Suppose we allowed juries to vote on guilt or innocence before the trial was over. They might have missed a key piece of evidence, and did miss what might be a persuasive closing argument. Everyone would find that trial unfair. But is that not exactly what we are doing with early voting?

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe declared on Sept. 28 that parents have no right to oversee their children’s education. In so doing he pleased his leftist, totalitarian backers, but angered most voters, who still retain common sense and family values. The news of his statement began to circulate after Sept. 29 and did not become widely known until the next week.

But early voting had begun on Sept. 17. Thousands of early voters – we cannot know how many – had not heard McAuliffe’s denigration of parenthood. Some, and probably many, would have changed their vote to Youngkin, his Republican opponent. That is, if there were no early voting, Youngkin’s victory margin would have been even greater.

Granted, diehard Democrats would not vote for a Republican even if their candidate were arrested for armed robbery. After all, what is taxation? And the same is true for diehard Republicans. But most voters are amenable to reason. They are able to change their minds in the face of strong evidence.

Boxing judges do not declare a winner before the last round begins. Who knows if there will be a knockout? Football officials do not declare a winner with minutes still left on the clock. Who knows if the underdog will score? Are not elections more important than sports? If we must allow early voting at all, let it be for a few days only. As things stand now, we are guaranteeing that many voters will be ill-informed, and in effect their votes will be invalidated.