We haven’t had a single presidential debate yet, neither presidential candidate has voted on the proposed $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street, and Al Qaeda has yet to spring the October surprise that our Eli Lake reported it is plotting. Nevertheless, voters are already casting presidential absentee ballots in Virginia, Georgia, and Kentucky.

Here in New York City, the Board of Election says ballots won’t be ready until the second week of October. Good. We’re all for making it possible for any bona fide voter to participate in our democracy, but it is still September. Baseball is still in the regular season. Some of these voters could be dead by Election Day.

The way things are headed, by the time 2012 rolls around, the general election voting will begin before the parties have even chosen their candidates. The states have broad latitude to set their own rules on elections, but if voting this early becomes more common, Congress may want to think about trying to establish some national standards.

A USA Today article this week on the trend called it “the most extensive early voting process in history” and said it was driven by the desire of bureaucrats to avoid long lines at polling sites on Election Day. The article quoted the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Rosemary Rodriguez, as calling the early voting — which is estimated to be taken advantage of by as many as 50% of voters in some states — “a sea change” and “a little bit astounding.”

The Constitution is less than clear-cut about the matter. On one hand, it says that each state shall appoint, “in such matter as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors.” That gives the states broad latitude to do things however they want. On the other hand, it says, “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” The references to a “day” and “time” suggest an election conducted over a period shorter than the stretch between now and Election Day.

The Founder’s Constitution, a compendium of basic documents, reports that during the debate on ratifying the Constitution, this clause in Article II of the Constitution was a matter of contention in North Carolina: “Mr. J. Taylor objected to the power of Congress to determine the time of choosing the electors, and to determine the time of electing the President, and urged that it was improper to have the election on the same day throughout the United States.”

He worried that “Congress, not satisfied with their power over the time, place, and manner of elections of representatives, and over the time and manner of elections of senators, and their power of raising an army, wished likewise to control the election of the electors of the President; that by their army, and the election being on the same day in all the states, they might compel the electors to vote as they please.”

Joseph Story’s commentary on the Constitution calls the wisdom of the clause “almost self-evident. Every reason of public policy and convenience seems in favour of a fixed time of giving the electoral votes, and that it should be the same throughout the Union.” We’re aware of the distinction between giving electoral votes and giving the individual votes that determine the electoral votes, but some of the same reasoning in favor applies.

The presidency, after all, is a national office, and, as one of the North Carolinians answering Mr. J. Taylor’s objection put it, “It is probable that the man who is the object of the choice of thirteen different states, the electors in each voting unconnectedly with the rest, must be a person who possesses, in a high degree, the confidence and respect of his country.” It’s said that the early bird gets the worm, but in the case of voting it isn’t clear the proverb applies.