Over the last decade, operatives in both political parties have quietly agitated to change state laws in order to permit early voting.  These efforts gained traction, and many states now allow citizens to cast their vote days or weeks early.  In a few states, voting in the general election will begin this year a full six weeks before election day.  A small coterie of critics have warned that early voting is a threat to our political system.  This year may be the year that the threat materializes, revealing the serious unintended consequences of early voting laws.

Originally, Democrats were the ones who pushed for early voting, thinking it would help them mobilize working class and lower income voters who might be less likely to turn out to vote on a single Tuesday.  After initial opposition, Republicans came around to the view that they too could exploit early voting by spreading their get-out-the-vote activities over time, compensating for the perceived advantage held by Democratic urban machines in turning out masses of voters on election day.  As a result, this year, millions of voters will cast their ballots early.  This may make it easier for Donald Trump to seize power.  And it will make it more difficult for a lesser known, independent or third party candidate to gain traction in time to challenge the deeply flawed candidates expected to be nominated by both major political parties.

Early voting works to Trump’s advantage by giving Hillary Clinton and others less time to confront him on substantive issues.  In fact, in some states early voting may begin this year before any of the presidential or vice presidential debates have taken place.  If Trump were to make a significant error or gaffe late in the general election period (that is possible, even for Trump), the impact on the election would be diluted by the fact that millions would already have voted.  Trump’s political consultants understand this.  Expect them to focus significant resources on encouraging early voting.  If new information were to come to light about either candidate late in the campaign (say an indictment in the Hillary Clinton email scandal or a significant disclosure regarding Trump’s tax returns), an October Surprise would be less consequential to the outcome of the election than ever before in modern history because of early voting.  This would also undermine the legitimacy of the electoral outcome in the minds of many voters because so many voters would have voted based on stale information.

Like many changes to election laws that occur with support from both major parties, early voting significantly increases the barriers to entry for candidates who do not win the major parties’ nominations.  It is not yet too late for a significant independent or third party candidate to threaten the inevitability of a Trump or Clinton presidency.  But early voting gives the national party nominees a major advantage, leaving the independent challenger with less time to educate voters before ballots are cast.  This, of course, is only one of many ways in which the current system favors the two major political parties.  But it is a particularly insidious hurdle for a non-major party candidate because it means the candidate will have lost countless voters before even getting a chance to make his or her case.

The tradition of going to the polls as a nation on a single election day served many purposes.  The essentially simultaneous act of decision left all Americans equally invested in, and responsible for, the outcome.  It meant that virtually all voters made their choice based on a common set of facts.  And it allowed maximum time for a major party candidate, or even a third party or independent candidate, to challenge the evasions and deceits of a demagogue.  Early voting weakens the integrity and resiliency of our political system.  The spread of early voting laws has occurred largely under the radar, with minimal scrutiny or debate.  But this year the consequences may be difficult to ignore.