At 03:22 PM 5/14/2007, Juho wrote:
And, something seems to be forgotten here. Elections are about
aggregating votes. Rarely do a few votes matter.
Well, this matters at least to the individuals (and the mentality may
escalate to wider circles too).
That's true. However, if there is a coercion problem that is
spreading like this, it is a problem that surely will come to public
attention and additional security can be put in place. It is fairly
simple, for example, to prohibit all extraneous marks or signals on
ballots. Write-ins can be handled with a separate procedure. Note
that there is no way to avoid write-in coercion that is aimed at the
write-in vote. Write my name in or I breaka you face! But very,
very difficult for such coercion to actually elect this write-in candidate.
This is the point. Coercion, bad. But eliminating all possibility of
a coercer knowing that the victim has complied is impossible. And
keeping ballots private is not particularly effective.
What I'm saying is that (1) election coercion should be prosecuted
and treated as a serious crime, as, indeed, should election fraud. It
could be argued that election fraud is treason, because it is a
betrayal of the sovereign, which in a democracy is the people,
lawfully expressing their decisions through elections.
It is not a minor crime.
Why is it treated as such? Well, unfortunately, if election fraud
attains its goal, the mechanisms of law enforcement are under the
control of those who benefited from it. Only an awakened public can
deal with a problem like this. Depending on the government to do it
without serious general public support (to the point of a demand) is,
quite simply, naive to the max.
Election coercion is not, from the point of view of the victim, the
most serious form of coercion, by far. For one thing, it is fairly
easy to comply, and the cost is low. So for a truly powerless victim,
the danger can be avoided. *Of course* we don't want voters to be put
in that position, but ballot imaging does not actually increase the
risk seriously. Remember, in order to have any effect on attempts to
coerce voting, the ballot must be distinguished in some way. This,
all by itself, will leave traces that something unusual is happening,
and the authorities -- if there is a public demanding it -- can
actively investigate, not wait for a victim brave enough to come forward.
If the ballots are imaged, the public will know that they are being
marked! If not, how will they know?
Discarding marked ballots is dangerous because it creates a ready
method for those bent on election fraud to invalidate ballots. It can
be done in a practically undetectable manner. Glue a piece of pencil
lead to the tip of a finger. Pick up the ballot in a certain way, it
is marked. Pick it up in any other way, not.
But if someone is marking ballots in this way, in numbers sufficient
to affect elections, it will show on the images. Or there will be, if
rules are in place to specially handle marked ballots, a large number
of such ballots where images are not available. In any case the
public will be able to tell something is amiss, if routine ballots are imaged.
The ballots should not be discarded. They should be counted under
tighter rules about who can see them. They should be segregated for
rapid special access if needed for audit.
My point is that the problem can be addressed far more effectively
than by routinely keeping ballots out of public view. Remember, a
coercer, under present law, can already arrange to view ballots
directly. So how does routinely keeping them secret protect against coercion.
The protection is in the privacy of the voting booth and in measures
intended to prevent connecting the ballot with the voter. This can
only be defeated, generally, with the collusion of the voter, which
is why the arguments about groups afraid to express their opinion
because it would be unpopular is totally off the mark. Such people
are not in any way put at risk by ballot imaging.
An example of impact to bigger groups: Females are a majority out of
which considerable part could feel the pressure of their husbands.
Some husbands might claim that their wives are a bigger risk
I've never heard of a husband demanding that a wife vote in a certain
way. I'm sure it has happened, all kinds of crazy things happen, but
abusive husbands are usually concerned about more immediate and
personal things than elections. How *dare* you disturb my beer bottle
collection!
People with abusive spouses have a lot more to worry about than
election coercion. Amongst all the serious problems, this one would
hardly make a dent.
I think that standing the whole system on its head to avoid a very
theoretical and unlikely scenario is nuts.
I think privacy in elections is a long standing healthy principle. No
need to make radical changes. And if need arises, one can seek
balance between different needs.
Privacy in
