5 votes

On the Blind Vote

In my opinion, with a blind vote there will never be a way to insure the accuracy of elections - especially with modern technology. Is anyone really afraid of getting attacked for voting a certain way these days? I doubt it (maybe a very small minority).

History demonstrates clearly that the only way to truly make contracts enforceable is to have an identifiable signature from all the parties involved (or their legal representatives).

By implementing an open vote, statistics would become much more difficult to manipulate. For instance - if the vote was completely public - there would be no reason to forbid a website where every voter could go on election night in order to verify their votes and ensure the validity of the data.

A real-time feed of incoming votes - including names and locations - should be publicly available. There is NO reason for a delay. VOTE COUNTS SHOULD UPDATE AS THE BALLOTS ARE CAST.

Try to lose a truck in Iowa in that system.

If the State is to persist, technology should be used to hold It accountable rather than being used to make Us more vulnerable.

I call for an open vote.

If you disagree, please list the practical advantages of blind votes that you believe are substantial and relevant.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't think a verification system would be cost prohibitive.

A person arrives at the polling place and checks-in with the attendant to assure he or she is a registered voter (which is already standard procedure). Next, the person engages the voting machine where the first information entered is a name and zip code (where the name is once again checked against registration rolls for redundancy protection) followed by the casting of votes. At the end of the session, when a person presses a confirmation button after review of the data, the information is immediately sent to a publicly accessible database such that the overall vote is updated in real-time.

The software that would be required isn't overly complicated.

Again, What Purpose is Served by Revealing the Voter's Identity?

When people show up at their polling place and verify their name and address, they immediately get in line to vote. They don't wander off, or try to get in line a second time. If 100 people come in, 100 people verify they're registered and 100 people vote. There is no need to know their identities a second time or how they voted and it adds nothing to the accuracy of the final vote count. An anonymous receipt can be printed to confirm the count for each balloted item which is cross-checked by a poll worker against the current tally at that time.

The scenario you suggest of pressing the confirmation button and electronically transmit the vote can be hacked or "flipped" as you stated in your original post, can it not? As I wrote before, anything can be altered in the electronic universe at any moment in time.

If it was flipped, it would be apparent in the database

The database would reflect an incorrect vote for the affected individual.

I will let Spooner make my case (less than 10 min of audio):

No Treason can be found in full at Mises.org. It's well worth a listen.

My experience

I was a poll inspector.. and what we have are people who own several properties, so they register to vote where each property is located.

In a county such as Los Angeles, there are many cities, so it's not uncommon for some to have a beach house, a mountain cabin, a condo or more in different precincts.. Let's say a person owns residences in, Tujunga, Burbank, San Pedro and Culver City. They filled out four voter registration cards and spend the day traveling to each polling place to vote. It happens.

My own polling place.. a property owner was attempting this. They had a rental property and the renter had moved out months before. On election day, the renter showed up at the polling booth where they were registered. Well the owner had not re-rented the property, so they showed up to vote, but it so happened, the property was next door to me. The renter, who I knew, explained they forgot to re-register, so I gave them a provisional ballot. I also gave the property owner a provisional ballot (people who are committing crimes become hostile if you confront them and try to make YOU feel bad and do what they want).

By giving both provisional ballots, it's up to the county to determine which vote they will count, and if there is fraud, it's up to the Secretary of State, not the poll worker.

I hope that helped answer your question.

Your Esoteric Example Doesn't Justify Exposing a Person's Vote

If you read my post carefully, I did not write that a poll worker be held responsible for verifying a voter's residence beyond the presentation of accepted documentation confirming his/her registration. The onus put upon the poll worker was to record the tally of the vote printed on the anonymous receipt to be matched against the machine vote when voting concluded at that location.

I recognize there are affluent people who own several residences in different municipalities and pay the respective property tax to each one but that is not a typical situation.

You stated, "They filled out four voter registration cards and spend the day traveling to each polling place to vote." If there is a ballot proposal dealing with property issues in each municipality for which property is owned by an individual I think that person should be entitled to vote in each one. If the ballot item does not address property (e.g., the election of a public official), the person should only be allowed to vote in the municipality where he/she identifies a primary domicile regardless of the situation where there is ownership of multiple residencies of property (e.g., summer or vacation home or rental property). This can be verified using a driver's license or some other identification that shows a person's residence at the time of registration.

In summary I support allowing a person to vote in each political district where property is owned when a property issue is on the ballot but not for any other reason except in their district where the person has declared their primary residence. That can be easily controlled when a person enters the polling location and shows acceptable identification noting their primary residence and any residential property they may own in other districts.

If the ballot is mixed with property and non-property proposals then the poll worker can simply "void out" the non-property balloted item for the voter whose primary residence is not in the polling location's district.

Now to your example; as a poll worker you gave provisional ballots to two people. You wrote that person number one (the renter) did not re-register their new residence and I assume their acceptable identification (e.g., driver's license) showed the "old" address as well so you issued a provisional ballot to him/her. Person number two (the property owner) shows up and states something to the effect that "I live here" and presents identification showing their primary residence. If the registration information shows the residence to be a multi-domiciled property (i.e., two or more apartments) and the property owner lives in one of them then you were correct to give a provisional ballot to that person. But if the address on the identification showed otherwise then it seems you should not have given a provisional ballot to the property owner allowing a vote for a non-property balloted item.

Lastly, the municipality conducting the vote (state, county, city, etc.) should verify a person eligibility to vote in a district at the time when the voter signed in, not after all the votes were cast, counted, publicly announced and bets paid off .

Are you saying, renters should not vote?

Only property owners should vote and have as many votes in the areas they own property?

"This can be verified using a driver's license or some other identification that shows a person's residence at the time of registration."

Seems to me in your above sentance, you actually don't have a problem with voter ID.

So your real issue is renters have no privledge to vote and property owners have ALL the privedges?

To be clear, I gave NO information on either voter. I gave a provisional ballot, meaning that, as the poll inspector, I am not counting those votes, only providing the number of how many provisional ballots I collected.

I Never Wrote, "Only Property Owners Should Vote"

Apparently you did not read or comprehend when I wrote in that paragraph, "If the ballot item does not address property (e.g., the election of a public official), the person should only be allowed to vote in the municipality where he/she identifies a primary domicile regardless of the situation where there is ownership of multiple residencies of property (e.g., summer or vacation home or rental property)."

A primary domicile means where a person physically resides and includes a person who rents as well as a person who owns a property.

Is it possible you have dyslexia and have difficulty comprehending the English language? Here is a web site that may offer help in diagnosing and treating this disorder (see: http://interdys.org ).

Lysander Spooner

Made the point that it is the essence of the blind vote that makes the democratic state most heinous. You can't even know who is electing to rob you.

Séamusín

Consideration of what Spooner has said on this issue

has certainly had an influence on my opinion.

No Treason is available as audio at Mises.org.