A lot of us -- probably most of us -- know about the possibility of walking into our election day polling place and encountering delays due to interference from "True The Vote." We may have our ID's and voter registrations in hand, but just the idea of standing around, shifting from one foot to the other, while a puppet show plays out thanks to some zealot challenging someone who "looks Mexican," is enough to make us decide to vote early. Thereby avoiding any impact from debates. I just don't see myself, whatever the debates produce, thinking "Wow, that Romney guy is brilliant! Just what we need!"
Amy Davidson points out the realities of voting in 2012.
Voter suppression may not turn the Presidential race, but how many congressional or local ones might be affected by a long line or an aggressive poll watcher? One also wonders what sort of party the G.O.P. is going to end up with if it is training the activists of tomorrow to be glad about getting people turned away—one whose hopes become identical with the frustrations of others?
The Republican Party has plenty of its own frustrations at the moment. Time is getting short; Romney is behind in the polls—the surveys now, but soon, possibly, the real polls. Voting began in Iowa yesterday; there are thirty-two states now with early voting, more if one counts states with absentee and other arrangements. You can’t save your campaign by being brilliant in a debate, or hoping that your opponent will look at his watch or say something mad in his, if people have voted already. And, given the prospect of lines and nagging on Election Day, early voting may be more and more tempting. ...Davidson, New Yorker