Is early voting good?

So what do you guys think? 

Is early voting good because it gives people more opportunities and time to cast their vote, and thus garners more voters?

Or

Is early voting limiting because the campaign heats up drastically in the last several weeks, and someone who voted early can no longer change their mind based on new information?

33% of votes are cast prior to election day

So I heard an interesting story on NPR yesterday morning... it was talking about early voting and interviewed Paul Gronke, the director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College. 

Now I knew and expected that some people voted early via absentee ballots - this is what I did when I was in college during the 2004 election or traveling during the 2008 election - but I did not realize just how many people voted early.  According to the Early Voting Information Center:

• 30- 33% of the vote was cast early in 2008
• 35% of the vote - that one in three voters, or more than 46 million people - are expected to vote early in 2012
• 34 states currently allow early voting in one form or another

This early voting trend has been increasing with each election too.  In 2004 only 20% of the vote was cast before election day, and in 2000 only 15%.

So who are the people that vote early?  Its no surprise that the profile of an early voter is someone from either party - Democrat or Republican - who have already made up their mind.  Describing these individuals, Gronke said -

"They're partisan, they're ideological, and you flip that coin over and you see the kind of patterns we've seen for a long time in American politics. Better educated, higher income, and these have tended toward Republicans, but as the early electorate has expanded, it's also diversified. Particularly in 2008, we saw African-Americans flock to the early in-person polls in the southeastern part of the United States."

I think the early voting trend has an interesting effect on campaign strategies.  For example, campaigns have to mobilize quicker, and for a longer period of time - its not just about November 6th anymore.  People can hear someone on the news, make a decision and send in their ballot without waiting for the opponent or other party to react. 

After hearing all this information I was curious what Connecticut's policy on early voting is.  Here in CT we do not have early, in-person voting, but do allow voters to return their absentee ballots in person to election officials. 

Here's a link to a list of dates that allow early voting. 

In 2008 pre-election polls were off by less than 1.5%

My Dad forwarded me an interesting article posted by the Department of Political Science at
Fordham University.  It is from the 2008 election, and talks about polling.  I know we are discussing polling in an upcoming class, and I wanted to remember the facts - so I figured, why not put it up on my blog!

This is what they found:

• The pre-election polls from 23 public polling organizations predicted a Democratic advantage of 7.52 percentage points in 2008.
• In actuality Obama won by a 6.15% margin in the popular vote.
• The polls were off by less than 1.5% - thats pretty darn good!

Also - below is the list of 20 polling organizations based on their accuracy of the final, national 2008 pre-election polls (as reported on pollster.com).

I'm looking forward to learning more about how polls are conducted, analyzed, and predicted in the coming weeks.  

I wonder if it will be similar in 2012? 

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)
5. ARG (10/25-27)
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

Free speech online - controlled by private parties that can limit it as they choose?

I recently read an article on Neiman Journalism Lab that was talking about the integrity of free speech in lieu of the anti-Muslim film that became popular several weeks ago.  One of the phrases that caught my eye was a quote that said...

"Andy Sellars of the Citizen Media Law Project noted that there’s a structural weakness to free speech online — it’s controlled by numerous private parties that can largely limit it as they choose."

I don't think this statement is necessarily a surprise to many people, but what I found interesting was the second part talking about how private parties can limit and alter free speech as they choose.  Are there any negative consequences to letting free speech be judged by private parties?

- Does it set the bar for free speech lower?
- Are the practices of free speech constantly changing, and a moving target instead of a concrete set of rules? 
- Why would a private party limit their 'free speech'?  Does it have to do with holding companies, ownerships, sponsors and investors weighing in too?

"Mitt Romney could not win the vote of his dad"

So I was catching up on some of the Daily Show last night, and wanted to share the below clip from Tuesday night's show.  As you probably already know, Mitt Romney's father was on welfare assistance for several years, and as Stewart put it....

"According to Mitt Romney’s own logic, Mitt Romney could not win the vote of his dad.”