I'd like to offer a few thoughts on absentee voting. Dry as the topic may seem, the national discussion on it heats up more and more every election cycle. In the interest of further sullying the muddied waters of the debate, I offer two diverging opinions on the matter.

The archaic act of having to take time off from our busy days, wait in line and deal with parking is absurd. What about those who lack transportation, can't find a babysitter or are caring for a sick loved-one? Our world has changed, and the process to complete our most cherished civic duty —to vote — should change with it.

Citizens have benefited from countless government services that have become simplified, more automated, more user-friendly and more efficient. You can renew your vehicle license, check the status of your building permit even apply for unemployment benefits, on-line. Why is there resistance to extending these efficiencies to voting?

If absentee voting results in just a few more currently disenfranchised people voting in an election and taking and interest in candidates and issues then it is worth it.

Even if it doesn't increase voter counts, but makes it easier for those who already do vote then it still serves a purpose. Increased voter turnout or ease of the voting process will be the catalyst for more people becoming involved in the process.

We hear so much how hectic our lives have become, how our patience is taxed at every turn, even while the tasks of living, working and recreation are arguably becoming easier, more efficient and quicker to perform.

With the voter cry of "I just don't have time," along with continued declining voter turnout, many jurisdictions have turned to liberalizing the voting process.

Believing that pursuing increased voter turnout is inherently good for our democracy, counties and even states have expanded absentee voting. Oregon has gone so far as to switch completely over to absentee voting.

But, is there a clear-cut correlation between easing the voting process and attracting new voters? One follow-up study in Oregon notes that "voting by (mail) will not mobilize groups that traditionally participate at lower rates. The expectation that (mail-in) voting increases participation among relatively excluded groups in not unequivocally supported by evidence."

In fact, the study goes on to note, "based on a broader and more recent survey of all the (mail-in) vote elections in Oregon, the study has shown that while voter turnout generally goes up as a result of the introduction of all (mail-in) voting, this generally favors the better educated, richer ... citizens." Other studies have even shown that voter participation increases initially, but once the novelty of mail-in voting wears off, voter counts actually go down. Some other studies have concluded just the opposite.

That brings us to the argument against absentee voting. By resorting to absentee voting we reduce the voting process to another task to complete on our daily "to do" list.

The notion behind absentee voting says, "I will vote when it fits into my schedule, regardless of the stage of the campaign, outcome of debates and issues that arise up to election day."

While many (arguably most) aspects of our life can benefit from efficiencies and expediency, voting is not, and should not, be one of them. An informed vote requires a bit of research and personal use of your mental bandwith, especially in this day of sound bites, wedge politics, spin and slick candidate packaging.

An informed, passionate voter is not put off by the "inefficiency" of the voting process. If absentee voting results in higher voter rolls and a better-informed, passionate average voter, and thus a better government, then I am all for it. If it doesn't, then I am against it.

And in the absence of any conclusive information to the contrary, I have to believe a smaller number of informed voters is better for democracy than a large number of mostly uninformed voters, because those elected to office will be of higher quality and will perform better for the common good.

Are countries or states where voter turnout is high, any better "governed" or "represented" than those with low voter turnouts? Do those from low voter turnout areas or countries feel more "disenfranchised" or more prone to unresponsive, corrupt politicians? Should voting, be the ultimate virtuous end in itself? If so, why? Finland, Turkey, Iceland and Italy, just to mention a few, all have much higher voter turnout than the United States. Are their governments "better"? Ultimately, is there a correlation between voter turnout and good governance?

Internationally, U.S. voter participation ranks 139th out of 172 countries. We consistently have one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the industrialized world. The debate over what this all means, has been going on for years.

While the pundits, polls and political correspondents wring their hands and opine over voting issues, I will continue to do what I have done since I was 18: Talk to trusted friends and family, read up on candidates, analyze issues, read newspapers, try to cut through the political bull and march into the voting booth to cast my vote on Election Day. An hour out of my life is really not that big of a deal.

Jeff Merz is a member of the Waikiki Neighborhood Board and a former member of The Advertiser's Community Editorial Board.