Ballot-Selfies

By the end of the nineteenth century all of the States in the U.S. adopted the method of using secret ballots, chiefly to guard against vote selling and vote buying. Recently, in the same spirit, New Hampshire outlawed ballot selfies. The fear was that taking of selfie with your marked ballot made it easy to you sell your vote and easy for the buyer to verify how the vote was cast. To me this tweak is a no brainer. It merely updates the spirit of an old law and one that seems (to me) necessary.

However, to my surprise, a Federal Court found against the new law. Apparently the ACLA supported the plaintiff.

http://nyti.ms/1U2r28u

The ACLA seems to think ballot-selfies are a form of free speech. Perhaps, but a ban on posting ballot-selfies is not a ban on posting or making general known who it is that you voted for.

The ACLA also claims law enforcement should go after the buyers not the selfie-takers. It seems to me, that enforcement should go after the sellers as well as the buyers and ballot-selfies just make buying, vote selling and voter booth coercion way too easy.

Am I wrong here? What do you think?

Didn't know this was an issue.
Off the cuff, I would say that, as long as the selfie - was in fact - taken by the voter themselves, and was posted by the voter...it would be fine. No different than the voter going online and telling you which way they were voting.
I think voter confidentiality is primarily in place to protect the voter themselves. If they don't care, I don't care.

I think there is difference. The selfie is proof that the seller ( or the coerced) voted as agreed (or as pressured). Back in the nineteenth century employers hired muscle to look over your shoulder to verify you voted as told to vote. I don't see a whole lot of difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I think there is difference. The selfie is proof that the seller ( or the coerced) voted as agreed (or as pressured). Back in the nineteenth century employers hired muscle to look over your shoulder to verify you voted as told to vote. I don't see a whole lot of difference.

---

Unless you are talking about extremely, tiny, local elections...I honestly don't see that as particularly important as applies to this country.

I still believe voter intimidation (as in: after-the-fact) is the most important reason for voter confidentiality .

I have to admit I feel somewhat ambiguous about the issue ( which is why I created the thread). Mail in ballots provide the same kind of proof as a ballot selfie, except that by proportion not that many people vote by mail. Which prompts the question, does anyone have any idea how often votes are actually bought or coerced?

I honestly could care less. I've made it no secret who I'll be voting for. Those that know me are aware of where I stand.

It's not a matter of saying who you voted for or will vote for, it's a matter of providing, say blackmailers, proof that you voted for their candidate rather than the candidate of your choice.

I can still remember seeing Jeb Bushs' vote counters throwing hanging chad ballots in the garbage in 2000, the reason we vote on Tuesday is because it takes some registered voters two days to get to the polls via buggyride after Church on Sunday. Since half the people don't vote, and less than that on non presidential elections, you can probably get elected to local office by getting 10% of the people to vote for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

It's not a matter of saying who you voted for or will vote for, it's a matter of providing, say blackmailers, proof that you voted for their candidate rather than the candidate of your choice.

---

How many people can you possibly blackmail enough, especially where you would also need added proof of their vote, to affect a major election?
I see more potential fraud with mail in ballots and voter sites that ask for practically no I.D...hell, people think you should just be able to vote from your home computer...I could argue that someone could literally put a gun to a voter's head in that situation.
Anyway, fighting selfies is a losing battle, people take minute by minute selfies now...and pictures of their food. Even men are pouting in constant photos. Facebook and twitter has created a nation of self-absorbed narcissists.
My personal pet peeve is people that marathon share an endless supply of made up news stories without even the most basic of fact checks...(one of my uncles does this on facebook)
I know, I know...I'm drifting away from the point.

The selfie may possibly include other people's faces though...that's a potential invasion of their privacy

I think ballot selfies are a wonderful idea. I think it could prevent more election fraud than not. It's proof you voted for the candidate you voted for. I think that electronic voting machines are subject to hacking and old fashioned ballot box stuffing still happens here and there.

One of the big differences between the UK and the USA is that your ballot papers there can be as big as an A4 sheet of paper with multiple candidates running for local, state and Presidential posts, which you then feed into a machine, whereas in the UK there is one slip of paper with the names of the candidates per election, so if on the same day there is a General Election for the House of Commons in London, and another for the local council, there will be two separate ballot papers, and you vote by placing a cross against the candidate you want with the pencil that is provided in the station (but you can use your own pen if you take one with you).

I wonder if it would be easier and less prone to fraud if the ballot papers for your President were separate from the rest -?

In principle,selfie-ballots are a bad idea as the right to vote in secret is fundamental and I think should not be mediated just to suit the vanity of a few voters who think otherwise.

Some of the ballots are now A4 size here too because of the number of candidates - it was beginning to look like a Littlewoods Pools coupon with much the same outcome in terms of success :D