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.I made and make no such guarantee. Like most human endeavors, voting is conducted with finite resources: time, money, space, honesty. We have to do the best we can with the resources at our disposal.
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.You assume (wrongly) that this did not occur to me. Again, there is no such guarantee.
The election judges may both be interested in finding out how the spoiled ballots were cast.It is possible.
Voter anonymity is more important to the voter than to any given party.That's an interesting assertion.
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.If you feel so strongly about it, you might decide to contact your local representative to try to enact these changes.
In reply to Re^6: Larry Wall for President! (or at least voting systems in Perl...)
by trammell
in thread Larry Wall for President! (or at least voting systems in Perl...)
by radiantmatrix
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |