|
17 Oct 11 - 04:14 AM (#3240086) Subject: BS: Unsecret ballots From: MGM·Lion i.e. all of them. Having last weekend voted in the election for the chancellorship of Cambridge University, I was reminded yet again that the number of one's ballot paper is always recorded against one's name on the polling station list. Which means that one's vote could be identified and the name of the candidate for whom one voted thus ascertained. I know - that it would involve a lot of effort; that there are legal safeguards against anyone's doing so {I am tired of being told so — and if so, what are the exceptions? & if none then what is the point anyhow?}; that ballot papers are required by law to be destroyed after a certain time. But, nevertheless, I have never received a satisfactory answer to the question: how can such a ballot be called 'secret'? ~Michael~ |
|
17 Oct 11 - 05:08 AM (#3240097) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: GUEST,999 Secret doesn't mean no one knows. Secret means no one talks. In the early 1960s (maybe late 1950s) the KKK used to send their garbage to watch voting booths. The ballots on the wall were of a height such that the pens one had to use would stretch the chain to which they were attached. The 'Black' vote was at the top. If the chain extended, someone knew who ya voted for. That was never good. When I mar ballots--something I seem to have been doing the past six of seven elections--I sign my name legibly. Name and address. You want to talk to me, bring six friends because you go be need them carry you away. I have never been a fan of secret ballots because they imply I am possibly ashamed of my vote. I never have been. I made two mistakes in my voting 'career', but I'm not ashamed of either mistake. I meant the votes when I did them, and despite wishing I could rescind them, I can't. Life has vicissitudes, and voting is one. Win, lose, no difference. It's about standing for SOMEthing. More than most ever do, and less than the gods ask for. I stood for only three elections: I wish I'd lost all of them. They taught me that the responsibilities which accompany the great cheer are a path to a form of isolation no one should have to know. Since when has a group been able to decide? The loudest speaks most loud. The quietest speaks not at all. Who's the wiser, and wherein does one find the wisest, and even then, should one find that rare individual, who will hear beyond the election result? In short terms, fawk, ya know? |
|
17 Oct 11 - 08:01 AM (#3240157) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: McGrath of Harlow how can such a ballot be called 'secret'? For the reasons you gave. There's a compromise between keeping the vote secret and preventing cheating by the people running the election. With a totally secret ballot it could be easy to fix the result. |
|
17 Oct 11 - 09:38 AM (#3240193) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: Uncle_DaveO 999 said: Since when has a group been able to decide? The loudest speaks most loud. The quietest speaks not at all. Who's the wiser, and wherein does one find the wisest The wiser, and the wisest, have nothing to do with an election. The election is to let the largest group of voters have their way, wise or stupid. Wisdom or lack thereof is a factor only in the mind of the individual voter, and many times even that is trumped by that voter's parochial special interest. Dave Oesterreich |
|
17 Oct 11 - 09:53 AM (#3240204) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: McGrath of Harlow I trust you voted for Brian Blessed, Michael... |
|
17 Oct 11 - 10:03 AM (#3240208) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: MGM·Lion Yes I did indeed, Kevin ~~ though of course, as the ballot was secret, I don't have to tell you! ~M~ |
|
17 Oct 11 - 10:04 AM (#3240209) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: MGM·Lion ... or, rather, "secret"! |
|
17 Oct 11 - 11:38 AM (#3240267) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: Leadfingers A 'secret' ballot is one where no one present knows how any one has voted , as opposed to a 'Show Of Hands' where everyone knows who has voted and what for . And as Kevin has pointed out , the 'identification' on gthe ballot paper is to illiminate fraud ! |
|
17 Oct 11 - 01:32 PM (#3240315) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: gnomad Some ways I suspect that I am as paranoid as the next guy and have, in the past, wondered much the same as MtGM. I concluded that 'they' probably can trace me should they think it worthwhile, but on the balance of likelihood they won't think it worthwhile. If ever 'they' do then I, as a normal average voter of moderate intelligence, am probably done for anyway, so I reckon I may as well vote anyway, and hope (but not really expect) to make a difference. |
|
18 Oct 11 - 04:35 AM (#3240644) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: MGM·Lion I don't agree that 'secret' is merely used as an antonym of 'by public show of hands'. Surely the promise inherent in the usage 'secret ballot' is that nobody can be permitted, by any possible means, to ascertain how one has voted, as such knowledge or information could be misused by a subsequent totalitarian governmental set-up, a vindictive employer, &c. I still feel that, once this safeguard is breached by the recording of one's identification details in relation to the ballot paper, this safeguard is lost. In any event, how, precisely, is the retention of this information in any accessible form supposed to guard against election fraud? I remain unconvinced as to the necessity, and exceedingly dubious as to the probity, of the practice. ~M~ |
|
18 Oct 11 - 06:39 AM (#3240668) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: McGrath of Harlow Without something along these lines all it would take to fix an election would be add in a few fake voting slips and remove a similar number. |
|
18 Oct 11 - 06:58 AM (#3240680) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: MGM·Lion How do 'these lines' prevent such procedures on the part of anyone intent on performing them? So long as one's name is crossed out on the list as having already voted, I see no necessity for further precaution; nor do I see how recording the ballot paper # alongside the voter's crossed-out name makes any difference whatever. I continue to consider it a piece of otiose bureaucracy that flies in the face of one of the privileged freedoms one is notionally guaranteed. ~M~ |
|
18 Oct 11 - 10:26 AM (#3240768) Subject: RE: BS: Unsecret ballots From: KB in Iowa Without something along these lines all it would take to fix an election would be add in a few fake voting slips and remove a similar number. This could still be done with the current system. Just put numbers on the new ballots that correspond to the numbers on the ballots that have been removed. It would take a bit more effort but seems quite do-able if someone were intent on fixing an election. Iowa is a caucus state for the presidential primaries which is decidedly not secret. Everyone stands in a room and joins a group of like minded individuals backing their candidate. I have long assumed this is permissable since this is a party function and not the actual election. It was still odd the first time I went. |