5 ms·

Sorry, I don't buy the argument. Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group whi

by nurple 3y ago

Sorry, I don't buy the argument. Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. Sure, I get how divisive politics are, but I find it frankly pathetic the contributions that our own politicians and media have purposefully made in forming a view in the public's mind that someone who thinks different is a mortal enemy. Because of how it's become we're told that we either shouldn't or can't talk about such things in the places where we engage in the majority of our face-to-face human interaction: work and family. The problem of "protecting" the voter is not insoluable and I find the absolutist view of absolute secrecy as the only solution to be a cop out.

Timon3 3y ago
> Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. No? You are presenting a hypothetical danger to voting, whereas your idea would lead to many, many individual votes being manipulated. People could be paid for their vote, intimidated, beat up, killed and everything in between. The individual vote being secret is fundamental to democracy. You can't have a democracy without secret voting. Remember: it's not just about your immediate social circle. What if the government wants to make sure you vote/don't vote in the next election, since they know your last vote?
- drewmol 3y ago
  On your last point, if you voted and in which elections is already public record. Government has a pretty good idea who you voted for and can and already does this to the extent they can get away with it. >You can’t have a democracy without secret voting You could before 1890 in the US, and plenty of other countries, what’s changed? About 25 percent of voters voted by mail in the 2020 election. Mandatory secrecy that couldn’t be enforced for a quarter of voters didn’t ruin our democracy. I’m not sure secrecy should be mandatory, maybe it should be optional.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > On your last point, if you voted and in which elections is already public record. Government has a pretty good idea who you voted for and can and already does this to the extent they can get away with it. And yet the government doesn't know for sure. There is plausible deniability, and always a bit of uncertainty. > You could before 1890 in the US, and plenty of other countries, what’s changed? No, you couldn't before 1890 in the US. It wasn't a democracy in the modern sense. > About 25 percent of voters voted by mail in the 2020 election. Mandatory secrecy that couldn’t be enforced for a quarter of voters didn’t ruin our democracy. Mail-in voting has multiple measures in place to ensure secrecy of vote. Yes, technically they could be worked around, but so could any other voting method - the important part is that the government would have to expend massive resources to do this on a broad scale, which would quickly become public. > I’m not sure secrecy should be mandatory, maybe it should be optional. No, you guys should stay a democracy.
    - drewmol 3y ago
      I agree plausible deniability may guard against political coercion, but only when all votes are anonymous - that is not the case. The ability to vote in private should be a protected right in a democratic society. I’m referring to citizens being allowed to confirm their ballot on record, verifiably, and publicly if they so choose. It’s already completely legal to share filled out ballot photographs in 30 states…(in 5 of them only photos of mail-in ballots allowed)[0]. I hope my state modifies it’s laws to allow this, currently it’s outlawed - as it is in Georgia. One commentator suggested members of the public would manually validate some of the ballot QR codes and easily detect fraud, but Georgia outlaws it - I think that’s bad law. In spite of this variation on how “secret ballots” are implemented by member states, US is still a democracy, which you seem to agree. There is a balance that has to be struck between election transparency and voting secrecy. Where I live, all recording of any ballot and in any polling location is outlawed. I think the only recording that should be illegal is that of other peoples ballots - as where and when you voted is already of public record, and I think one should be free to share their own ballot however they choose. [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/can-i-post-photo-of-my-ballot-selfie-polling-place-2020-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/can-i-post-photo-of-my-ballo...

by nurple 3y ago

Timon3 3y ago

> Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. No? You are presenting a hypothetical danger to voting, whereas your idea would lead to many, many individual votes being manipulated. People could be paid for their vote, intimidated, beat up, killed and everything in between. The individual vote being secret is fundamental to democracy. You can't have a democracy without secret voting. Remember: it's not just about your immediate social circle. What if the government wants to make sure you vote/don't vote in the next election, since they know your last vote?

drewmol 3y ago
On your last point, if you voted and in which elections is already public record. Government has a pretty good idea who you voted for and can and already does this to the extent they can get away with it. >You can’t have a democracy without secret voting You could before 1890 in the US, and plenty of other countries, what’s changed? About 25 percent of voters voted by mail in the 2020 election. Mandatory secrecy that couldn’t be enforced for a quarter of voters didn’t ruin our democracy. I’m not sure secrecy should be mandatory, maybe it should be optional.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > On your last point, if you voted and in which elections is already public record. Government has a pretty good idea who you voted for and can and already does this to the extent they can get away with it. And yet the government doesn't know for sure. There is plausible deniability, and always a bit of uncertainty. > You could before 1890 in the US, and plenty of other countries, what’s changed? No, you couldn't before 1890 in the US. It wasn't a democracy in the modern sense. > About 25 percent of voters voted by mail in the 2020 election. Mandatory secrecy that couldn’t be enforced for a quarter of voters didn’t ruin our democracy. Mail-in voting has multiple measures in place to ensure secrecy of vote. Yes, technically they could be worked around, but so could any other voting method - the important part is that the government would have to expend massive resources to do this on a broad scale, which would quickly become public. > I’m not sure secrecy should be mandatory, maybe it should be optional. No, you guys should stay a democracy.
  - drewmol 3y ago
    I agree plausible deniability may guard against political coercion, but only when all votes are anonymous - that is not the case. The ability to vote in private should be a protected right in a democratic society. I’m referring to citizens being allowed to confirm their ballot on record, verifiably, and publicly if they so choose. It’s already completely legal to share filled out ballot photographs in 30 states…(in 5 of them only photos of mail-in ballots allowed)[0]. I hope my state modifies it’s laws to allow this, currently it’s outlawed - as it is in Georgia. One commentator suggested members of the public would manually validate some of the ballot QR codes and easily detect fraud, but Georgia outlaws it - I think that’s bad law. In spite of this variation on how “secret ballots” are implemented by member states, US is still a democracy, which you seem to agree. There is a balance that has to be struck between election transparency and voting secrecy. Where I live, all recording of any ballot and in any polling location is outlawed. I think the only recording that should be illegal is that of other peoples ballots - as where and when you voted is already of public record, and I think one should be free to share their own ballot however they choose. [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/can-i-post-photo-of-my-ballot-selfie-polling-place-2020-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/can-i-post-photo-of-my-ballo...