I know it goes against the modern “conventional wisdom” of civil responsibility, but I think it should be more difficult to vote, not easier.

The biggest argument for early voting (as for the increased use of absentee ballots) is that the convenience will increase the turnout. Similarly, the thought of enlarging the voter rolls was the driving principle behind the “Motor-Voter” laws that streamlined voter registration (as well as registration fraud.) But in both cases, the reasoning assumes that a larger turnout is necessarily a good thing. I don’t believe that’s always the case.

Certainly anyone who wants to vote should have the opportunity (other than the illegal immigrants, felons, dead people, pets, and cartoon characters who make up a large portion of those Democrats who will actually be “disenfranchised” by new voter ID laws.) And with few exceptions, every adult in America does have the right to vote – and no one should prevent their exercise of that right – just as they all have their own opinions.

But would anyone argue that all opinions are of equal value? Is the vote of someone who votes against (or for) a candidate because of his race as desirable as that of someone who has carefully weighed all the issues? If someone is so ignorant of the political situation that he has no real interest, and in fact has to be cajoled and harangued into voting, is his opinion really one we need?

The tradition of voting on November’s first Tuesday comes from the early days when getting to your polling place might require a day’s ride in a horse-drawn wagon; holding the vote on Tuesday meant that people would not have to make the journey on Sunday. Are we really saying that waiting until election day and standing in a line (or coming up with suitable ID, for that matter) is a comparable and unacceptable burden?

Of course those who have a good reason (overseas military service being a prime example) should be afforded some other means of placing their vote. Similarly, those who are physically unable to stand in lines should have an opportunity to use absentee ballots, as they do now. But to accommodate and encourage the laziest and most complacent among us does not improve the quality of the electoral process, only the quantity.

If someone wants to vote, by all means he should have the opportunity. But if a person really doesn’t care who wins, or still can’t decide, is entering the booth and flipping a coin really somehow a civic virtue compared to the “civic sin” of opting out? If a person decides he just doesn’t know enough or care enough to select between two candidates, then the third choice, not voting, is the best he can make.