Without a doubt, I agree with the concern of absentee voting. I don't like it there and I don't like it here either. Absentee should be strictly for those incapable of making it to the polls and that's it. In Ohio, anybody can vote absentee and it's a bad system.<quoted text>
"Indeed, in a column for right-wing clearinghouse WorldNetDaily, longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged as much with a defense of North Carolina’s new voting law, which has been criticized for its restrictions on access, among other things. Here’s Schlafly:
“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’"
"Schlafly, it should be noted, isn’t the first Republican to confess the true reason for voter-identification laws. Among friendly audiences, they can’t seem to help it.
Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” That summer, at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, former Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund conceded that Democrats had a point about the GOP’s focus on voter ID, as opposed to those measures—such as absentee balloting—that are vulnerable to tampering.“I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he said."
What your article points out is results and not cause. They state that less time to vote means less Democrat voters. The question is why? Why doesn't it affect Republican voters the same way?
The one thing that came to mind while reading this article is Katrina. All those poor Democrats dragged their azzes to the bus stops and many stayed behind because they were too lazy to leave. It was too inconvenient. Another thing that crossed my mind is responsibility. What party does a responsible person generally vote for? Who do the irresponsible vote for?
After all, most "poor" people don't work. They have all day to vote; more time than working Americans. If results showed that we have a better Democrat turnout if free refreshments are served at the polls, would it be discriminatory not to have free refreshments?
Voting should be somewhat inconvenient. It assures that only those who are serious about elections do vote. There should be no early voting, no dragging people to vote in busses, and no absentee voting unless there were no other choices.