All of that is just a discussion of tactics and strategies, there is no moral or legal argument there for making any changes to procedures. If you make an argument like this, people will just shrug and say "If the Democrats can do it, why can't the Republicans?"
If you want to argue that voters are being intimidated into voting a certain way, well, that's the voter's issue. The voter is still, ultimately, making a choice to vote one way or another. No one is going to see what the voter actually wrote on the ballot unless the voter votes in front of the people in his house, which, there's no guarantee that's happening.
As far as whether voting before or after a debate, or having less information is more or less preferable, again, that's not an argument for changing policy. Some people are irresponsible with their voting. But a lot of those people wouldn't have bothered watching the debate to begin with, so why does it matter that they voted beforehand?
Any argument you are making here is trying to control or swing voters in one way or another. But people should be allowed to vote, however they like. Even if they don't know anything, even if they don't pay attention, even if they're just voting the way their mom or their wife wants them to, that's their choice. And they should still have a say in who runs the government. Even in the worst case scenario, when a person legitimately has no idea who they want to vote for and their mother tells them "vote for this person", and the guy turns around and votes the way his mother told him, that was still legitimate because the voter is saying "okay, well, my mom is a good person, she knows what's best, and I'm going to trust her". That is no different than someone who tunes in to a political pundit who argues for something and then agreeing to vote based on that pundit because "yeah, I trust that guy, he knows what he's talking about".
