Then, how do you guarantee that no one ever (even accidentally) looks at the spoiled ballots when they count them? You have to open the envelope to count the contents, which eliminates the benefit of an opaque envelope, and telling people not to look inside it.
The oaths don't guarantee that officials will be honest. If someone is corrupt enough to try to cheat, the odds are good they'll be willing to lie as well. You're probably a very honest person, which is why this didn't occur to you. :-)
The election judges may both be interested in finding out how the spoiled ballots were cast. Voter anonymity is more important to the voter than to any given party.
In short, the risk is a potential loss of voter anonymity. The cost of avoiding that risk is to lose a useful but unnecessary piece of accounting. I say the spoiled ballot accounting has to go, because the guarantee of anonymity is a fundamental right of the voter, whereas an accounting for uncast ballots is not.
--
Ytrew
In reply to Re^5: Larry Wall for President! (or at least voting systems in Perl...)
by Ytrew
in thread Larry Wall for President! (or at least voting systems in Perl...)
by radiantmatrix
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |