NEWTEKWORLDNEWS
Menu

Does secret voting matter

27/4/2015

5 Comments

 
Picture
Voting:  Secret versus open voting

Preserving voting privacy is alive and well on both sides of the continent. The British editor of NEWTEK Eileen wrote a story recently about her voting experiences in the UK’s last election. Preserving her privacy at the poll was her right, which she expressed to a poll taker at the voting location when they asked if she would divulge for whom she was voting. She refused.  

During the mid-term elections in 2014, Kentucky candidate for the US Senate Alison Grimes was asked while campaigning if she voted for President Barack Obama. She refused. The Kentucky Constitution has a provision stating elections shall be conducted using a “secret ballot.”

Why do most countries have secret ballot voting?

Secret balloting protects the privacy of an individual voter in an election or a referendum.  The aim is to prevent voter intimidation and potential vote buying and preserve political privacy.  The secret ballot has a long history in Western Civilization, but some believe it has outlived its intent.


Picture
Conservatives in the US have been at the forefront of legislating voter identification laws in individual states. Proponents use the argument of preventing voter fraud, which is akin to buying votes, but the reality is less than one percent of US voters have ever been prosecuted for voter fraud.  So that leaves preserving the secret ballot to prevent voter intimidation and privacy, but does the secret ballot promote social justice and public responsibility?  

In modern times casting secret ballots is universally practiced and most voters would not consider any other methods in a general public election.  Other voting methods like in the US Congress, the voting takes place orally and in public using a roll call.  This is far from the ancient Greeks who used pebbles to cast votes.

The ancient Greek polis or city-state was considered inclusive because they allowed poor males born in the polis to vote despite their low socioeconomic status; however, women were not allowed to vote.  This kind of direct democracy meant citizens could vote directly on an issue, instead of through a representative. 

Greek voters deposited a pebble into one of two urns to mark their choice; after voting, the urns were emptied onto counting boards for tabulation. The principle of secret voting was established by at least the 5th century BCE, and Athenians may have used a contraption to obscure the urn into which a voter was placing his hand.

Do we need secrecy?

In the United Kingdom the use of numbered ballot paper has come under criticism because of the possibility that the number can be linked to the elector or voter.  On Election Day, a voter is given ballot paper and the number is noted on a counterfoil of ballot paper putting secrecy in question based on access to the ballot box.  Reportedly polling station officials could share voting results of individual electors with non-officials for dubious reasons.  

If there is an allegation of fraud or false ballots, the process of matching ballots to voters can be done if the “Election Court” deems it necessary. The main criticism is lax security when the authorities match ballot papers to voters without the court’s permission.

In the United States the US Constitution does not grant a right to a secret ballot.  That right is reserved to individual states. At polling locations as well as absentee mailed in ballots, the ballots are numbered which makes them traceable certifying that the ballot was cast by a registered voter and not fabricated.  A single ballot consists of a stub and the actual ballot in which a shared number is printed.  The numbered stub is retained as voting proof in case of a recount.

Considerations for “open voting”

There are pros and cons to secret voting and even proposals for “open voting.”  One group of academicians at the University of Amsterdam proposed “open voting” as beneficial.

In the paper “Against the Secret Ballot: A new proposal for open voting,” they argued together with others that people should not cast their vote to further their own interests—which is fostered by a secret ballot—but rather form judgments based on the common good.  Using the judgment ideal does not present the same issues as the “preference” ideal symbolized by secret voting. The secret ballot encourages personal, self motivated expressions about society.  On the other hand, open voting in aggregate encourages public-spirited behavior central to furthering the judgment ideal and the common good.

The reason they argue in favor of a public ballot, rather than secret, is to foster the desire for social good, and mutual consent in society that plays a larger role in how we ultimately cast our vote. In a pluralistic society the best way to win social acceptance is to vote in a public-spirited way that benefits the common good of everyone.  John Rawls’ political philosophy described in the principles of social justice teaches that society should function to benefit the least advantaged, which supports the concept of open voting encouraging social fairness.   

The cons for open voting are centered on public shaming and stigmatization. Social stigma could be attached to a person if they identified with a particular group such as a conservative or environmentalist as revealed by their voting practices. Similarly political views might need protection from public knowledge due to personal or professional affiliations.  Open voting might also encourage inaccurate caricatures. And some might feel inadequate exposing inability to articulate intelligent, cognitive and rhetorical arguments to justify their political views.

The Amsterdam researchers use the “observer effect” as one justification for open voting stating that the probability of being exposed can have an impact on behavior encouraging people to act for the common good, rather than self interests.

They proposed a Justification Day where voters are reminded at the polls they might be called on to participate in a justificatory assemble in order to trigger public-spirited ballot responses where they will be accountable for voting choices.

It’s fairly certain that despite its flaws, voting by secret ballot is not going to be overturned any time soon.  But there have been discussions for years among academics about a better, more socially responsible method for casting one’s vote. Open voting gives us something to think about particularly with the propositions for online voting becoming more popular and questions of privacy enter the conversation. 

Resources
http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/voting-with-the-ancient-greeks/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
http://www.academia.edu/4411987/Against_the_Secret_Ballot

5 Comments
Eileen
27/4/2015 03:38:04 pm

Thanks for a food for thought report Dava.

I believe secret voting in the UK dates back to the late 1800s. Prior that time bosses would strong arm workers into voting how they wanted them to. This was before modern election spending rules came into force in the UK and open bribes also happened. Some bully boys would be present as a person voted so that they could report back to others. That voter could then be victimised, lose their home or their job or both.

Fast forward to 2015 and such antics would maybe take a different form but would happen.

I like the idea that open voting would prevent self serving voters but think that is idealistic.

In the UK getting people to even vote is difficult. Some never do. Perhaps if they could be paid for their vote they would turn up.

Until people can behave in a better fashion I believe secret voting is the only way. Yes here I have often thought our voting stubs could be traced if desired but they should not be. I assume doing so is a criminal act.

All people are sadly not created and allowed to live as equals and until such time as they are keep secret voting say I.

Reply
Dava Castillo
27/4/2015 08:36:43 pm

Thank you for the thoughtful reply Eileen.

I like advocating social responsibility component of open voting, and for me personally I don't care who knows how I vote. In the case of Alison Grimes when she refused to say if she voted for Obama, she was protecting herself against losing voters in her state who opposed him in some areas even though both she and the president are democrats, but still some independents and Republicans might vote for her. Ultimately she lost, so maybe she should have said she voted for him!

Reply
Julia
27/4/2015 07:36:43 pm

I think if there is ever a push to get rid of secret voting, some people will just not vote at all. Already there is so much vitriol in US politics, and a never ending election cycle. At the last minute some people will decide to vote, and this is already made difficult in some cases. Some counties now make you pay for postage, while for others it is free.. Also, proposing to get rid of the secret ballot would imply we do away with mail in ballots. It makes no sense. A lot of people do not want to vote out in the open, and any push for that is just too pushy.

Reply
Julia
27/4/2015 07:38:33 pm

I meant having to pay postage for a mail in ballot. This is another thing that will deter a would be voter from voting.

Reply
Dava Castillo
27/4/2015 08:42:55 pm

Thank you for reading and commenting Julia.

You make a good point that some might not vote. I favor mandatory voting, that is everyone over 18 is automatically registered to vote if they are a citizen. Then they might as well vote.

Actually mail in ballots are for absentee voters, which means if you cannot physically get to the poll in your district you can vote by mail--like people who live out of the country or will not be in the area. A lot of people California vote absentee because it's just easier and gives one time to read carefully and mark the ballot without having to go to the polls. It's quite popular here. I don't think secret or open voting would have any effect on the basic philosophy of absentee voting.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Dava Castillo

    is retired and lives in Clearlake, California.  She has three grown children and one grandson and a Bachelor’s degree in Health Services Administration from St. Mary’s College in Moraga California. On the home front Dava enjoys time with her family, reading, gardening, cooking and sewing. 

    After writing for four years on the news site Allvoices.com on a variety of topics including politics, immigration, sustainable living, and other various topics, Dava has more than  earned the title of citizen journalist. 

    Politics is one of her  passions, and she follows current events regularly.

    In addition, Dava has written about sustainable living and conservation.  She completed certification at the University of California Davis to become a Master Gardener and has volunteered in that capacity since retirement.

    Archives

    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015

Click to set custom HTML
Support NEWTEK - Like what we do here at NEWTEK? If so, you should consider supporting us…
Running a news based website is fun, time consuming and can be costly. If you would like to help the site keep afloat please use the donate button
​
Sections:
News:
Welcome
Front page
Specials:

One Woman So Many Blogs


The Jeremy Corbyn Effect
​
NEWTEKWORLDNEWS:
About Us
Contact Us
Terms of Service
Cookie policy
Picture
  • Welcome
  • Latest
  • Animal Welfare
  • Barbara McPherson
  • Robert Weller
  • Dava Castillo
  • Odd News
  • Environment, science and health matters
  • On this day in History
  • About Us
  • Terms of Service
  • Our Cookie Policy
  • Welcome
  • Latest
  • Animal Welfare
  • Barbara McPherson
  • Robert Weller
  • Dava Castillo
  • Odd News
  • Environment, science and health matters
  • On this day in History
  • About Us
  • Terms of Service
  • Our Cookie Policy