3 ms·

> 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 thi

by 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...
    - Timon3 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. Can you explain why the private vote only works when all votes are anonymous? If you know every other vote you can determine which it is, but even if a couple of votes are unknown you can't determine it 100% anymore. So why does it need to be all? > 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]. This won't surprise you, but I think it's a big mistake. This makes it easy to pressure people into taking photos of their ballots to prove they voted "correctly". > 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. If it's really outlawed, I agree that it's bad. There should be a process for anyone to become an election observer and check for irregularities, as long as the secrecy of the vote is kept. > 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. I understand your reasoning, and I can't disagree fully. But the danger of voter intimidation and suppression is real and is growing. Honestly, some of the photos from your last election absolutely shocked me - seeing people in military gear at voting booths and dropoff stations is terrifying, especially when they start recording people who they believe might be against them. Those people could follow and kill you because you look like you vote differently from them! The way to full-on authoritarianism is very, very short from your current state of affairs. While things are in such a bad state, any further movement towards weakening the secrecy of the vote could be the final nail in the coffin.

by Timon3 3y ago

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...
  - Timon3 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. Can you explain why the private vote only works when all votes are anonymous? If you know every other vote you can determine which it is, but even if a couple of votes are unknown you can't determine it 100% anymore. So why does it need to be all? > 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]. This won't surprise you, but I think it's a big mistake. This makes it easy to pressure people into taking photos of their ballots to prove they voted "correctly". > 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. If it's really outlawed, I agree that it's bad. There should be a process for anyone to become an election observer and check for irregularities, as long as the secrecy of the vote is kept. > 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. I understand your reasoning, and I can't disagree fully. But the danger of voter intimidation and suppression is real and is growing. Honestly, some of the photos from your last election absolutely shocked me - seeing people in military gear at voting booths and dropoff stations is terrifying, especially when they start recording people who they believe might be against them. Those people could follow and kill you because you look like you vote differently from them! The way to full-on authoritarianism is very, very short from your current state of affairs. While things are in such a bad state, any further movement towards weakening the secrecy of the vote could be the final nail in the coffin.