• 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!

Should Voting be Confidential?

Should voting be anonymous?


  • Total voters
    26

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Silver knows how groups of people vote based on demographic and regional trends, not how individuals vote. It's not terribly hard to predict, although he does it better than most.
Gerrymandering is the same. There's nothing wrong with knowing how groups of people tend to vote.

I seriously doubt the NSA is keeping track of individual votes.
 
I seriously doubt the NSA is keeping track of individual votes.
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?
 
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.
 
We tried public voting. It lead to some rather horrible abuses.

History man, history ...
 
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?
 
To what end? What practical purpose do you foresee in knowing how individuals voted? I can only really see the negative ones, threatening people if they don't vote in a particular way and the like. Legitimate methods of convincing people to vote the way you think they should don’t require knowledge of their specific individual intentions or voting history.
 
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.
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.

We tried public voting. It lead to some rather horrible abuses.

History man, history ..
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.

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?
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.
 
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.

The confidential ballot ensures liberty when freedom seems allusive, and guarantees it where it seems imaginatively secure.
 
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.

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.

The confidential ballot ensures liberty when freedom seems allusive, and guarantees it where it seems imaginatively secure.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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'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.
 
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.

On the contrary, I believe it wholeheartedly. The abuses I spoke of in the coal fields were because of the lengths to which dangerous people would go to even when votes were confidential. Imagine the carnage if a person's vote were open to those with a murderous bent: 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.
 
Let us remember the Killing Fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot.
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.

The government gets away with it because they claim they don't know who votes for who, and that people were turned away for non political reasons. My position is that greater transparency would help expose the current situation for what it is. The government already knows, so the only people who don't are the people who'd be in a position to help if the situation was proven beyond doubt and dispute.

Just like the Unions already figured out who your coal mining buddies vote for, the only people who don't know are the people who could help, but can't prove that the violence is politically motivated.
 
I would vote in your poll but you decided to make the voting public.

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?
 
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.

I tend to distrust power and like it controlled more and individuals less. Though the controls in the US on power are pretty good this must be watchfully kept so. Rights and freedom are quickly lost.
This does not mean that there are no situations under which the optimal solution is attained by open voting and outweigh the negatives.
 
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?

Please define what you mean by being accountable for a vote, and to whom would that accountability be justified. Sounds creepy to me.
 
Pol Pot had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the subject at hand.

Pol Pot has everything to do with the subject. Walk out to those field memorials, close your eyes, and imagine how many more he could have slaughtered in your country if only he knew who they supported.
 
I don't think you really believe that secret ballots alone can guarantee freedom.
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 still don't see any strong practical argument in favour of a change.
 
Please define what you mean by being accountable for a vote, and to whom would that accountability be justified. Sounds creepy to me.
Well, lets give a semi metaphorical example:

Lets say I have some bills to pay and not enough money to pay them. I apply for a credit card, but as I have crappy credit, I put the credit card in the name of your son, who will be born in a few years. He will be expected to work to pay off the money I used to pay my bills with.

When he grows up, does he at least have a right to know the name of the person who's bills he's paying, the person who made a conscious decision to place him in debt before he was even born?

Now take the same example back to a national level: You vote for someone to do these things to other people's children. Do the history books not have a right to even know who you are?
 
Back
Top Bottom