If the average drive to the poll for the US 2008 election was 2 miles
round trip, the it put about 1/4 billion tons of CO2 into the
atmosphere. (The rest of the factors in this calculation are pretty
easy to estimate, but I am not sure about the average miles driven to
vote.)
There are all these books and web sites about things to do to save the
Earth, but not a single one of them mentions voting by mail.
Advocating voting by mail as an efficiency that should be practiced by
an environmentalist should have the effect of increasing voter turnout
among environmentalist. Environmentalist can get very deducated and
habitual about these minor efficiencies. These have a feel good
effect. They seem addictive. They seem to be a kind of ethical
ritual practice.
Perhaps this could increase voter turnout among young
environmentalist. Voter turnout among the young is relatively low.
Hanson and others argue that these minor personal efficiencies are not
effective and certainly not a substitute for political action. But
voting by mail increases efficiency and the level of polical action.
Speaking as a registered Washington voter, (who's currently in Canada), I found it much easier than other places. That being said, voter turnout by mail is very different than voter turnout by showing up someplace, almost always higher.
There's often backlash from the argument 'only people who care enough to show up at the polls should be allowed to vote'. I don't believe the argument myself, I think it's that certain people would rather that their party win. But, I could be wrong, it could be a realistic argument.
> On Jul 18, 5:25 am, Tom Adams<tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ... voting by mail. >> ... > In Oregon and many counties in Washington state it is now only > possible to vote by mail. It saves the state $$ and many, including > me, prefer it.
