In the US, “Election Day 2018” falls on November 6 this year. But Election Day isn’t what it used to be.

The New York Times reports that “millions have voted early” — nearly a million of them by mail in the Sunshine State alone, even before that state’s early voting locations opened on October 22, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.  I cast my ballot during what I expected to be an “off” time (after the pre-work rush and before the lunch rush), and still spent a few minutes in line.

More than 1/3 of the 2016 vote came in early according to the United States Election Project. This may be the first US election in which a majority of votes are cast before Election Day.  And the results may be set in stone before then, too.

Politicians and pollsters seem obsessed with the putatively “undecided” vote, but let’s be honest: The guy who doesn’t know who he’s voting for two days before the election hasn’t been paying attention and probably isn’t going to bother standing in line just to register what amounts to a coin flip.

The real political goal is getting one’s “base” voters — the people who are firmly “decided” and probably were before the parties even nominated their candidates — off their butts and to the polls.  Early voting makes that a lot easier.

When I was younger, you either got in line — sometimes for hours — on Election Day, or certified in writing (under penalty of perjury) that you planned to be out of the county on Election Day as a condition of casting an absentee ballot.

On Election Day itself, the party organizations busted out phone banks to call voters they perceived as part of their “bases.” Have you voted yet? Why haven’t you voted yet? Do you need a ride to the polling place? Go vote!

These days, such efforts can be spread over weeks rather than hours, reducing the number of volunteers needed. Voters can cast their ballots when they find it convenient instead of wasting their lunch hours standing in line on one, and only one, day.

Early voting magnifies the incidence and effect of the “base” vote by getting the “decided, but kinda lazy” in on the action. The “undecideds” aren’t the ones casting their votes early. They’re undecided, remember?

Early voting also probably reduces the parties’ ability to leverage “October surprises” into changed minds. How many Americans had already voted before Donald Trump could menace them with migrant caravans or his Democratic opponents had time to wave the bloody shirt over the “suspected explosive devices” mailed to prominent members of their party?

Finally, early voting will hopefully continue to increase the share of the vote commanded by “third party” and independent candidates, whose followings are smaller but presumably more likely to vote anyway,  especially if it’s easier.

Is America really more “polarized” than it used to be, or is early voting just making it easier to separate out the “undecided” statistical chaff? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In an October 23 editorial, Investor’s Business Daily claims that “[t]he ‘caravan’ of illegal immigrants from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras now making its way to the U.S. border is no accident. The timing, planning and financing of this tragic parade has but one intent: to disrupt and influence our midterm elections.”

An interesting assertion, but the piece doesn’t offer answers to any of the questions implied other than to blame Democrats for all things evil.

Who planned the caravan? IBD names a group that supposedly planned a previous one.

Who timed the caravan? No answer from IBD.

Who’s financing the caravan? IBD: “If only our friends in the mainstream media would do their jobs and find out.”

A conspiracy theory isn’t much fun when the theorists can’t be bothered to put meat on its bones in the form of factual claims that might possibly be verified or proven false.

Since IBD couldn’t be bothered to do the heavy lifting, I guess I’ll have to. I’ll work with a standard wrench from the conspiracy theory toolbox: Cui bono? That’s Latin for “who benefits?”

If the migrant caravan indeed “has but one intent: to disrupt and influence our midterm elections,” what individual, group, or political party benefits from that disruption/influence? IBD’s complaints about Democrats come apart at the seams as soon as cui bono is invoked.

If the caravan disrupts or influences the 2018 US midterm elections, it does so entirely and exclusively to the benefit of the Republican Party.

The caravan is a perfectly timed hobgoblin for demagogues like Donald Trump (and the editors of IBD) to shake in the air like a witch doctor’s fetish for maximum “Scare Our Base to the Polls” purposes.

As a conscript in the service of conspiracy theory, albeit one with better skills than whoever volunteered to embarrass  IBD, I’d have to attribute the caravan’s planning, timing, and financing, on cui bono grounds, to the Republican National Committee (or one of its subordinate committees) and/or to one or more of Donald Trump’s three 2020 campaign committees.

Do I believe that? It’s certainly tempting. But I’m more of an Occam’s Razor guy than a cui bono guy. Occam’s Razor says we should go with the theory that requires the least speculation.

Individual immigrants pay as much as $10,000 to “coyotes” to guide them across the US border — if they can make it through the narco-terrorist-infested wilds of Central America first. Most of the immigrants in question are poor. Getting together as a “caravan” is cheaper and traveling in a large group is presumably safer than risking it alone or in single family units.

You may have “caravaned” to a distant city for a concert or convention yourself. Four people to a car is cheaper than one.  Four cars means that if one breaks down, the trip doesn’t come to a sudden end. And you probably organized it just like these immigrants probably organized it: By word of mouth.

Sorry to wreck your fun conspiracy theory, IBD. Better luck next time.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “La caravana de la inmigración ¿a quién le favorece?” by Thomas L. Knapp, La Tribuna Hispana USA, 10/24/18

On October 17,  president Donald Trump announced plans to withdraw the United States from the Universal Postal Union, a 144-year-old international agreement which coordinates postal policies between 192 member nations. Trump left open the possibility of remaining in the UPU if those policies can be successfully renegotiated. Unlike many of Trump’s initiatives relating to international trade, this one makes real sense.

The UPU’s outdated rate-setting model treats the world’s second largest economy, that of China, as if it was still the primitive pre-capitalist economy of 1874. The result: A massive subsidy from the US Postal Service to China’s 21st century international retail sector.

Companies shipping  small parcels (“ePackets”) from China to the US pay less than US companies to ship parcels of similar size and weight across much shorter distances within the US itself.

That subsidy has created a burgeoning business in jewelry, electronics, and other small items. Chinese firms already enjoy lower labor costs than their American counterparts. Throw in the ePacket subsidy, and an American who’s willing to wait a couple of weeks can get a set of guitar strings sent all the way from China for less than an American firm would pay just to ship the strings from, say, Coachella, California, let alone make them in the first place.

As of 2014, the US Postal Service took a $75 million annual loss on  the ePacket subsidy. That’s probably a tiny fraction of sales  the subsidy artificially shifts from American firms to their Chinese competitors.

My family loves the Chinese ecommerce sites and sellers. And to be honest, many of the things we buy from them aren’t things that we’d otherwise buy domestically. They’re things we probably just wouldn’t buy at all at full American prices.

But why should you pay more for domestic USPS Priority Mail or Parcel Post so that I pay less to feed my guitar and harmonica habit or add to my wife’s earring collection? I’m sure we’ll get by without those cheap geegaws if we have to.

I doubt we’ll have to. As the ePacket subsidy comes to an end, I suspect private sector shipping firms will step in with something similar. The subsidy doesn’t just hurt American manufacturers and sellers. It also undercuts companies like UPS and FedEx. They may not be able to get shipping costs down to ePacket levels, but I bet they can compete with un-subsidized USPS shipping rates.

Let’s find out.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY