HumanBeing
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
One of the reasons we are given to vote is that it's a personal responsibility that you have to yourself and to those around you. My position is that the system is set up to absolve voters of any responsibility for their vote from the moment they cast it, by giving voters total anonymity for their choices, thereby absolving them of all responsibility for decisions made by the person they voted for. That being the case, the idea that voting is some sort of a responsibility that people have seems like a complete fallacy.
When you vote in a national election, you are casting a vote to influence the lives of millions upon millions of other people. If I vote for a man who will send your son to fight in a foreign country that poses no threat to our nation and your son ends up dying as a result, do you not think you should have some right to at least know who I am? If I vote for a man who decides to fix a current financial crisis by committing your unborn children to a lifetime of debt, shouldn't those unborn children one day have the right to at least know the names of the millions of people who voted for these debts to be placed on them before they were even born?
The short answer is yes. At least in elections the danger from government reprisal is too dangerous and would be a bad idea.
If they are willing to take vengeance upon those who vote against them, then they are also willing to find out who those people are. They certainly have the technical capability to do so.The short answer is yes. At least in elections the danger from government reprisal is too dangerous and would be a bad idea.
They already know how you vote. That's what all the targeted campaigning is about these days. It's how Silver was able to predict every state in the last election. It's how gerrymandering works. Hell, the NSA definitely keeps a copy of how you vote.
I'm inclined to agree with this, but it's evidently not for lack of technical capability, which means it's purely out of respect for law. And that begs the question; if they can be trusted not to check who we voted for, why can't they be trusted not to punish those who vote against them if they do know? And what about the millions of people who already openly declare their allegiance to one party or another? Are they being punished when their party loses an election? If not, what makes you think it would suddenly change?I seriously doubt the NSA is keeping track of individual votes.
But as I said, plenty of people openly talk about who they vote for, and as far as I'm aware it's very rare for people in your country to assault each other simply for supporting a different political party. Why would this change that? I would take no pride in annonymously dictating the lives of others, I think its shameful, but I do fully understand that I'm in a very small minority with my beliefs on that subject.Voting should be confidential. Too many dangerous people out there who easily resort to violence when they know who to target for exercising their right to vote in a democratic society. I still remember the time growing up where you didn't talk about your vote or who you supported. It was a private matter, and you took pride in your participating in the process.
Your history, not mine, and I dispute that public voting in itself was to blame for the abuses which I assume you're referring to.We tried public voting. It lead to some rather horrible abuses.
History man, history ..
Well I live in Cambodia, so yeah, I think politics here are corrupt. As for the US, yes though obviously less so. My point remains: Plenty of people are already open about who they vote for, and I don't see unions targeting them. If anything, making the whole thing more transparent would help prevent the kind of abuse you're talking about. It would make it much easier to see when certain political groups are being discriminated against.The secret ballot enables free and fair elections. Imagine if, for example, a union got hold of how people voted, and then pressured workplaces to fire people who voted for the party they didn't support. You think politics is corrupt now?
But as I said, plenty of people openly talk about who they vote for, and as far as I'm aware it's very rare for people in your country to assault each other simply for supporting a different political party. Why would this change that? I would take no pride in annonymously dictating the lives of others, I think its shameful, but I do fully understand that I'm in a very small minority with my beliefs on that subject.
Your history, not mine, and I dispute that public voting in itself was to blame for the abuses which I assume you're referring to.
Well I live in Cambodia, so yeah, I think politics here are corrupt. As for the US, yes though obviously less so. My point remains: Plenty of people are already open about who they vote for, and I don't see unions targeting them. If anything, making the whole thing more transparent would help prevent the kind of abuse you're talking about. It would make it much easier to see when certain political groups are being discriminated against.
I was raised in West Virginia coal country. If you were seen as not supporting the Union, and your vote went otherwise than being supportive, your life and that of your family became a living hell. I grew up with uncles carrying clubs in their trucks to ward off attacks that could come at any time along the backroads there.
As eloquent as that may be, it simply isn't true. I don't think you really believe that secret ballots alone can guarantee freedom.The confidential ballot ensures liberty when freedom seems allusive, and guarantees it where it seems imaginatively secure.
If they are willing to take vengeance upon those who vote against them, then they are also willing to find out who those people are. They certainly have the technical capability to do so.
I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other on whether the US government (I'm not American or in America btw) keeps tabs on who votes for who, but it seems like you're saying that they would be willing break laws by lashing out at those who vote against them, but not willing break privacy laws to find out who voted against them in the first place. I think that is illogical. Either both are independently safe, or both are already being broken.
I've spent many years researching voting systems, as I personally believe they are almost all horrifically unjust and unethical, but that's not what the thread is about. It's the specific issue of whether people should have a right to know who their fellow human beings voted for. I wasn't expecting much support for my notion that ballots should be public, I'm just interested in reading people's opinions on the subject and the reasons behind them.If something is not forbidden you cannot blame anyone from doing it. But if you look at game theorie and voting systems literature you might find some interesting articles. I thing I would Google scientific articles.
I don't think I understand your point. Mine is that if it was public knowledge who the union voted for, and who all their members voted for, and who all the coal miners voted for, it would be far easier to see that people were being discriminated against, to publicize it, and to put a stop to it. The type of political discrimination you're talking about is partially a result of the fact that the ballots are confidential.
As eloquent as that may be, it simply isn't true. I don't think you really believe that secret ballots alone can guarantee freedom.
Pol Pot had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the subject at hand. However the current situation here does. The government knows exactly who votes for who. This year over 2 million people (in a country with a population of only 15 mill) were turned away from voting stations despite having signed up to vote. All of those turned away were opposition supporters. Their votes would have made the difference between winning and losing the election.Let us remember the Killing Fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot.
I would vote in your poll but you decided to make the voting public.
I've spent many years researching voting systems, as I personally believe they are almost all horrifically unjust and unethical, but that's not what the thread is about. It's the specific issue of whether people should have a right to know who their fellow human beings voted for. I wasn't expecting much support for my notion that ballots should be public, I'm just interested in reading people's opinions on the subject and the reasons behind them.
Do you think people would be less inclined to vote if they thought they might have to justify their decision and be held accountable for it? And do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?
Pol Pot had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the subject at hand.
Neither would mandatory public ones. With secret ballots, individual voters have a free choice whether to be open about who they voted for or not.I don't think you really believe that secret ballots alone can guarantee freedom.
Well, lets give a semi metaphorical example:Please define what you mean by being accountable for a vote, and to whom would that accountability be justified. Sounds creepy to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?