Has anybody not yet voted? What does this mean?

Three things we can say for sure -- three things we can't know -- and one thing I am guessing (and hoping) to be true....

This linked Reuters staff report, dated October 29, suggests that over 80 million people had already voted nationwide -- more than 58% of the total 2016 turnout.

Andrew Solander, in a report posted to Forbes, also on October 29, breaks these numbers down: Early voting in Texas, he writes, was already at 94% of the total 2016 turnout. Georgia's early voting turnout is at 82% of the total 2016 turnout, Solander writes, and other states are also setting records.

What does this mean?

One thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that, thanks to COVID-19, more people have voted early, and voted by mail in particular. But not in all states. Solander's article notes that Texas is one of a number of states which did not 'relax' mail-in voting procedures. Other states, however, have been using mail-in ballots for years.

That leads to the second thing we can say with certainty: Election laws vary widely---dramatically---from state to state. Just because we do things a certain way here does not mean this is the only way things can be done, nor can we say, necessarily, that because people do things differently elsewhere, they are doing it wrong or unfairly, or trying to "suppress" the vote. They may be, of course. I'd like to know what genius first thought it would be a good idea to try and invalidate over a 100,000 'drive-in' votes in Texas -- after they'd been cast. A wholly Republican Texas Supreme Court has squelched that plan, In re Steven Hotze, M.D., Wendell Champion, Hon. Steve Toth, and Sharon Hemphill, no. 20-0863 (writ of mandamus denied Nov. 1), although the battle is still being waged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Hotze, et al. v. Hollins, 4:20-cv-03709).

Because election laws vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next, an expert in election procedures here may be completely wrong in his or her assessment of election law controversies there. Also, posession of a law degree does not make one an election expert. I have been covering judicial elections in Cook County on a pretty serious basis since 2008 and, though I have learned a lot over the years, I do not claim to be an election law expert, not even an Illinois election law expert. Your neighbor, or that windbag on Facebook, or that talking head on TV, may not know any more than thee or me. In Illinois, at least, election law is arcane, byzantine, picayune, and not always consistent -- and it is that way because it keeps those that are in office in office. While some may think that, in Illinois, this is done to favor the Democratic Party, that would be shallow, short-range thinking: If they ever experience a renaissance locally, Republicans would be quick to embrace our obscure, tedious, prolix, and convoluted election laws because, if they ever come into power, it would also help keep them in power, too.

Keeping nobodies that nobody sent off the ballot and drawing district lines to ensure incumbent victories and enhance partisan opportunities elsewhere are two of the only remaining areas of truly bipartisan agreement in our poor country today.

Anyway, the third thing we can say for sure is that, in the coming days and maybe even (God forbid) weeks, we will be subjected to all manner of hyperventilated bloviation about the outcome of tomorrow's election, with all manner of elaborate charges of fraud, vote stealling, voter suppression, and/or intimidation.

Which brings us to what we don't know. We don't know which of these inevitable charges and counter-charges and counter-counter-charges will have merit -- or even the faintest semblance of truth. We don't know if any of these, even if true, will or may possibly have some bearing on the appropriate outcome. Historically, these things have a way of evening out. Don't overstress about what you will no doubt hear on TV, no matter whether you watch MSNBC or One America News Network or anything in between. Remember, we can choose to reject the 10 Rules of Hate. We can listen instead to the 'better angels of our nature.'

Another thing we don't know is whether this unprecedented surge in early voting turnout means that there will be a correspondingly larger voter turnout when all is said and done. If I were a betting man, I'd suggest that our national participation this year will exceed 2016 levels -- but not by so much as the early voter turnout figures might indicate. My guess is that fears of COVID-19 have prompted many voters to come out early -- voters that would otherwise have waited until Election Day to vote. On a very local level, I guess I'll find out tomorrow, when I go to vote in my own home precinct.

The third thing we don't know is who all these early voters are voting for (or against). I know that a lot of people assume that all, or most of, these early voters are voting just as they have. I'm not so certain. I learned, if belatedly, to be cautious after 2016. And, for all those who think they know how all these early votes are breaking---in case you haven't noticed, this is 2020. Not a whole heck of a lot has happened this year as we would have expected. In the Never Ending Year of Pandemic, and toilet paper shortages, and murder hornets, why would we assume that this election will proceed according to expectations?

I hope things will work out. I assume that you hope that things will work out, too. History gives us reason to hope. But there is probably one person -- and I'm guessing on this, admittedly -- who, perhaps more than any of us, really and truly hopes that this election will be sorted out decisively, and soon. His name is John Roberts. I really and truly hope that I'm guessing correctly on this. I'd hate to think he'd want the Supreme Court to have any significant role in this election....