Get access

Electoral Simultaneity: Expressing Equal Respect

Authors

  • Dennis F. Thompson

    Corresponding author
    1. Harvard University
      *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dennis F. Thompson, Department of Government, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 [e-mail: thomps2@fas.harvard.edu].
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Parts of the article are drawn from Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States (Thompson, 2002); and “Election Time: Normative Implications of Temporal Properties of the Electoral Process in the United States (Thompson, 2004).

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dennis F. Thompson, Department of Government, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 [e-mail: thomps2@fas.harvard.edu].

Abstract

The principle of simultaneity—that citizens should vote as far as possible at the same time—is more significant than is usually appreciated. It is based on a fundamental value of democratic theory, and it has substantial implications for electoral practice. It also invites further normative and empirical research.

The most important value that simultaneity expresses is a form of equality—equal respect. First, if citizens have only information they would have had if they were voting at the same time, the value of each citizen's choice is no greater than that of any other citizen. Second, when citizens go to the polls on the same day, publicly participating in a common experience of civic engagement, they demonstrate their willingness to contribute to the democratic process on equal terms. Taking simultaneity seriously has implications for electoral practices. It would limit the practice of media projections of election results, including the reporting of exit polls, and the calling of elections before all the polls close. It also casts doubt on the increasingly widespread use of early voting—absentee ballots and voting by mail. Early voting weakens the value of the experience of participating in a civic activity. Voting alone may be worse than bowling alone.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary