A proposed amendment to the Connecticut Constitution that would allow early voting in the state is moving through the legislature. Approving the amendment would not create early voting, but it would give lawmakers the authority to approve laws enacting it.

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill is pushing for approval of the amendment. Among the Democrat's campaign pledges during the election was to work to make voting easier and more convenient in Connecticut. Currently, a citizen cannot even pick up an absentee ballot for ease of voting unless they provide an oath stating that they cannot be present at a polling place Election Day.

Boosting turnout has been the driving motivation behind the early voting movement. The logic seems to make sense. Hold an election on a single day, one that may be inconvenient for some citizens, and fewer people will participate. Conversely, hold an election over several days through an early voting system and more people will vote.

However, according to several studies of jurisdictions using early voting, that is not what happens. If there is any influence, it is fewer people turning out. How could this be?

The primary predictors of who votes are individual characteristics, not convenience. Political scientists have documented a direct correlation between education, age and income and probability of voting. The more educated, older and the higher the income of an individual the greater the probability he or she will vote. Those are exactly the same types of individuals who show up in greater numbers to vote early.

Conversely, marginal voters may be lulled into inaction by the convenience of early voting. They plan to get around to it, but without the urgency of a single day, Election Day, some never do. That was the conclusion of a University of Wisconsin study of early-voting patterns in the 2008 election. The excitement and civic engagement of Election Day, with neighbors talking about voting, may be more likely to get a marginal voter to the polls than the chance to vote early.

Early voting is also more expensive, with polling stations having to be staffed for the extra days the polls are open. States using early voting typically have fewer early voting polls, but costs are still higher. If it does not boost turnout, what is the point?

There is an exception, at least when it comes to cost. Oregon's early voting system costs substantially less. Since 1998 Oregonians have voted by mail. The state no longer has a traditional Election Day or election polling places.

The new system has the overwhelming support of voters, with an approval rating of 80 percent. The disabled, homemakers, retirees and individuals ages 26-38, many busy raising children, particularly like it, concluded a study by Political Science Prof. Priscilla L. Southwell of the University of Oregon. Registered voters in Oregon receive their ballots three weeks before "Election Day."

As with other early elections, voting by mail does not boost turnout in general elections, concluded an analysis by Thad Kousser, an associate professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego and Megan Mullin, an associate professor of Political Science at Temple University. However, the Kousser/Mullin study did find some evidence of increased turnout for local and special elections. They speculate the arrival of a mail-in ballot reminds some to vote in elections that otherwise get little attention.

The next step beyond the Oregon model could well be some form of electronic voting, with citizens casting their votes via their computers and iPhones. There would have to be safeguards, but in an age when corporations routinely make billion-dollar electronic transactions, that should be a solvable challenge.

The Connecticut General Assembly should propose a constitutional amendment to provide the state options for change. If both the House and Senate pass the amendment by three-quarters majority vote, it would appear on the ballot in November 2012. Otherwise, the amendment could reach the ballot for voters in November 2014 if the House and Senate pass it this year and again 2013.

If an amendment passes, the legislature should seriously consider bypassing incremental changes and consider adopting the Oregon model.

But whatever changes are adopted, it appears one maxim will remain true. People who care will vote, while people who don't, won't.

Paul Choiniere is editorial page editor.