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: 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]