Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @11:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the ballot-selfie-stick-ban dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:55AM

    by tftp (806) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:55AM (#227388) Homepage

    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

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:16AM (#227395) Homepage

    Racists??? Why do you introduce race into a simple question of competency?

    Because, historically, in the States, tests such as you describe have only ever been used in practice to prevent Blacks from voting.

    I was born and grew up in a country that was 99.9999% white.

    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

      by albert (276) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:15AM (#227409)

      Because, historically, in the States, tests such as you describe have only ever been used in practice to prevent Blacks from voting.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:08AM (#227420)

        > 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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @04:08AM (#227958)

        That was then, this is now.

        Because racism ended when a black president was elected, right?

    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:48AM

      by tftp (806) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:48AM (#227435) Homepage

      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

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:31PM (#227546)

        Why don't you allow a possibility that, after SEVERAL GENERATIONS, such tests won't be used in practice for suppression of votes?

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:23PM (#227719)

          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

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:07AM (#227494) Journal
      The easy solution is to allow all of the candidates to submit some of the questions, which would mean that only people that all of the candidates wanted disenfranchised would be disenfranchised (and the current system manages that pretty well). In fact, I'd be happy with the candidates agreeing the set of questions and distributing cheat-sheets to their supporters. As long as voting for a candidate at least means that you have to read a list of things that they stand for then we'd be in a better position. A depressing number of people vote for a candidate with diametrically opposing views to them on almost every issue, because of a single hot-button or because they haven't really followed how the parties have changed since their parents were voting for them.
      --
      sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:40AM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:40AM (#227528)

      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

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:22PM (#227571)

        nobody can tell the difference

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:28PM (#227724)

          > 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

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:30AM (#227526)

    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

      by tftp (806) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:40PM (#227694) Homepage

      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

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:19PM (#227744)

        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

          by tftp (806) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:31PM (#227771) Homepage

          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

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:34PM (#227795)

            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

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:37PM (#227638) Journal

    I do not care who is the genius who manages the country - he could be a Martian.

    Valentine Michael Smith 2016!