Why do we vote on Tuesdays? And why do states pay for primaries?

Jim Bennett writes a weekly column offering historical context to current events. Bennett served as Secretary of State of Alabama from 1993 - 2003 and from 2013 - 2015. He was a reporter for the Birmingham Post-Herald from 1961 to 1971. He can be reached at: jimbennettwriter58@gmail.com

Just because we've been doing the same thing for a hundred years doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace change.

Every wonder why we vote on Tuesdays?  The answer lies with America's 19th-century farmers. Americans first began the custom of weekday voting in 1845 when Congress passed a federal law designating the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November as Election Day.

We were an agrarian society. We traveled by horse and buggy. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the three days of worship. So that left Tuesday and Wednesday, but Wednesday was market day. So, Tuesday it was.

That was then. Today we are an urban society, and we all know how hard it is to commute to our jobs, take care of the children, and get our work done, let alone stand in line to vote. Indeed, Census data over the last decade clearly indicates that the inconvenience of voting is the primary reason Americans are not participating in our elections. Only 41% did in the Alabama Primary March 1 and that was a record.

If we can move Columbus Day, Presidents' Day and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Holiday for the convenience of shoppers, why not make Election Day more convenient for voters?

Saturday might be a better day. Also, what about providing for a period of early voting like 37 other states? Others have no-excuse absentee balloting which is really the same thing.

All states provide for an absentee ballot but 20 states including Alabama require excuses, like being out of town on Election Day, working a 10-hour shift that coincides with voting hours or for medical emergencies.

But a note of caution here, absentee voting is where most of the fraud occurs so if we were to change the rules, let's also bring a heavy dose of ballot security with it.

Then there is the nagging question of why we have expensive runoffs? We don't require them in the more important general election where a plurality prevails. What's so special about a primary?

Runoffs are expensive and the state has to pick up the tab even though, except for constitutional amendments, they are strictly party affairs. The Secretary of State's Office estimates it will cost Alabama over $1 million to hold two district-wide runoffs April 12 to decide the outcome of a pair of seats on the State Board of Education plus a local district attorney and two circuit judges.

There are other problems in scheduling elections. I can remember a statewide election in 2000 where voters went to the polls to decide the outcome of a constitutional amendment which asked whether the corporate income tax should be raised from 5 to 6  percent. The turnout was 7 percent of the voters statewide. The cost was $4 million.  To make matters worse that was a presidential election year where we had a primary, a runoff and a general election, inclusion in any one of which could have been done without additional cost. Votes like this are set in the legislative act which created them.

Bear in mind the state has to print ballots, pay for poll workers and line up voting places whether there's one race on the ballot or 50.  That's why run-offs get so expensive.

And here is the kicker. Why is the state paying for party primaries in the first place? Other than wanting the state to pick up the tab, this is really a party function. They could do it themselves or come up with some other selection method. Republicans used to have a convention to select its nominees. A minor party can do that in someone's living room or through caucuses.

Don't get me wrong. I do like the idea of voting in person. Another way to reduce run-offs would be to lower the winning margin in a three way race to a 40% plurality.

Maybe it's time also we considered the instant runoff ballot which would cut costs and still provide a winner.

Here's how it would work: When voters go to the polls they would select their top two choices. If one candidate didn't get 50% plus one of the vote, the second choice votes of defeated candidates would be added to the totals of the two leading vote getters. The candidate who had the most first and second place votes would be declared the winner.  No run-off needed.

The process has been used in military voting where there is insufficient time to hold both a primary and a runoff to meet state deadlines, also in North Carolina and in a number of cities.  We used it in Alabama for military and overseas voters in both the 2013 and the 2014 congressional races in the First and Sixth Districts with court approval.

As a side benefit, the instant runoff would be a powerful disincentive to negative campaigns. Voters aren't likely to bestow their second-choice votes on candidates who had been bashing their favorites.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.