3 ms·
> I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system. I don't understand this statement. In the following paragraph
by danso 7y ago
> I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system.
I don't understand this statement. In the following paragraph, you state yourself the problems of a non-secret ballot: "paying, or intimidating, for votes". Why do you not see that – arguably the most obvious form of a corrupt voting system" as "fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system"?
edit: fwiw, the machine described in this article uses a paper ballot, which the voter can review before putting it in the ballot box. But I assume you're arguing that the voter still doesn't know that their vote will be recorded in the official count, without a system that ties and tracks each ballot to a voter ID.
- hirundo 7y agoPaying or intimidating for votes is retail corruption. Changing the votes somewhere post ballot is wholesale corruption. I think both are serious problems but that wholesale corruption is somewhat more serious. That's just a gut feeling, informed largely by my bias toward transparency. But I have no contempt for someone whose gut leans the other way.
- danso 7y agoI don't disagree with you in theory, but in practice, a public ballot would likely chill voter behavior whether or not direct payments or bribery were involved. Particularly among groups and organizations like unions and churches. Or hell, your employer and your family.