3 ms·

The fact that I just asked two people who work for the election commission and they confirmed for me that they know that I did vote (which makes obvious sense)

The fact that I just asked two people who work for the election commission and they confirmed for me that they know that I did vote (which makes obvious sense) but not who I voted for. You identify yourself to one person that is checking the registry. That person is supervised by another person to make sure there is nothing strange going on there. If OK, you're given a ballot in a plastic holder. After marking ballot, you slide your paper ballot into the secured box by letting it drop out of the plastic container. This means nobody but you saw your choice and now it is mixed in with all of the others. Later, during a recount, they can see who indeed voted, but not who they voted for. They only get the numbers.

specialist 14y ago
I've been lied to so many times by so many election administrators, I would take Thatcher's advice: Trust, but verify. There's a difference between CANNOT tell how you voted, vs we didn't look.
- 27182818284 14y ago
  Don't worry, I do mean the "cannot" version. Reread my post and note how I described the process. Asking the people I knew who had worked at the election commission in the last few years was only to confirm what I had concluded from my own experiences voting. The method used (in my state at least) does not have a way to identify me personally, even if a corrupt politician stole all the boxes post election and emptied them in his office. So that takes care of the "won't" case vs the "cannot" case.
  - specialist 14y ago
    We cool. Thanks for following up. I assumed too much about your circumstances. Paper ballots cast at a poll site is the only way to absolutely ensure voter privacy. The Australian Ballot method. The reason it works is because the ballot box scrambles the order of ballots, so they can't be tied to individual voters. (There are some exceptions, like very small precincts.) Voting electronically eliminates that anonymizing scrambling. If it scrambled the order, they'd never be able to audit the process. Postal ballots (aka vote by mail) has to be done just right to protect voter privacy. Many jurisdictions don't scramble the ballots because of the added expense.

specialist 14y ago

I've been lied to so many times by so many election administrators, I would take Thatcher's advice: Trust, but verify. There's a difference between CANNOT tell how you voted, vs we didn't look.

27182818284 14y ago
Don't worry, I do mean the "cannot" version. Reread my post and note how I described the process. Asking the people I knew who had worked at the election commission in the last few years was only to confirm what I had concluded from my own experiences voting. The method used (in my state at least) does not have a way to identify me personally, even if a corrupt politician stole all the boxes post election and emptied them in his office. So that takes care of the "won't" case vs the "cannot" case.
- specialist 14y ago
  We cool. Thanks for following up. I assumed too much about your circumstances. Paper ballots cast at a poll site is the only way to absolutely ensure voter privacy. The Australian Ballot method. The reason it works is because the ballot box scrambles the order of ballots, so they can't be tied to individual voters. (There are some exceptions, like very small precincts.) Voting electronically eliminates that anonymizing scrambling. If it scrambled the order, they'd never be able to audit the process. Postal ballots (aka vote by mail) has to be done just right to protect voter privacy. Many jurisdictions don't scramble the ballots because of the added expense.