WESTPORT–A total of 1,002 Westport voters had cast ballots in the November 2026 general election as of Tuesday afternoon, representing 5.24% of the town’s 19,123 eligible voters, according to the town’s election turnout figures.
The Town Clerk is providing real-time data on ballot count on the town’s website here.
The numbers include 745 early in-person votes and 257 absentee ballots. Early voting accounted for 3.90% of eligible voters, while absentee ballots represented another 1.34%. Deborah Greenberg, the Democratic Registrar of Voters, said the town has 11 election officials working every day, manning the early in-person voting location at Town Hall, 110 Myrtle Ave. The entrance to the voting location is through the rear of the building.
Residents who don’t vote early or by absentee ballot will head to the polls on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
A Sad Reflection on the State of Our Democracy.
This should not be viewed as a testament to success, but rather as a sad point in Connecticut’s political history. More than 5% of Westport’s eligible voters have already cast their ballots before hearing a single word of the gubernatorial debates, which begin Thursday.
Voting is one of the most important responsibilities we have as citizens. Yet how can we make an informed decision about who should lead our state if we are unwilling to listen to the candidates explain their positions, policies, and plans for Connecticut’s future?
This is not about which party wins. It is about the troubling tendency of people to vote along party lines rather than take the time to listen, evaluate, and make an informed choice based on what candidates actually say and propose.
Early voting is a valuable convenience, but when voters make their decisions without even considering the opportunity to hear the candidates debate the issues, we must ask ourselves whether we are truly choosing the best leaders or simply following political affiliations.
Democracy deserves more than party loyalty. It deserves informed voters who are willing to listen before they decide. That is what makes this early turnout more concerning than commendable.
Louis, this is partisan hackery.
The candidates have been campaigning for months. One might argue that anyone who hasn’t made up their mind by now hasn’t been paying attention.
That said, should I presume that you oppose the candidate for State Senate who backed out of debates against her opponent?
Chris, I think you may be overlooking the contradiction in your own argument. You say candidates have been campaigning for months and that anyone who hasn’t made up their mind by now hasn’t been paying attention. Yet you dismiss the value of debates, which serve a very different purpose than campaign speeches.
A campaign speech is rehearsed and delivered on a candidate’s terms. A debate requires candidates to think on their feet, answer challenging questions, defend their positions, and demonstrate how well they understand the issues. That distinction matters, especially when voters are deciding who should lead our state.
I also find it interesting that you label my comment “partisan hackery” rather than address the substance of it. Encouraging voters to hear candidates debate before casting their ballots is not a partisan position; it’s an argument for informed voting.
As for your question about the State Senate candidate who backed out of debates, I apply the same standard to every candidate, regardless of party. Voters deserve to hear candidates challenged on their positions before making a decision.
Which brings me to a question for you, Chris: Are you suggesting that voters have nothing left to learn from a debate, or are you simply uncomfortable with the possibility that your preferred candidate might be challenged in one? If we believe our candidates are prepared to lead, why wouldn’t we want them to demonstrate that ability in a debate before Election Day?
Democracy deserves more than prepared campaign messages and party loyalty. It deserves candidates willing to answer tough questions and voters willing to listen before they decide.
Louis, please don’t misquote me, I said “one might argue.”
If you don’t know who you will vote for without watching a debate, by all means, watch the debate. I don’t care. It’s not my business.
I voted on the first day of early voting – you shouldn’t care. It’s not your business.
Around 15% to 30% of registered voters watch governors race debates. I think it is fair to conclude that most voters don’t think they need the additional information that is obtained from those debates, in order to make their decision.
Common sense suggests to me that while something may be learned in a debate (primarily the opposing candidates skills at debating), many of us feel that we have enough knowledge of the candidates that nothing learned in a debate will change our votes.
I think early voting is good because I think that anything that makes it easier for most voters to participate is a good thing for the democracy. It prevents someone who has something unexpected happen on election day from not being able to vote. It allows someone who already knows their candidates of choice to get the task of voting accomplished so they don’t have to worry about it on one specific day.
You seem to be wanting to twist early voting into an attempt to deny voters the opportunity to be fully informed. I find that suggestion to be preposterous. Especially given the low viewership of said debates.
Ridiculous. The campaign has been in full swing for months. I’ve been to several events with candidates, and was given an opportunity to ask questions. I’ve personally met every candidate who I chose to vote for.
Vote early! There is enough info and track record to inform your decision. Debates a week before the polls close is at best a chance for last-minute voters to get informed. At worst, is is purely performative
Meeting candidates and attending campaign events is fine, but your personal experience doesn’t mean every voter has had the same opportunities or that there is nothing left to learn. Knowing a candidate personally and hearing them deliver a prepared campaign message is not the same as watching them defend their positions under pressure in a live debate.
Calling debates “purely performative” is a convenient way to dismiss an opportunity for voters to compare candidates and see how they respond when they can’t simply stick to a rehearsed script. The fact that you’ve already made up your mind doesn’t mean everyone else should stop asking questions.
Thomas Jefferson famously said, “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” That principle seems particularly relevant here. An informed electorate is not an inconvenience to a political campaign; it is a fundamental requirement of democracy.
Encouraging people to vote early is one thing. Suggesting they already have all the information they need before they’ve even heard the candidates debate is quite another. It raises a legitimate question: why are you so eager for people to vote now rather than hear the candidates answer challenging questions first? Is the goal to encourage informed decisions, or to get people to the polls before they have a chance to hear something that might change their minds?
If your preferred candidates are as qualified as you believe, they should have nothing to fear from a debate. Voters should never be pressured to confuse making a decision quickly with making an informed decision. Democracy is not a race to cast a ballot before asking the final questions. It’s about having the freedom and the opportunity to ask those questions before deciding.
I endorse any and all means for voters to educate themselves on the candidates and issues. My point is simply there have been ample opportunities to meet with candidates and ask questions. Tough questions. I don’t need a formal debate ask tough questions.
Some people like the debate format, and good for them.
It is up to voters to figure out their votes. Some of us prefer to not wait until the last minute.
Early voting is a welcome option; you are choosing to label those of us who vote early as hasty and showing no critical thinking skills.
I’ve heard all the talk points because I’ve been paying attention, For me, debates are contrived. If you like a debate, go for it.
Louis, if you want to discuss the state of our democracy, let’s not target and shame early voters. There are surely more appalling things happening in politics that people who have made their decisions and want to exercise their vote.
How many unaffiliated do you think there are in Connecticut? 10%? 20%? There are more than 40% unaffiliated votes in Connecticut. Think about that for a moment. The candidates that are chosen by either party are selected by a minority of voters. We must adopt ranked-choice voting in Connecticut and break free from this unhealthy duopoly. If a third candidate comes along and I want to vote for that person, I would like to do that without fear of taking away votes from my second choice candidate.
Joe, I am not targeting or shaming early voters. I support political debates before voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots, so they can make the most informed decisions possible. That is an argument for informed democracy, not an attack on anyone’s right to vote early.