9 ms·
Honestly I don't understand why we can't have cameras installed at ALL voting-related facilities.
by dheera 6y ago
Honestly I don't understand why we can't have cameras installed at ALL voting-related facilities.
- stuaxo 6y agoIn this case Amazon would be seeing who was voting.
- ddoolin 6y agoIt's not secret apparently: > During this portion, the NLRB will read off each voter’s name and both sides will be allowed to contest ballots, likely based on factors such as whether an employee’s job title entitles them to vote or an illegible signature. Any contested ballots will be set aside.
- wavefunction 6y agoDoesn't sound like they know the actual vote though? At least how you've quoted the description. Just the name and title of the employee.
- ddoolin 6y agoFair, I hadn't considered that. It does seem like the actual vote should be private.
- hooande 6y agoif it isn't secret...why do they need cameras to watch the ballots? if all the votes and names will be read aloud, there's no way to cheat and change a vote
- opo 6y agoAccording to the article: >...Amazon had sought to place a video camera in the NLRB’s Birmingham office, where votes will be tabulated, to keep an eye on the ballot boxes in the off hours between counting, according to an NLRB order denying Amazon’s request. The camera feed would have been accessible by both Amazon and the RWDSU.
- jayd16 6y agoSeems more like a roll call check. Usually, signatures are on the outside of sealed ballots.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jaywalk 6y agoThat's not what the article says. It says that the cameras would "keep an eye on the ballot boxes in the off hours between counting" which seems... perfectly reasonable to me.
- uoaei 6y agoSurely they wouldn't watch the feed during counting hours! Who would go against their word so brazenly?
- StavrosK 6y agoVotes are anonymous, people can watch the count all they want.
- uoaei 6y agoIntimidation is the name of the game when it comes to union-busting, I think it is pretty obvious that this is one more attempt at that.
- bluGill 6y agoBoth ways. Unions have their share of intimidating people to vote for them.
- uoaei 6y agoWhataboutism doesn't really apply when it's a $1.5 trillion company vs a couple dozen over-extended union organizers.
- bluGill 6y agoIt does when they have the ability to undetected break into the room where the ballots are and replace ballots. The crime is easy enough to plan. I'm not sure if security is good enough to stop it or not.
- aeturnum 6y agoAn important aspect of voting systems is that, while you want to authenticate that each voter is allowed to vote, you also want strong protections against discovering who voted for who. I understand why it seems like cameras would be a good idea, but it's very easy to imagine how such a system could be abused. Can you tell a camera's field of view by looking at it? Could your grandparents? Trusting systems that secure the vote is much easier when they are designed resist being changed to abet oppression.
- WalterBright 6y agoThat's why you have voting booths. Voter goes in booth with ballot, closes curtain, comes out with ballot, ballot goes in counting machine. That way, you can: 1. verify who is voting 2. verify trail from voter to count 3. no extra votes 4. no discarded votes
- aeturnum 6y agoSure, it's a good system. But, of course, if you had a camera, voters might reasonably be worried that you would combine the footage with vote order and figure our who voted when.
- WalterBright 6y agoSure, the counter would have to be set up so the order of the votes cast is not retrievable. Any display should be only the total of votes counted, not the tally for each item on the ballot. This doesn't seem hard at all to do right.
- aeturnum 6y agoI agree that you could easily design a system where you could have video of everyone dropping their ballots into a ballot box and it would still be impossible to associate a particular vote with a voter. However, that's not the standard. The standard is avoiding the appearance of being able to track votes. I don't trust the people who make voting machine software or the government. You don't know that your voting tabulation software correctly anonymizes the results and you shouldn't need that technical knowledge to feel safe. The correct approach is to make a system that guarantees what we want and would be impossible for a bad actor to abuse.
- hef19898 6y agoBecause in order to be democratic, an election has to be fair, free and secret. That's why I am always a little bit disturbed with signed ballots for example. I never signed a paper ballot in my whole life. Or any other ballot as far as that is concerned. Cameras would limit the secret part.