson decided to put himself on the ballot in the primary as the Indpendence party candidate. Because he had no opposition, he wound up with that label in the general election as well and pulled enough votes that he helped reelect Bachmann.
And remember the year with a wing nut named Sharon Anderson defeated the Republican endorsed candidate in the primary for Attorney General.

So much for a well informed electorate.

I understand all your objections -- even so, I think that citizen participation in the political process is a precious and valuable thing that should not be discarded.

I also STRONGLY agree with dflprincess -- IRV would resolve many, if not all, of the objections you raise.

Thank you for responding so thoughtfully. I'm always delighted to meet another caucus-goer on DU.

sw