May 11, 2006
Ballot Parties
I suspect that one of the reasons that Deanron and the Council Democrats like mail-only voting is because it effectively ends the guarantee of a secret ballot and facilitates group voting.
See, for example, this P-I article from October 2004, which mentions a "ballot party" at the North Seattle Family Center: "Sky-high interest in election in ethnic communities"
Just think about the implications of all of this -- people fill out their ballots together in groups, subject to social pressure or outright coercion. What a boon for constituency groups that operate in poorly educated and otherwise vulnerable populations. This particular ballot party catered to immigrants. As we've learned since, there is nothing to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. The last thing we need is to make it easy for non-citizens who might be vulnerable, unsophisticated and functionallly illiterate in English, to gather at ballot parties and be directed in filling out their ballots by community activists.
Of course the no-excuses absentee voting we now have already makes this possible, and it's one of the many reasons to curtail absentee voting altogether. Unfortunatley, ending unlimited absentee voting is not on the horizon. Nevertheless, we don't have to increase its hazards by making it universal.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 11, 2006
01:14 PM | Email This
1. Free Roasted Dog...if you bring your ballot!!!
2. No problem, though, if they have a ballot party at Joe Fuiten's church, or Ken Hutcherson's church, or Casey Treat's church, right? I guess that's not coercion, right? If anyone spoke out against that, they'd be interfering with the freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof, right?
3. ivan - wow, I must have missed that in the PI. I don't recall seeing any instance of "voting parties" at such places. Also, I find it interesting that you defend voting parties at one place because you believe they happen at another.
4. "No problem, though, if they have a ballot party at Joe Fuiten's church, or Ken Hutcherson's church, or Casey Treat's church, right? I guess that's not coercion, right? If anyone spoke out against that, they'd be interfering with the freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof, right?"
Personally, I do/would have the same problems with that. That is why votes should be cast in only one place: the polling place, in a booth, by yourself. But that would require personal responsibility, which is something we know is impossible.
5. Wow! Ivan has a MAJOR problem with projection, doesn't he?
6. I have no problem with anything like that. You're not going to stop all-mail voting in this state no matter what you say or do, because -- wait for it -- people WANT it.
You might as well stand on a railroad track and try to stop that oncoming freight train with your bare hands.
7. Thanks for making your ideology so clear ivan. So if 51% of the people want to vote away the rights of the other 49%, that would apparently be okay with you? Love that collectivist mentality.
8. iban has a problem with life.....it keeps rising up and smacking him in his bloated jowls. Nice try at diversionary tactics iban...
9. 90%+ want roads and to use their cars of their choice, not public transportation. Ivan I never realized you support getting rid of all public funded transportation! Such enlightenment!
10. Lib Obs:
That worked out OK for Bush in 2000, no?
11. That worked out OK for Bush in 2000, no?
Well, yeah. Bush won the Electoral College and was elected POTUS. What's your point? That nearly six years later you're still a sore loser? Shocked.
Back to the topic:
A brief look at history shows this collective voting was done in the past ... most often at saloons and other places of work and business. And it was changed. Now, we're going back to it?
12. We actually don't know how many people in King County want to go to Vote By Mail. From what I understand, only 7 out of 13 people on the CEOC voted for it and only 5 out of 9 council members want it. I haven't been asked for my opinion by our government, have you? I don't assume that all the people who are currently voting by mail would do so if they understood the pros and cons of polling vs voting by mail. Polling is safer and better.
13. Just imagine the implications of people getting together and talking about issues and how they are going to vote! My God, that sounds like a town meeting. How unAmerican can you get!
Must be a slow day, Stefan, if all you can do is whine about 18 month old news articles.
14. Stefan's purpose is to keep the gomers riled up. They never disappoint him.
15. http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/5921/
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/streetfight/about.html
1 I concur w/ Stefan's statement "that one of the reasons that Deanron and the Council Democrats like mail-only voting is because it effectively ends the guarantee of a secret ballot and facilitates group voting."
2 After two (2) decades of Sharpe James in Newark, NJ the citizens have chosen to elect someone new
3 Unfortuneately here in King County we are moving to a Sharpe James administration
16. Steven - My guess even the Seattle MSM are covering the You Must Vote by Mail issue. This is one part of that issue, and it is current. Just wait until a D finds out some R retirement home owner has everyone bring their ballots to a party and help them fill it out. Then something will be done about it!
Ivan - you are so right. People are trying to discuss the issues, and gomers keep coming in all riled up trashing everyone instead of providing anything but Dean's talking points.
17. WOW -- this is surely the hot button topic for the moonbat, tinfoil hat trolls if there ever was one -- sounds like they are really pinning their hopes on this mail in ballot crapola --
18. Fred -- sorry I missed it in your post -- re the R's having a retirement home with a voting party -- heh heh -- you say something will be done about it -- right -- no more licenses to be issued to known R's to run retirement homes -- after all they are a bunch of heartless types that'll feed granny cat fuud
19. I think I'll stop in an observe "Drinking Liberally" in the weeks leading up to the November election. The progressive groupthink might just spontaneously erupt into a ballot party. And it wouldn't be a bad idea for concerned citizens to attend events this November at community shelters, county buildings and other places that were havens of last minute registration and voting in 2004.
20. Unlike going to the polling place where you meet your friends and neighbors and talk about the election.
Why is meeting with your friends and neighbors to talk about your vote a BAD thing? This does NOT end the secret ballot. You have always been able to tell someone how you voted. This is no different.
How unbelievably silly.
21. Why is meeting with your friends and neighbors to talk about your vote a BAD thing? This does NOT end the secret ballot. You have always been able to tell someone how you voted. This is no different.
The difference is that while you can tell someone how you are going to vote or have voted, under a secret-ballot system there's way for the person to know whether you're telling the truth. If you're pressured to go to a poltical rally for Candidate X, you can do so but then later in the booth vote for Candidate Y.
There are good reasons for ballot secrecy. Vote-by-mail seriously comporomises it.