• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court to decide if petition signers' names public

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,357
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Court to decide if petition signers' names public - Yahoo! News

AP 4pm est
The Supreme Court on Friday got involved for the second time this week in a case in which opponents of gay rights fear they will be harassed if their views are made public.

The high court will consider whether Washington state officials can release more than 138,500 names on a petition seeking a vote on overturning the state's domestic partnership rights.

Protect Marriage Washington, which unsuccessfully opposed the law giving gay couples expanded rights, wants to shield from disclosure the signers of the petition for a referendum on that law. The group says it fears harassment by gay rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post signers' names on the Internet.

This strikes me as important not as a gay rights issue, but as an issue involving petitions. Should your signing a petition be public knowledge? I am really split on this. On the one hand, I think if you don't feel strongly enough to take a public stand, maybe you should not be signing a petition. However, the action of people who are vowing to post the signers' names on the internet is shameful, and this type of intimidation should not be part of the public law process.
 
People who aren't willing to stand behind their opinions don't deserve to have their opinions counted.
 
People who aren't willing to stand behind their opinions don't deserve to have their opinions counted.

I don't know about that. The ability to express your opinion anonymously is an incredibly important right. When people are forced to speak publicly, there is a serious risk that their speech will be chilled and they will shy away from supporting unpopular positions, whatever they be.

This is the same reason why we have a secret ballot - so that people can decide whether or not to support an issue of public importance without worrying that they will be discriminated against or harassed simply because of their beliefs.
 
There's no valid reason to keep petitions secret.

If people are such wusses they can't take a public stance, screw'em.
 
I don't know about that. The ability to express your opinion anonymously is an incredibly important right. When people are forced to speak publicly, there is a serious risk that their speech will be chilled and they will shy away from supporting unpopular positions, whatever they be.

Anonymity encourages people to be lazy and thoughtless. It doesn't protect the unpopular views and unpleasant truths that society needs to face in order to progress-- it only emboldens cowards to engage in the kind of harassment and character assassination that it purports to protect us from. Just look at the difference between this place-- with the limited public identities we maintain-- and something like /b/chan or YouTube user comments.

Yes, people will choose their words more carefully if they know they'll be held accountable for them. I think this is a good thing.
 
Anonymity encourages people to be lazy and thoughtless. It doesn't protect the unpopular views and unpleasant truths that society needs to face in order to progress-- it only emboldens cowards to engage in the kind of harassment and character assassination that it purports to protect us from. Just look at the difference between this place-- with the limited public identities we maintain-- and something like /b/chan or YouTube user comments.

Yes, people will choose their words more carefully if they know they'll be held accountable for them. I think this is a good thing.

I tend to agree. You shouldn't be able to vote, or sign something and then deny your support of it when questioned. Why encourage hypocrisy?
 
What do you think about the secret ballot?

What do you think would have been more effective:

John Hancock Boldly Signing Where No Man Signed Before...

...

or..

an anonymous Pamphlet entitled "The Declaration of Independence"?


If something isn't worth their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for, why are they bothering?

PETITIONS are NOT "ballots".

Welcome to the land where words mean things.
 
Anonymity encourages people to be lazy and thoughtless. It doesn't protect the unpopular views and unpleasant truths that society needs to face in order to progress-- it only emboldens cowards to engage in the kind of harassment and character assassination that it purports to protect us from. Just look at the difference between this place-- with the limited public identities we maintain-- and something like /b/chan or YouTube user comments.

Yes, people will choose their words more carefully if they know they'll be held accountable for them. I think this is a good thing.

I think the difference between here and there has more to do with user demographics and moderation than it does with level of anonymity. You can be as anonymous on this site as you can be on youtube, but we don't get a lot of crossover in terms of comment type.

While you're right that it can allow people to be lazy, it also allows people with views outside of the mainstream to back their beliefs without risking retribution.

I'm a moderate Republican. On the "out of the mainstream" scale, I'm pretty low. However, if every vote I made or position I supported was made public, I would be very reluctant to participate in politics at all due to the demographics of the industry I work in. I already refuse to donate more than $25 to any individual candidate, because I don't want my name showing up on opensecrets. If it's that bad for me, think of what it's like for other people.

Someone who opposes gay marriage while working in an industry dominated by gay men has the choice to either refrain from participating in the political process or lose his job. The same thing could apply to socialists working at banks, conservatives working in social service organizations, or communists/fascists working anywhere.
 
What do you think would have been more effective:

John Hancock Boldly Signing Where No Man Signed Before...

...

or..

an anonymous Pamphlet entitled "The Declaration of Independence"?


If something isn't worth their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for, why are they bothering?

Great point, what kind of ******s would publish things anonymously? Nothing like that could ever have an impact on the nation.

The Federalist Papers Online

Common Sense - PublicLiterature.org

PETITIONS are NOT "ballots".

Welcome to the land where words mean things.

I'm not arguing that they're identical, I'm arguing that they're analogous.

Welcome to the land where we exhibit reading comprehension above an 8th grade level.
 
People who aren't willing to stand behind their opinions don't deserve to have their opinions counted.

I disagree.

My views can jeapordize my husband's job in many ways so I should be able to support things privately and still have strength in my opinion and vote - without worry that malcontents would use my thoughts against him.

However, I feel that names on a sheet are too easy to forge and falsify - petitions aren't dependable and secure considering the heavy influence and control they can have. So I support some bureau or something varifying the names - making sure they're real people. But that process should be kept private and only used to verify - not used against the people who signed it.
 
Last edited:
However, I feel that names on a sheet are too easy to forge and falsify - petitions aren't dependable and secure considering the heavy influence and control they can have.

Yes, look at how many times Mickey Mouse was registered to vote by ACORN.

I wonder how many times Mickey actually voted?

Obama did win, you know...;)
 
Yes, look at how many times Mickey Mouse was registered to vote by ACORN.

I wonder how many times Mickey actually voted?

Obama did win, you know...;)

Well, then i guess that settles it - Mickey Mouse is a damned Democrat.
 
I would prefer that my name not be made public......;)
 
I think if you're going to put your name on a piece of paper which is intended to change the code of law which effects everyone on your patch of turf, it should be a matter of record viewable by everyone on your patch of turf.

If you don't want to be on the public record as being for or against something, then don't go on record.
 
I think the difference between here and there has more to do with user demographics and moderation than it does with level of anonymity. You can be as anonymous on this site as you can be on youtube, but we don't get a lot of crossover in terms of comment type.

While you're right that it can allow people to be lazy, it also allows people with views outside of the mainstream to back their beliefs without risking retribution.

I'm a moderate Republican. On the "out of the mainstream" scale, I'm pretty low. However, if every vote I made or position I supported was made public, I would be very reluctant to participate in politics at all due to the demographics of the industry I work in. I already refuse to donate more than $25 to any individual candidate, because I don't want my name showing up on opensecrets. If it's that bad for me, think of what it's like for other people.

Someone who opposes gay marriage while working in an industry dominated by gay men has the choice to either refrain from participating in the political process or lose his job. The same thing could apply to socialists working at banks, conservatives working in social service organizations, or communists/fascists working anywhere.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between a vote for public officials which needs to be kept secret, and signing a petition.

In the case of voting there are people to check that you are a registered voter, and that you vote once.

Signing this petition to change a state law. What if there are people who signed who are not citizens or sign ten different lists. People should have the right to scrutinize the lists and challange them where appropriate. If the lists are kept secret people will not be able to insure accuracy.
 
However, I feel that names on a sheet are too easy to forge and falsify - petitions aren't dependable and secure considering the heavy influence and control they can have. So I support some bureau or something varifying the names - making sure they're real people. But that process should be kept private and only used to verify - not used against the people who signed it.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between a vote for public officials which needs to be kept secret, and signing a petition.

In the case of voting there are people to check that you are a registered voter, and that you vote once.

Signing this petition to change a state law. What if there are people who signed who are not citizens or sign ten different lists. People should have the right to scrutinize the lists and challange them where appropriate. If the lists are kept secret people will not be able to insure accuracy.

Most (all?) states already do this. In the case at issue, WA's Department of State went through the petition list to verify the names and strike the ones that were invalid, thus eliminating concerns over vote stuffing. If people don't trust this, I would even support a system where groups that wanted to verify the signatures for themselves could come down to the Secretary's office and look at the lists for any errors, provided that the names on that list don't leave the room.

I think if you're going to put your name on a piece of paper which is intended to change the code of law which effects everyone on your patch of turf, it should be a matter of record viewable by everyone on your patch of turf.

If you don't want to be on the public record as being for or against something, then don't go on record.

So all votes should be made public?
 
I think a valid point has been made by one or more persons in this thread.

Specifically, that:

Petitions have little or no checks involved to ensure people only sign them once, if the people signing are alive or not, etc.

Voting systems do (although we always hear rumors about violations despite any precautions against them).

It seems to me that if some or all petitions were allowed to be signed privately, then a system would also have to set up to ensure against "petition fraud", or the like.

Currently, it would seem that with petition signatures being public, if a petitions opponent were motivated enough, they could research all signers, and through doing so, prove or disprove the validity of the petition.

Disclaimer: I have not researched anything about the current systems in place regarding petitions, so…
 
I think if you're going to put your name on a piece of paper which is intended to change the code of law which effects everyone on your patch of turf, it should be a matter of record viewable by everyone on your patch of turf.

If you don't want to be on the public record as being for or against something, then don't go on record.


(A petition in no way changes the code of law...)


.
 
I think it's fine to keep private which officials you vote for, but just as the votes cast by those officials are public record, so should petitions be public record.

But why? What is it about your vote for a public official that warrants different treatment than your support for an electoral initiative? What about voting records on things like Prop 8?
 
I've never been entirely convinced that ballots should be secret. It serves a purpose, of course, but there are also vast shenanigans enabled by it.
 
I've never been entirely convinced that ballots should be secret. It serves a purpose, of course, but there are also vast shenanigans enabled by it.

Perhaps it would be better to say:

Ballots should be secret, but access to them should be carefully monitored and audited to ensure no "shenanigans".
 
There would be almost no chance for shenanigans if you stepped up and declared your vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom