SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal judge recently ruled that banning photos of ballots was unconstitutional:
The ruling clears the way for New Hampshire voters to post their ballot selfies during the first-in-the-nation presidential primaries early next year.
New Hampshire's ban went into effect September 2014 and made it illegal for anyone to post a photo of a marked ballot and share it on social media. The violation was punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.
[...] Mashable's Juana Summers adds that the judge found "there was no evidence that vote-buying or voter coercion were current problems in New Hampshire."
This seems like an interesting legal question, with good arguments on both sides:
- For the ban: If a photograph of a marked ballot is taken from the voting booth, then the voter can verify their vote with an interested third party, including those that would seek to purchase or coerce their vote.
- Against the ban: Such a photograph is protected free speech, and thus cannot be legally banned.
What do Soylentils think about this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:24PM
I Canada cameras are banned in polling booths. There is a new exemption of assistive devices (such as cell phone apps) intended for the blind.
This is part of the problem with e-voting as well. It is very hard to hold a secure but annonymous e-vote.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday August 24 2015, @11:24PM
Since the people who are going to buy or coerce the vote can easily make the person take a pic without posting it online, it's a bit moot.
If you want to deploy TSA scanners in front of the voting booth to ensure that people do not take videos of their vote, then you will actually address the potential problem. Rulings and laws won't.
Remind me why we don't travel and vote naked, again?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 24 2015, @11:59PM
On the other hand, there are a lot of things you are not allowed to take pictures of.
And these seem to pass constitutional muster.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:35AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:26PM
It seems to me that the root of the problem isn't potential coercion of voters but rather unchecked narcissism. It isn't enough to ban selfies with ballots: we must ban all selfies. If elected, I promise to work with Congress to end the degeneration of America's youth and the Hipster menace by making selfie-taking a criminal offense, punishable by caning: thirty strokes with a selfie-stick.
Separately, although in the same spirit, I promise to disenfranchise the young, most of whom vote wrong anyway.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:06AM
> thirty strokes with a selfie-stick
Good luck administering full 30 strokes using less than 10 sticks. Strength is not a design feature. I'm sure professional photographers would volunteer their high-end monopods or tripods as appropriate for the punishment.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday August 24 2015, @11:35PM
Yeah...and you know why that is?
Because we've got all these mechanisms in place to prevent it.
Like, you know? The secret ballot? The one where even the voters can't prove which vote was cast, even if they wanted to?
This is also why mail-in ballots are evil. Not that long ago, it was common for bosses to collect ballots and vote for their employees (if they wanted to keep their jobs), and for abusive spouses to vote for their not-so-significant-after-all lesser halves, and so on.
For why any inertia keeping such fraud from becoming widespread in the wake of deregulation will be short-lived...I present all y'all with the banking crisis and housing bubble and the rest, all direct products of deregulation justified by the exact same battle cry of, "Well, it's not a problem today!"
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:07AM
Yea, amazing what passes for 'thought' among progs. There isn't a problem because of the success of the very laws they just overthrew. In other words, they were tossed out because they worked. Of course they really aren't that stupid, they know exactly what they are doing, bringing back vote fraud and abuse. This is part of the same pattern where demanding a photo ID to vote is racist but you can't go into a courthouse to launch that case without showing one and that is ok.
They want to generally undermine the vote. Mail in ballots and extended voting are even more dangerous. But just wait, soon you will be expected to post a photo of your ballot to keep your job in political machines. Then in any job where SJW infection has hit critical mass. And of course posting the photo won't be the point, showing it marked 'the right way' will be.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:15AM
Not that long ago, it was common for bosses to collect ballots and vote for their employees
When was this? And exactly Where?
Mail in ballots are a relative new phenomena, so I can't imagine when you think this might have been common. Pretty sure you made that up. I found exactly zero hits in google about such a scheme. All it would take is ONE report to land someone in the slammer.
Washington State has gone to ALL vote by mail. Because its a Democrat run state, some rich people (Gates and Balmer among them) were allowed to use the election office address as their official address, as they don't accept mail at their actual address, until the press got ahold of it and put a stop to it.
Other than that, there hasn't been a single scandal about vote by mail. You still need to supply documentation to get on the voter roles, but the ballots come directly to you, and you can mail them back or take them to locked drop boxes (usually at fire stations).
In fact every horror story you actually hear about involved actual polling station ballots falling into the wrong hands in states that still use polling places.
Abusive husbands are usually too stupid to vote, and certainly don't give a rats ass who is on the school board.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:08AM
> Other than that, there hasn't been a single scandal about vote by mail. You still need to supply documentation to get on the voter roles,
I've posted this story before. Here it is again.
A girl I grew up with married a fox news 'fan.' In fact, he actually worked on the Kerry 'swiftboat' campaign and they got invited to (and attended) one of Bush inaugural balls for his efforts. She's not particularly political, just uncritically goes along to get along. Although I did have to tell her to quit forwarding me the raving looney chain-emails that circulate among people like that.
They live in San Francisco where voting republican will not make an iota of difference in presidential election results. But her family lives in Ohio. So they registered to vote by mail in Ohio at the address of one of her family members. When she told me about it, I showed her their names on the voter registration rolls for Ohio (which are public record) and she freaked out because all it takes is for someone to put two and two together and now they are facing felony charges. Lucky for her, no one is looking for republican voter fraud unlike the dedicated campaigns to find voter fraud related to the democratic party.
Now, that's not coercion (well she basically votes the way her husband tells her to) but it is a straight up example of fraud that was made 1000x easier by mail-in ballots.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:49AM
but it is a straight up example of fraud that was made 1000x easier by mail-in ballots.
Ohio does not have Vote by Mail. They have absentee ballots, which can be sent by mail, but that is NOT
the same thing, and EVERY state has absentee ballots.
So its not the same thing as vote by mail, where ALL ballots are mailed out every in-state voter.
If you are out of state, (not in Washington), you have to vote absentee, you can't use the normal vote
by mail.
If they were not legal residents of Ohio when they applied for the absentee ballot, then shame on Ohio,
for allowing them to register.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:28AM
> they have absentee ballots, which can be sent by mail, but that is NOT the same thing,
You seem really invested in splitting hairs. Its a difference of degree, not kind. The exact same exploit works in either case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:30AM
So why even bother banning people from posting selfies of themselves voting? Why reduce freedoms for zero real gain? It's clear that no idiot is coercing those selfie idiots to be idiots, they're being idiots of their own free will.
All you have to do is make it legal to wiretap without consent people who are trying to coerce your vote and make sure that those who do coerce go to jail for a long enough time.
That way you make bosses etc more nervous about trying such shit.
In fact the real pros in power just coerce those that continue to make gerrymandering easier. It's only the stupid amateurs who try to _force_ people to vote a certain way.
As for getting paid to vote, perhaps its unethical but I find it hard to feel much outrage against people who sell their vote willingly if it's their own vote to sell (e.g. they're not voting on behalf of anyone else but themselves, they're not representing other interests but their own). To me they're stupid if they sell their vote for too cheap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:04AM
Why reduce freedoms for zero real gain?
Whether there is gain or not, that doesn't affect the constitutionality of banning such pictures. That is, it's still a violation of the first amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:15PM
You are right, it is the photo that is the problem, not the posting of the photo.
But posting it makes it really easy to prove that they took the photo.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:14PM
You seem really invested in splitting hairs. Its a difference of degree, not kind. The exact same exploit works in either case.
No it doesn't.
Because states with All Mail ballots will not send ballots out of state except to APO/FPO/DPO (military) addresses.
Its not 1929 any more. Computerized systems weed out a great deal of out dated information, such as people moving
out of state, or simply from one town to another. These computerized checks happen in all states, but are especially effective in
vote by mail states.
Oregon's Secretary of state says [washingtonmonthly.com]:
What about fraud? Coercion? Stolen ballots? Other election mischief? After hundreds of millions of ballots cast, the actual incidents in Oregon- and then, only of individual voter fraud — can be counted on two hands.
They've been voting by mail since 2000.
Washington's Secretary of state says:
Contrary to allegations made by opponents to vote-by-mail, there have been no substantiated reports of voter coercion, such as a domineering spouse or a corrupt nursing home employee. It DOESN'T happen.
Allegations of Fraud
The most common criticism of voting by mail
is that it provides greater opportunity for fraud.
While this makes for interesting headlines, it
rarely proves to be true. Claims that elections
conducted through the mail have increased risk
over elections conducted at polls do not take into
account the levels of security implemented in
jurisdictions that vote heavily by mail.
States that have limited mail voting often lack
the security measures that ensure that the
person registered to vote was the person who
voted the ballot. Because these states lack a
structured security system to handle volumes of
mail ballots, journalists are frequently unaware
of the extensive security measures that are in
place in states deliberately structured for mail
voting. Critics often assume that absentee ballots
are simply accepted and counted, and are
often unaware of the crucial element that each
signature is examined against the signature on
file.
Following the 2004 General Election and the
subsequent gubernatorial recounts, both political
parties spent a combined total of $6.5 million
contesting the election and attempting to prove
that fraud occurred during the course of the
election. Despite the numerous problems with the
election cited by the judge, none were directly
linked to voting by mail
.
Contrary to allegations made by opponents to
vote-by-mail, there have been no substantiated
reports of voter coercion, such as a domineering
spouse or a corrupt nursing home employee.
Voters always have the option of coming to the
county elections department to cast their ballots.
Implementation of the statewide voter registration
database in 2006 has helped to ensure that only
those people eligible to vote receive ballots.
The voter registration database is screened daily for
duplicate registrations, monthly for deceased
voters, and quarterly for felons. The screenings
for duplicate registrations are especially important
since they contribute to the perception of voting
fraud and the assumption that people are voting
multiple ballots. In 2006:
• 39,814 duplicate voter registrations were
identified and cancelled accordingly;
• 40,105 registrations of deceased voters
were identified and cancelled accordingly;
• 4,500 registrations of convicted felons
were identified and cancelled accordingly;
and
• 91,954 active and inactive voter
registrations were cancelled for a variety of
reasons, including:
upon the voter’s request;
the voter moved and failed to
reregister;
the voter moved out of state; or
the voter had been on inactive
status for more than two federal
elections, a time period established
in federal law.
Conclusion
Voting by mail increases turnout, simplifies the
elections process, and promotes an informed
citizenry. But above all else, the people of
Washington strongly support it.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/documentvault/WashingtonStatesVotebyMailExperienceOctober2007-2066.pdf [wa.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:51AM
Now, that's not coercion (well she basically votes the way her husband tells her to) but it is a straight up example of fraud that was made 1000x easier by mail-in ballots.
It also makes it easier for innocent people to vote. Are you suggesting we take it away merely because it's abused in some cases?
(Score: 3, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:48AM
I see you've also forgotten the history of the labor rights movement. You do know why we ostensibly have 40-hour five-day work weeks with paid overtime, no? And what it took to get it?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:00AM
Now you are just grasping at straws.
Vote by mail is a new construct circa 2008, and never happened during the heyday of labor unions.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:23AM
Huh? Are you trying to demonstrate technological incompetence? Do you seriously think that it makes a difference if you put a stamp on the ballot, or that the anti-union managers of history would even have noticed this irrelevant trivia you're trying to distract us with?
"Oh, no, Mr. Moneybags! The union has decided to mail their ballots in rather than put them in the box by the door! We'll never be able to mark their ballots for them now!"
"Mr. Smith, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times. No smoking opium in the whorehouse during your lunch break! Now get back out there, mark those ballots -- and, before you ask, your pen is behind your ear as always."
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:03AM
He does seem to have a peculiar fixation on vote by mail. I wonder why that is.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:12AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:30AM
Erm...you do realize that America's economy lags significantly behind, for example, Germany's, where 40-hour work weeks are excessive and a mere two weeks of vacation is incomprehensible? Their worker productivity puts ours to shame.
The Protestant work ethic has killed the spirit of the American worker, and the Prosperity Gospel is turning American workers into their own slavemasters. We'll only have a chance of surviving when people get fed up with this bullshit about 50-, 60-, 80-hour weeks with multiple jobs and no overtime and no vacation and no sick leave and still get fired on the slightest whim. It's exactly this insanity that led us to the breaking point and the uprisings of the Labor Movement a century or so ago...and it won't be that long before it explodes in everybody's faces again.
I just hope that, this time, the lessons finally stick....
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:06AM
Erm...you do realize that America's economy lags significantly behind, for example, Germany's
The US still has a much higher GDP per capita and lower cost of living. And we'll see what happens to Germany in the future, especially given its energy policy (doubling of electricity prices and the ending of its nuclear plants program) and exposure to the EU's economic and regulatory mess.
The Protestant work ethic has killed the spirit of the American worker
Just like it killed the spirit of the German worker who created that work ethic?
We'll only have a chance of surviving when people get fed up with this bullshit about 50-, 60-, 80-hour weeks with multiple jobs and no overtime and no vacation and no sick leave and still get fired on the slightest whim.
Who here really thinks the problem is that people overly love 80-hour work weeks, multiple jobs, and getting fired on a whim? Or that they need to learn those things are bad in whatever sense you think is bad? Or that mandating 40 hour work weeks before overtime somehow is an educational event?
I think the problem here is that your thinking is fucked up. Fix plz.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:21AM
> I think the problem here is that your thinking is fucked up. Fix plz.
Mirrors. You need one.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:27AM
Then you blather on about how people are dumb enough that they would rather work "50-, 60-, 80-hour weeks with multiple jobs and no overtime and no vacation and no sick leave and still get fired on the slightest whim". Do you really believe that people would even slightly want to do that? I don't buy it. And given that the discussion was originally about the 40 hour work week, what does that have to do with people learning that lots of work can be no fun?
Some of my rebuttals are obvious and some are just pointing out that a portion of your original arguments made no sense. Yet I should look in the mirror why? I'm not the one arguing that people need to learn that working 80 hours a week is bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:20PM
Here is your problem. I recognize that it will fall on 100% deaf ears, but I am drunk so I will write it anyway.
Your focus on libertarian theories is incredibly narrow. You are blinded to the realities of the world by your focus on your simplistic theory of human nature. Maybe in a perfect theoretical world with no transactional friction your theories would constitute an accurate model of human behaviour, but the real world is chaotic and human motivations and interactions are 1000x more complicated than your trivializations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:43PM
Further, I note in these sorts of discussions, an appeal to complexity is usually just a brazen fallacy to support what the poster wants to do, no matter the facts. If you have a better model, then feel free to share it. If you're just going to observe that full human interaction is complex, I have no use for it. That doesn't tell me whether someone is going to make a new, successful soft drink company or pull over a vending machine while trying to get that free Pepsi. We don't have to understand the full complexity in order to observe and discuss outcomes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:28PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @04:04AM
Except the French work less but are far more productive, [businessinsider.com] and have been the most productive country in the world for a long time now, so if you're saying 40 hours isn't enough to maximize productivity, the evidence proves you wrong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 26 2015, @06:14AM
Except the French work less but are far more productive
The story says they're about 2% more productive (by the metric of GDP) per hour of labor and they work about a sixth less hours per year. So no, they're not far more productive, especially per year.
To this in perspective, I think everyone agrees that past a certain point there are diminishing returns to how productive someone can be working more hours. That is one of the justifications for not just working 80 hour weeks all the time. So why should we expect that if France were to extend its hours worked to the longer US hours that their slim per hour advantage will stay?
so if you're saying 40 hours isn't enough to maximize productivity, the evidence proves you wrong.
It's also worth noting that jobs differ in what leads to maximal productivity. There are some jobs where 40 hours per week is way too much, especially for jobs where deep thinking is most of the job. And there are other jobs where 80 hours a week just isn't that bad a deal, like some law/contracting firms where billable work is so profitable that it's worth the productivity hit (especially if the client doesn't care or know about the productivity hit).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @04:00AM
We don't, and haven't for 10+ years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:24PM
The secret ballot? The one where even the voters can't prove which vote was cast, even if they wanted to?
The ballot doesn't count unless it goes in the box. After you take the selfie, you can go back to the poll attendants and ask them to discard the ballot and give you a fresh one, then fill that in with different votes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @12:01AM
>Not that long ago, it was common for bosses to collect ballots and vote for their employees
The modern version of this is corporations using the 5000$ donation allotment of their employees; instead of controlling the votes directly, our bosses pay for the candidates to get the votes via expensive marketing.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 31 2015, @04:53PM
This wasn't technically vote buying, but one incident I will always remember: A group showed up at my grandmother's nursing home in New Hampshire shortly before the 2000 primary, with the goal of helping the residents vote absentee. So far, so good, right? Except that the ballots were helpfully pre-marked to vote for George W Bush in the Republican primary, and a lot of the residents who were too feeble-minded to really understand what was going on just signed their name.
And that's why I'm suspicious of vote-by-mail schemes: At a polling place, you can relatively easily control access to the ballots and the voters. Vote-by-mail or vote-by-Internet, and you have no idea what's going on around them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:37PM
> - Against the ban: Such a photograph is protected free speech, and thus cannot be legally banned.
For all the lofty rhetoric, ultimately free speech is a means to an end - a society where power is measured by the ballot, not by the dollar. Does this use of speech endanger that? Yes. Is it a significant danger? Probably not. Especially since it isn't terribly difficult to take a pic with one ballot and then actually submit another one.
Now, someone taking a video of them filling out the ballot and putting it in the ballot box? That would be a significantly bigger risk. Take your ballot selfie - just don't provide photographic proof that you voted with that ballot. An election needs a little mystery.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:02AM
Not exactly convenient, at least in Maricopa County. For reasons that should be obvious, you're only given one ballot. If you make a mistrake, you can exchange that one for a new one, The old is clearly marked in the presence of the voter as, "SPOILED," and placed in an official envelope and included in the tally at the end of the day. (if the number of ballots received doesn't equal the number cast plus the number spoiled plus the number untouched, or if the number cast doesn't match the number who signed in, the precinct's board inspector is in deep shit.) You're only permitted to have one ballot in your hands at a time; you can't have the spoiled one to refer to or whatever. And there's a limit of three total ballots you can be given...spoil the third and you're not voting that election.
And cameras are explicitly and strictly and unequivocally prohibited in the polling place, with pictures of ballots the sort of thing that can get a Sheriff's deputy on the scene in record time.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:17AM
You're only permitted to have one ballot in your hands at a time; you can't have the spoiled one to refer to or whatever. And there's a limit of three total ballots you can be given
You only need one ballot to sell your vote, and two ballots to prove your vote and then to vote however you want. If you are afforded privacy to fill the ballot, you can take any photo you want. If you are not afforded privacy, your vote is not free.
I personally think that certain conditions for voting must exist - such as proven fluency in politics. The test can be built into the same voting machines. Pool of 1,000 questions, you answer 100 questions, must correctly answer 80. People who are so much involved will not be too eager to sell their vote (or, at least, to sell it if they'd rather vote differently.) There is no benefit from votes of people who do not know what's happening. I'd rather prefer that the country is directed by 100,000 smart folks than by 100,000,000 idiots.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by iwoloschin on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:30AM
In many areas you get a little desk with 3 sides to protect your ballot, but no back. You have plenty of privacy, but no easy opportunity to take a selfie. Of course, the old ladies running the polling place aren't going to put up much of a fight...
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:47AM
In such a configuration all you need is a small mirror that you put onto the ballot. Then you take the picture of the ballot; the booth's walls would be sufficient for that. The mirror will insert your face into the photo. If the voter needs to prove the vote right after exiting the polling place, he has no time to use GIMP or Photoshop on the picture.
IMO, if the voter is so stupid as to sell his vote, he deserves all that follows. Unfortunately, voters are already selling their votes for the privileges and monies that the candidates are promising them from TV screens. Fight against proof of voting is a technological solution of a social problem - and as such it is doomed to fail. Widespread vote buying is not occurring because it is not practical. It's much easier to speak on TV and promise to pay every citizen some money. I don't recall if Arnold talked about that in advance, but that's what he did when he reverted Gray Davis' decision on some new DMV taxes. Not only that was legal - it was taxpayers' money.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:20AM
Widespread vote buying is not occurring because it is not practical.
Think about what you just wrote. Why is vote buying not practical? A key reason is because you can't determine who the voter voted for. I'm not that big a fan of anonymous voting (because I don't buy that the "paper trail" is that useful in preventing vote fraud), but a key point of it is that vote buying is impractical precisely because of the anonymity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:52AM
That is one reason, but the other reason, implicit in GP's comparison to campaign promises, still holds. Vote buying is mostly impractical because it costs your own campaign money up front, regardless of the outcome; OTOH, campaign promises cost nothing if you lose, cost public money if you win and choose to follow through, and still cost nothing if you win and "fail" to secure the promised benefits for your constituents, e.g. because the other party's legislators conveniently blocked it. Of course you can just plain ol' renege, but the tried-my-best,-was-foiled routine is less damaging to your chances of re-election.
(Coercing votes e.g. under threat of firing is far more realistic threat, and a better argument for the secret ballot.)
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:01AM
In many areas you get a little desk with 3 sides to protect your ballot, but no back. You have plenty of privacy, but no easy opportunity to take a selfie. Of course, the old ladies running the polling place aren't going to put up much of a fight...
... they'll simply refer the security guards to you...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:44AM
As long as I get to write the questions, I'm fine with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:21AM
> As long as I get to write the questions, I'm fine with that.
And I'm fine with it too, but only if I get to write the questions.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:51AM
Being required to prove intelligence and/or knowledge in order to vote is a nice idea, but it's far too easy to pervert any such test to exclude certain groups if people. There's also the fact that even those in office wouldn't be able to agree on most of the answers.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:29AM
Being required to prove intelligence and/or knowledge in order to vote is a nice idea, but it's far too easy to pervert any such test to exclude certain groups if people.
You can say the same about any law - does that mean that we ought to have no laws because they can be perverted? A short and simple law would be nearly impossible to misuse; if that misuse does occur then there is no point in democratic rituals - the society is no longer democratic anyway.
I received today a census request - had to fill some forms online. There was nothing to fill on paper and mail in. Does that punish people who have no Internet access and no means whatsoever to get one, even in a library?
There's also the fact that even those in office wouldn't be able to agree on most of the answers.
There would be no need to vote if they could agree. I want competent people to voice their opinion. We do not decide on mass of neutrino by voting - why is that, in your opinion? Why do we delegate this problem to specially educated people? If that makes sense in physics, why does the same not make sense in social sciences?
(Score: 5, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:32AM
Oh, good lord.
First, been there, done that, got the disenfranchisement [wikipedia.org]. Seriously. Simply even offering that suggestion is highly insensitive at best, and typically expected from unabashed racists yearning for the good ol' days.
Second...an hundred questions? Seriously? That's more than the typical end-of-semester college final exam. So you're expecting people to spend a couple hours in the voting booth proving they're literate, and then going to tell everybody who gets less than a B grade to go home without voting?
Fuck you, asshole. I mean, seriously. This is supposed to be a goddamned democratic republic, not some sort of oligarchy run by the philosopher-kings.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:55AM
Simply even offering that suggestion is highly insensitive at best, and typically expected from unabashed racists yearning for the good ol' days.
Racists??? Why do you introduce race into a simple question of competency? Isn't it racist to presume that literacy is *today* linked to the color of one's skin? Do you think that only black people are, and have to be, illiterate? I was born and grew up in a country that was 99.9999% white. All the criminals, all the idiots, all the drunkards were white. Perhaps those who grew up in the USA have a bias, but I do not. I cannot care less about races and genes and shades of colors - I only classify people by what they know and what they do.
Second...an hundred questions? Seriously?
No, not really :-) But you ought to prove that you are a competent citizen of the republic, and that your vote is not random. Note for those who do not pay attention: I'm saying nothing about skin color, and I'm meaning nothing either. I do not care who is the genius who manages the country - he could be a Martian. The only criteria is what they do. For example, IMO Obama is just as bad as W - not because he is black (or not) but because they both wage unnecessary wars and kill people who had never even seen the USA, let alone harmed it. (And don't think that I liked Clinton more, with his bombing of Serbia and other assorted aspirin factories.)
This is supposed to be a goddamned democratic republic, not some sort of oligarchy run by the philosopher-kings.
This is an entirely different discussion - and indeed I am partial to the idea of philosopher-kings.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:16AM
Because, historically, in the States, tests such as you describe have only ever been used in practice to prevent Blacks from voting.
Then, may I suggest?
Before you make an even bigger asshole out of yourself than you've already repeatedly done, shut the fuck up until you get some basic competency in American history. You've already more than demonstrated you would spectacularly fail any high school civics test which could even hypothetically be used as a model for this insane guaranteed-to-be-used-for-gross-disenfranchisement literacy test you're suggesting, so what the fuck makes you think you're even remotely qualified to suggest we implement one?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by albert on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:15AM
That was then, this is now. You're the one being racist. Such a test would eliminate worthless votes by people of all races.
It wouldn't affect merely the vote. It would change the choices being offered and the nature of campaigns. There would be a lot less distracting nonsense if the parties knew that the voters were smart and well-educated. For those who might hope to be reelected or have some other influence in future elections, the way they rule us would change.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:08AM
> Such a test would eliminate worthless votes by people of all races.
For your personal definition of "worthless" sure.
Any sort of testing requirement will just result in pandering to the type of people able to pass the test and ignoring the people who can't pass the test.
Just like any other sort of benchmark ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @04:08AM
Because racism ended when a black president was elected, right?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:48AM
Because, historically, in the States, tests such as you describe have only ever been used in practice to prevent Blacks from voting.
Why don't you allow a possibility that, after SEVERAL GENERATIONS, such tests won't be used in practice for suppression of votes? Don't you see that every campaign is asking people to get out and vote? Don't you see that the white population of the USA is largely, predominantly not racist?
Why would it be even beneficial to anyone to suppress black vote nowadays? Can you answer that question? What party, out of the one party that is out there, would benefit from such a thing? Cui bono? You are accusing me of knowing little; then please educate me and many other SN readers who were not born and raised in the USA - why would anyone want to suppress black vote?
It looks like you are clinging to the old model, and that model is all that you can ever imagine existing. However the USA had voting qualifications initially; then they were changed; then they were removed. Do you like what you see? If yes, then please disregard my opinion, and opinions of others, since everything is just peachy. If no, then perhaps we can civilly discuss what can be done to fix the problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:31PM
A couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that voting rules changes in states with a history of preventing black people from voting no longer needed to get federal approval as they had previously under the Voting Rights Act of 1964. The very next day, those state governments were busy passing laws that were known to have the effect of preventing black people from voting.
Of course, it could be that instead of trying to disenfranchise black people, they were trying to disenfranchise Democrats (black people are by far the most Democrat-heavy demographic). But it sure looks suspicious.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:23PM
Of course, it could be that instead of trying to disenfranchise black people, they were trying to disenfranchise Democrats (black people are by far the most Democrat-heavy demographic).
Racism by proxy. Once upon a time racists didn't bother to disguise their racism, now they have to resort to one level of indirection. That is progress because the more levels of indirection we can force them to use, the more diffused their results. We will never eliminated racism, the best we can hope for is that it is spread around equally.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:07AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:40AM
Does it matter if they don't vote? I think not.
Assume for the sake of argument that there is one leadership and one party, the rich guys who finance the whole thing. And they have two candidates who tell different PR story lies and compete on whos better at lying? This is not so far fetched, the current prez ran on "change" but what he actually did was the 3rd and 4th Bush term, nobody can tell the difference. Given that there is no difference in outcome between the carefully preselected candidates, does it matter if some group get disenfranchised? Its not like there will be any policy changes. Claiming that it matters emotionally, would bolster the original claim that the only point in having elections is to pacify the masses, make them falsely think they have any power.
There is a second closely related argument that gerrymandering is so prevalent that you'd have to suppress votes to an insane level to have any congressional effects. Lets see, where I live for a D to win you'd have to toss out something like 70% of the white votes by making the vote test some kind of rap trivia challenge or writing the poll test in Spanish. Or in the inner city districts for a R to win, given that some districts are 90% black and they vote 99% D, you'd have to throw out an absolutely ridiculous fraction of all black votes, like pretty near all of them. This circulates back to the argument that voting doesn't matter, the system has been hacked, its a mere opiate of the masses. Your vote matters in the sense that if you vote consistently and don't move for decades then in a decade when they gerrymander the districts again your vote MIGHT matter (or maybe your district will vote only 79% R instead of 80%) But any individual vote is designed to be totally meaningless, even a great big pile like 5% to 10% of them doesn't matter.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:22PM
Yes, somebody can tell the difference:
- Anybody who got health insurance due to the ACA (about 16 million people).
- The population of Iran (77 million people), who isn't dealing with the same kind of mess Iraq and Afghanistan are because Obama resisted all the calls to attack them militarily.
- Anybody who wanted to visit Cuba.
- GLBT people working for federal agencies and contractors (unclear exactly how many that is, but an estimate of a couple million is probably not too far off).
- Residents of New York, New Jersey, and others affected by Hurricane Sandy, who got to experience competent emergency management instead of the complete idiocy on the Gulf Coast after Katrina.
And that's just a few differences off the top of my head. Obama was not America's greatest president or even close to it, he certainly wasn't Change we Could Believe In, but he also wasn't the disaster George W Bush was. I challenge people to name any aspect of the job of president that George W Bush got right other than the silly ceremonial stuff like pardoning a turkey or throwing the first pitch.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:28PM
> I challenge people to name any aspect of the job of president that George W Bush got right other than the silly ceremonial stuff
AIDS preventation. [vox.com]
I think Bush was a tool, but you only lose credibility by declaring his reign to be black and white.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:30AM
Racists??? Why do you introduce race into a simple question of competency?
People have a constitutional right to vote. Requiring that they complete some test before they're allowed to do so would violate the constitution.
As for that, the tests will naturally be corrupted to stop certain groups from voting, even if it isn't necessarily blacks. In fact, even if the tests aren't corrupted, it could eliminate poor and uneducated people from voting (which is your point, I think), which would make it impossible for them to improve their situations by means of voting; they would have to rely on the goodwill of The Enlightened Ones to help improve their lives so that one day they can finally be True Human Beings.
And who are you to decide for other people what is and is not an intelligent vote, or that people who fail these tests are incapable of voting in a way that they deem acceptable? This would be an all-around disaster.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:40PM
People have a constitutional right to vote.
We are discussing whether that is a good idea. That right was not built into the constitution by Framers - it was a process [wikipedia.org], and in case of women's rights, for example, it was not complete until 1920s [wikipedia.org].
Requiring that they complete some test before they're allowed to do so would violate the constitution.
It is obvious that such tests would require changes in the constitution. However no amendments are required to discuss such a thing.
And who are you to decide for other people what is and is not an intelligent vote, or that people who fail these tests are incapable of voting in a way that they deem acceptable?
As a person, I decide nothing. However I have the right to offer suggestions; the society will decide their worth. Isn't it so?
In fact, even if the tests aren't corrupted, it could eliminate poor and uneducated people from voting (which is your point, I think), which would make it impossible for them to improve their situations by means of voting; they would have to rely on the goodwill of The Enlightened Ones to help improve their lives so that one day they can finally be True Human Beings.
I say nothing about poor or rich, as that is not relevant. However uneducated people might be incapable of voting even to improve their own fate - just as you do not trust a 3 y/o child to walk around the neighborhood. An uneducated person may become educated if they wish so; every political party will be happy to be involved.
Here is another possibility, thought about by Robert A. Heinlein. A person does not get full citizenship, with right to vote, just because he happened to be born to citizens, or on the territory of this country. A person earns that full citizenship by becoming a citizen - and that might involve military service, as an example, or by doing some other service to the society (esp. for women).
“Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.”
The status quo is largely equivalent to 3 y/o children voting for those who promise them more candies. No amount of political correctness can justify that managers of the most powerful country on this planet are elected by people who can't say how far Turkey is from Syria, and why it matters (just as an example.) This situation leads to another - those elected managers have a blank check to rule however they want, since their electors do not bother to understand, and rarely demand explanations from the executive. That's hardly democracy - it's more like elected monarchy. Funny that US Presidents and their wives have their own court and seemingly unlimited expense account for personal trips and entertainment, just like kings.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:19PM
As a person, I decide nothing. However I have the right to offer suggestions; the society will decide their worth. Isn't it so?
You have the right, but you should be ignored, just as people who support mass surveillance should be ignored.
I say nothing about poor or rich, as that is not relevant.
Completely wrong. Poor people tend to have an inferior education. It is they that would be oppressed by your silly proposed policies.
However uneducated people might be incapable of voting even to improve their own fate
You don't get to decide that for them. They have their own goals and desires. Whether they can fulfill them is their own choice.
The status quo is largely equivalent to 3 y/o children voting for those who promise them more candies.
But it is fundamentally immoral to deny people the fundamental right to vote simply because they can't pass some completely arbitrary test.
Furthermore, your 'solution' would fix *nothing*. People who are literate and educated often vote for horrible pieces of garbage. Our one party system would not go away because you force people to pass some arbitrary test before they're able to vote.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:31PM
You have the right, but you should be ignored, just as people who support mass surveillance should be ignored.
Huh? What kind of rights do you propose for your Utopia that have no meaning?
Poor people tend to have an inferior education.
Does not follow. Everyone gets sufficient education these days. Were you asleep for the last century? Or, perhaps, you live in Somalia? :-)
You don't get to decide that for them.
Correct. That's why an impersonal, technical questionnaire is proposed. Like math. I don't get to decide what 2+2 is - the laws of nature do. I do not want to live in a house that was designed by an architect who cannot do math. It is not a universal human right to be an architect - not any more than to be a Prime Minister or a member of Congress.
But it is fundamentally immoral to deny people the fundamental right to vote simply because they can't pass some completely arbitrary test.
Not proven. And how would one prove morality or immorality of something that exists only in public opinion? Ask yourself another question. Is it fundamentally immoral to deny people the right to drive their own car if they cannot pass some completely arbitrary test? If it is immoral, then you will be responsible for the carnage. If it is moral, then why we think it's OK to prohibit driving their own car, but not OK to impose some conditions on their right to tell you and everyone else how the country should be governed? Let's bring the situation to absurd: a voter is entirely illiterate and votes randomly. Do you want his vote? If yes, why? What does his vote do, from the statistical point of view?
Furthermore, your 'solution' would fix *nothing*. People who are literate and educated often vote for horrible pieces of garbage. Our one party system would not go away because you force people to pass some arbitrary test before they're able to vote.
So we are doomed, right?
People who are literate and educated can indeed be still wrong. However the chance of them being wrong is much lower. An uneducated voter hears on TV a siren song of a candidate that he will print and distribute $10,000 to every citizen as a subsidy. The voter is happy and votes for that candidate. A sophisticated voter will realize that this plan will add to the debt and will require increase of taxes - or further destruction of the USD - to pay for it. At very least that voter will ask for clarification - such as who is going to pay for the plan, and what will they get out of it, and how will that affect the country's standing. You do not accept those credit card offers that come in the mail, do you?
Something like that had, actually, happened with ACA. People did not know what the law says; even lawmakers did not read the bill. Now the people are finding out that it's not someone else, but them who will be financing the ACA. As result [washingtonexaminer.com],
The individual mandate has always been extremely unpopular. In December 2014, just a couple of months ago, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 64 percent of those surveyed don't like the mandate. The level of disapproval has been pretty consistent since the law was passed.
Of course smarter observers - who are always present on political forums - could predict that exactly this will happen. They were not listened to, and the lawmakers used the disorganized and largely ambivalent public opinion to adopt the law. Now everyone is forced to buy a commercial product that they may not even want.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:34PM
Huh? What kind of rights do you propose for your Utopia that have no meaning?
What the fuck are you talking about? I said that you have the right to speak your mind, but that actual policy makers should ignore your authoritarian nonsense.
Everyone gets sufficient education these days.
Then you don't know what education is, because it isn't simply memorizing facts, patterns, and procedures and spewing it all back on poorly-designed standardized tests. That's what the 'education' most people receive actually is. No deep understanding of the material required.
And if you truly believed that, your tests would be utterly useless by your own admission.
Correct. That's why an impersonal, technical questionnaire is proposed.
Guess who will design the test? Humans. Humans that can easily be corrupted. Humans that make many mistakes. There is no scientific evidence that any arbitrary test you could come up with would help stop people from voting in 'bad' ways. Because there is no 'bad'; that's subjective. This entire issue is 100% subjective. They simply have different values and desires than you, for whatever reason.
It's like arguing for mass surveillance; you just look like a fool.
Not proven.
What, like the fact that your tests will have any actual impact on whatever it is that you don't like (Don't pretend that's not what this is about; you very likely wouldn't be putting forward this nonsense unless you wanted to stop certain people who you don't agree with from voting.)? Yeah, it's not proven. There is, however, historical evidence that such tests will be used for oppression.
Is it fundamentally immoral to deny people the right to drive their own car if they cannot pass some completely arbitrary test?
Those things are completely unrelated, because choosing who leads the country can be the difference between oppression and freedom. Furthermore, there is no direct harm here, unlike with car accidents. All 'harm' will necessarily be indirect That is also why we have a constitution: To put a limit on the government's power, even if the majority wants otherwise. Well, that's the idea, anyway.
And it's still just a matter of you subjectively not liking other people's voting choices and then proposing we violate their fundamental rights by taking their choice away. What you value and what they value is different.
People who are literate and educated can indeed be still wrong. However the chance of them being wrong is much lower.
That's hilarious, given that we're talking about politics. I see all sorts of 'educated' people who would pass your worthless tests making all sorts of choices I deem foolish. It's not "much lower"; it's hardly lower at all. You seem to be assuming your tests would greatly reduce these 'problems', but I see no evidence of that.
But even if your scheme had such 'benefits', I would reject it.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:37PM
I do not care who is the genius who manages the country - he could be a Martian.
Valentine Michael Smith 2016!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:46AM
Sorry, too dangerous. It is a fact of life that education is correlated with wealth. So ultimately the wealthy people will do the elections. They will not be the only voters, but the majority. And that in turn will even more than today promote politics that's targeted at pleasing those with money, because now they not only pay the campaigns, they also decide the election. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that this will not end well for the poor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:42AM
Not exactly convenient, at least in Maricopa County. For reasons that should be obvious, you're only given one ballot. If you make a mistrake, you can exchange that one for a new one, The old is clearly marked in the presence of the voter as, "SPOILED,"
Vote coercion is going to be rare enough that exchanging a ballot as you described is convenient enough.
IF we start seeing selfie-based coercion happening, we can deal with it. The GOP has done a fantastic job of dealing with impersonation and photo-id with only the flimsiest of evidence that it's a problem. I'm sure they would be get right on it!
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Fluffeh on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:40AM
Against the ban: Such a photograph is protected free speech, and thus cannot be legally banned.
Given that even as a non-United States of American, I understand that the whole "Free Speech" that the US has means you can SAY it, but it DOES NOT mean that there aren't consequences to doing it. In this case, the concept of Free Speech means no-one can STOP you doing it, but it certainly doesn't mean that they can't punish you for doing it later.
Consider libel laws or something similar. Can you say it? Yes. Is it protected by "Free Speech" yes. Can you get taken to court over it later? Yup.
While I wouldn't have really considered that a selfie could be used to "prove" that someone voted the way another wanted them to vote, I guess it's possible. I don't really have a problem with selfies being banned inside a polling booth with the contents of the ballot identifiable. Amusingly the $1k fine just means that if you REALLY want to show off who you voted for, you better be prepared for the cost of doing so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:17AM
Actually you are confused.
Freedom of speech, in the USA, means freedom from consequences from the government for your speech.
Punishment for libel isn't about not being free from consequences, its about libel being an issue for the civil courts rather than criminal courts. It is impossible to libel the government, only other citizens (and corporations are citizens too).
There is a line as to what is considered libel and that line is influenced by american society's beliefs about freedom of expression, but that's not a constitutional issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:13PM
Guess what they'll actually give you when you ask for smaller Gov? They'll outsource stuff to Corporations. It's not like they'll actually chop stuff in most cases.
It'll be easier for small Gov + Big Corporations to screw you.
Freedom of speech does not apply on Facebook. Right to bear arms does not apply in Disneyland.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:22AM
Given that even as a non-United States of American, I understand that the whole "Free Speech" that the US has means you can SAY it, but it DOES NOT mean that there aren't consequences to doing it.
That's complete nonsense and would make the concept of freedom of speech utterly useless. Freedom of speech means that you can speak and the government can't punish you for your speech. If what you say were true, North Koreans would have just as much free speech as Americans do, as while they might be murdered or imprisoned for criticizing the government, they are simply being punished for the "consequences" of their speech.
Please put this nonsense to rest. This isn't the purpose of freedom of speech in the constitution at all, which *is* to protect you from the government. If the government can punish you for your speech or its "consequences", then you don't have freedom of speech in that instance according to the government. Period.
The first amendment clearly forbids the government from banning such pictures, so if the courts are not corrupt, they will side with the constitution.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 24 2015, @11:37PM
I think vote buying ought to be legal and democracy ought to be illegal.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:00PM
"One dollar, one vote" is the American way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:48PM
I work elections, and if I notice voters playing with their phones, I'll tell them to put it away.
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:06AM
I read that as "I work electrons", like some kind of hipster IT slang.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ncc74656 on Monday August 24 2015, @11:51PM
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
-- H. L. Mencken
(Score: 2) by srobert on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:09AM
... how will I prove to my boss that I support the same political candidates that he does?
But seriously, I do wish there were a way to anonymously confirm that my vote was applied in the way I indicated in the voting booth.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:46AM
> But seriously, I do wish there were a way to anonymously confirm that my vote was applied in the way I indicated in the voting booth.
Like one of those places with single-topic ballots where the single-answer papers are taken out of the transparent urn and counted by hand in the presence of anyone who feels like being there, and the polling places' results published in newspapers ?
Can't have that, this is 'Muricca!
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:38PM
Take out "single-topic", "single-answer", and replace "transparent" by "opaque" and you might even be answering the question.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:50AM
But seriously, I do wish there were a way to anonymously confirm that my vote was applied in the way I indicated in the voting booth.
.
What advantage would you have if you could do that?
Seriously, vote integrity involves detecting large numbers of fraudulent ballots. Nobody is going to reach in and change YOUR ballot one by one.
Takes too long. And it would require a massive effort to make any difference.
Fraud happens by substituting entire bags of ballots for the real ones, or just dumping bags of ballots from "enemy territory". In both cases the substitution or the missing ballots will be noticed.
In my state I can verify that my ballot was RECEIVED and COUNTED by serial number. But that is as far as it goes.
You can always volunteer to be a poll watcher, or a counting watcher. Most states provide this opportunity. You can then check for systematic loop holes, but following a single ballot through the system is never going to happen, and never should happen. The idea is you the voter should have nothing you can sell that proves your vote.
Which is why this judge is so mistaken on so many levels. It was just a lone Federal District Court Judge, Paul Barbadoro, so stay tuned. This issue isn't settled, and cooler heads will probably prevail.
Secret ballot means more than "nobody else gets to see you vote". It also has always meant, you have no proof of how you voted with which to be blackmailed or make money.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:30AM
> Nobody is going to reach in and change YOUR ballot one by one.
Perhaps you haven't heard of these new fangled contraptions called computers.
Computer-based vote fraud is exactly changing ballots one by one, automation is exactly what makes that possible.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:32AM
Wow, a troll moderation?
How quickly we forget Diebold. [columbusfreepress.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Ken_g6 on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:42AM
Let's assume your boss wants you to prove you voted a certain way.
1. Fill out the ballot the way your boss wants.
2. Take ballot selfie.
3. Tell polling official you accidentally marked something wrong and that you want a replacement ballot.
4. Fill out the ballot the way you want.
5. Vote the way you want.
And I didn't even mention Photoshop yet.
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:35AM
1. Fill out the ballot the way your boss wants.
2. Take ballot selfie.
3. Tell polling official you accidentally marked something wrong and that you want a replacement ballot.
4. Fill out the ballot the way you want.
5. Vote the way you want.
Oh, now you're just recounting the tale of how Bush Jr. won Florida.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:54AM
6. Get fired because the spy the boss planted at the election place (who can't see the ballot, but can of course see your behaviour otherwise) reports that you asked for a replacement ballot.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:46AM
There is also a middle ground of not submitting your vote. That really hacks the system because the audit trails depend on 391 voters show up and sign and 391 ballots should be in the bag, one way or another. Also no vote for Y is not quite a vote for X but its a lot closer than submitting the actual vote for X, so unless your selfie shows the filled out ballot entering the scantron optical scanner machine, its still kinda helpful.
I suppose states with inferior systems like mechanical counter lever thingies we used in the 80s or hacked ATM machines are going to always have more problems than the optical vote scanning master race states, and this is merely going to be problem number 3289572305 for states that use decrepit or corrupt systems instead of optical scanning.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:46AM
In a way it's kind of unfortunate that there has been so little actual violence or corruption related to American voting events in recent memory that many people can't really comprehend why voting is secret in the first place. It's a free, civilized, democratic country, right? So why does my vote need to be kept secret?
Beyond the relatively iffy possibility of paid voter fraud (you'd need a video of the whole process to verify the voter didn't just take a picture and then ask for a new ballot so they could vote differently) there is the much more real specter of retaliation. Even if you're registered Non-Partisan, once you have people start posting their votes in public you run into the possibility that Those Who Make Lists will put people on lists for many different potential forms of retaliation from job loss or job discrimination to widespread execution/extermination/purging. How could they have had the massacre of the Huguenots so easily if no one had known for sure who was a Huguenot and who wasn't? If this doesn't seem relevant to American politics you're just not using your imagination.
There is only mention of selfies, but of course if you're using a camera in a polling place there is always the possibility of using the camera to record someone else's vote. Voting is the core of the democratic process. The most reliable way to keep it safe from tampering and possible repercussions of any given person voting the "wrong" way according to any other given person (or group) is to make the use of visual recording devices illegal within the confines of the polling area, and make it illegal to post publicly any visual record of anyone's vote, even if it's supposedly your own.
I'm normally firmly on the "there is NO good reason for censorship" side of things, no matter the circumstances. But this one has me leaning strongly toward just a smidgen of censorship. If you want to go around telling everyone how you voted, well, that's your problem, it's protected speech and it's totally unverifiable. But we have many good, democratic reasons to keep actual visually-documented or otherwise verifiable voting records under the hat.
On the other hand I guess it could be argued that this is one of those "protecting people from their own stupidity" ideas, and that the proper solution is just to better educate people about why voting is secret in the first place. But that does not seem a practical solution, and this is the sort of thing that starts with one idiot taking a ballot selfie and then leads a few years later to 30 million idiots proudly wearing t-shirts displaying proof that they voted "correctly" and are on the "correct" side. Pick any side. SIEG HEIL, MEIN FUHR--oops!
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:16AM
So why does my vote need to be kept secret?
Need? I don't think it should be required to keep your vote secret, but I also think you should have the right to do so if you wish.
I'm normally firmly on the "there is NO good reason for censorship" side of things, no matter the circumstances.
Then you go on to show you think otherwise.
But this one has me leaning strongly toward just a smidgen of censorship.
Then you're unprincipled. The government has no constitutional authority to ban such pictures.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:00AM
I don't see how a photograph of a marked ballot can provide "evidence" to someone trying to buy your vote.
You take the photo, ask for another ballot sheet because you made a mistake. Is it really that hard in other countries to do simple things like this?
And in that case, you could "sell out" to every interested briber and provide them all with "evidence" of your vote and cash in from all of them.
However, I would worry more about taking photographs OF OTHER BALLOTERS. That's infinitely more dangerous, as an action to permit happening in a voting environment, and that CAN lead to all sorts of problems in a malicious environment.
Photographs are banned in voting stations in the UK, as far as I'm aware, not because they don't want you posting your ballot to prove yourself to a briber, but because they don't want you potentially recording other voters voting. You can even be moved on from outside the voting stations for even talking to people as they come in.
Voting should be private to the voter, but it should still be accountable (sometimes difficult). Allowing you to take selfies isn't directly against either of those. However, the vote should also be able to be made by anyone in confidence. And having people snapping away in the next booth is not conducive to that.
Personally, this is the reason that electronic voting needs to be able to be done properly. I have a Government Gateway login that's as secure as my driving license, passport and tax submissions. There's no reason that can't be made to be an online voting station that I can do from the privacy of my own home. For taxation, you even have proper client digital certificate setups and all sorts. And if you can SEE your vote on your webpage, you know it's been recorded and it's no difficulty to allow that part to be independently verified like any other vote. It's only the crappy "voting machines" that you force us to use immediately after random members of the public have tampered with them that creates a problem with digital voting. Hell, we've been able to vote by post for centuries.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:48AM
I disagree entirely. The government has no power to do this, and in fact is explicitly forbidden from doing so, due to the first amendment. Taking a picture of you voting is not mandatory in any sense. If someone is forcing someone else to do so, prosecute them when they are found; don't ban things entirely because they could be abused.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:29AM
Sounds pretty trivial to take one picture of yourself and a blank ballot, and photoshop it a zillion times.
In fact it would be moderately humorous to photoshop someone elses selfie a couple times, not my own. Make a collage of photoshops.
It would only be a little harder to do some OCR and maybe some human / amazon turk assist to create an online service to create a selfie of you voting for anyone you'd like. Submit a photo of you holding the ballot, it replies back with X doctored photos each showing a different candidate voted for.
For comedy you could photoshop the pic of the ballot itself to let you "vote" for people who were not even on the original printed ballot.
This is the fundamental reason cameras were banned, no one in the political machines wants to have both sides paying the same college kids only to find out the kids actually voted (as opposed to photoshop voted) for a 3rd party... imagine taking home food and money and booze and cigs from both the R and the D all while voting for a 3rd party, LOL.
Compared to the zillion apps that OCR photos of math homework and present the answer and the intermediate steps, computerized automatic ballot randomization sounds pretty easy.
As a political statement or a weird performance art piece you could turn it into a facebook app, submit a selfie of you and a ballot and it posts on your timeline you voting three times for three random candidates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:37PM
> Sounds pretty trivial to take one picture of yourself and a blank ballot, and photoshop it a zillion times.
You and I have very different definitions of "trivial" - I don't feel it is a stretch to say that there are zero apps for phones that could convincingly edit a photo of a ballot. Even if you allow for the idea that people have laptops in addition to phones, the skills required to edit a photo of a ballot are beyond the ability of 90% of the population.
More and more my working definition of 'conservative' is: an inability to understand that not everyone is identical to yourself.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pendorbound on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:17PM
Seriously… Every elected official is selling their vote to the largest campaign contributor already. Why is this yet another thing that’s legal if done in large scale with big money, but illegal if the little guy tries to do it one-off?
I’m so tired of laws passed because there “could be” a problem. Show me massive selfie-voter fraud, and *maybe* you’ll convince me there oughtta be a law. Pass some First Amendment contrary law because tech-phobic politicians think there *might* be a problem with the younger generation doing something the oldies don’t understand? Enough already. Get in the old folks home where you belong and let the younger generation start to take over control. We out number you already anyways...
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday August 25 2015, @10:27PM
The easiest way to buy votes would be to hack the voting machines. No need to verify any selfies or pay a lot of people. Any seven year old could do it.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!