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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.