Given our uber-connected society, there’s something terrifically old-fashioned about voting. A real person checks your voter registration, hands over a weirdly hued ballot, directs you into a flimsy booth with a thin curtain and, with a black marker, democracy is done.

Considering we can now carry the works of William Shakespeare on our iPhones, this is positively quaint.

For years, it’s been thought technology would change voting. Since the 2000 presidential election cast awkward attention on mechanical ballot counters (remember hanging and pregnant chads?) the assumption has been that high-tech solutions will ride to the rescue.

They haven’t. Voting’s importance and sensitivity almost precludes it from becoming too technical. To ensure the greatest possible ballot access (and the least possible controversy) voting must be simple, inexpensive, plentiful and — to use a fashionable buzzword — “citizen agnostic.”

Technology is not known for delivering things that are simple, inexpensive and usable by everyone. And, so far, nascent electronic or Internet voting programs haven’t produced enough positive results to spur widespread introduction. They just aren’t there yet.

But our social and cultural evolution will change voting. So, if not through technology, then how?

Timing.

This year, Maine introduced early voting in nine communities, which essentially expands upon the existing system of absentee voting. Across the country, one-third of states have adopted some version of early balloting, as an alternative to Election Day.

In Portland, the city is reporting its record for absentee balloting in a non-presidential year has already been broken. This is assuredly because of the scope of Maine’s six ballot questions, but it also must stem from the attractiveness of voting at one’s convenience, instead of only during one period.

There are many advantages to early voting. Less pressure on the polls, certainly, which could mean lower public costs for running elections (a chronic concern). Fewer votes cast at the last minute could accelerate the results, offer more time for reviewing discrepancies, and lead to greater integrity. (For example, say a ballot is unclear or confusing. It’s better remedied well before Election Day, than risk suffering through a repeat of Florida 2000.)

Early voting is changing the traditional American Election Day into more of a Deadline Day, after which the votes count, even if most of them have already been counted. The measure of success for early voting is turnout; if convenience leads to greater participation, it is hard to argue against it.

The country is changing and voting will change with it. This doesn’t mean we should cast ballots through a retrofitted ATM machines, however.

Not when it’s simpler, and more successful, to give people a little more time.

[email protected]