Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

383 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Katy Perry's Dress (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894763)

I wonder if she will be arrested as she had hers printed on her rubber dress.

http://www.webpronews.com/katy-perry-skintight-ballot-dress-hits-election-rallies-2012-11

Iidots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894765)

I'm not showing it to anybody, I'm just putting on the internet.

Good reason for it to be illegal (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894777)

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (4, Insightful)

mrjimorg (557309) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894903)

Wish I could mod this up. Absolutely right - especially when unions get involved. Or abusive spouses. Or that pastor who drives you to the polls. Just too many ways this can be abused. Having said that, it does make it difficult to audit the system - how can you be sure that the machine isn't switching your vote after you leave? Ideally, people would be able to go back some other time and confirm that the vote they cast was in the system correctly. I think the only way to do this would be to allow you to go to a secure facility where you could confirm, in private, how you voted and insure that at least your vote was correctly accepted

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895019)

The way you make sure the machine does not switch your vote after you leave is that the machine prints out a prefilled paper ballot for you that is exactly the same as a paper ballot. And this paper ballot can be visually verified and validated normally before it goes into the same pile as all the other ballots to be counted normally.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (5, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894917)

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Looking up online later, absolutely. The proposals for a receipt, at least the ones I've seen, you may be talking about something else, don't allow you to take the receipt home with you.

Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895099)

Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.

With one more stipulation: No Touch Screens. Use real physical buttons next to an LCD display, like we've all used on ATMs for decades now. Touch screens go out of calibration, leading to opportunities for all sorts of shenanigans.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895155)

Still casting my vote on dead trees with ink.

and I hardly get much on myself in the process!

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895273)

The reason for using a machine is to help blind and illiterate people.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

RobinH (124750) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895223)

The good ideas are doing it the way you describe, but there was a TED talk by a guy who was pushing a voting system where you got a receipt and you could log in and check that it was counted. I can't remember if you could check which way you voted, but I think so.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895345)

Yes you could. You could verify your vote counted and who you voted for however it couldn't be traced back to you without the receipt.

David Bismark E Voting Without Fraud [ted.com]

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895225)

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Looking up online later, absolutely. The proposals for a receipt, at least the ones I've seen, you may be talking about something else, don't allow you to take the receipt home with you.

Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.

What's the point of electronic voting if it has to be audited by paper receipts ?
Just use paper ballots in the first place and be done with it.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (3, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895251)

I agree, but I would add one more stipulation. The human readable receipt should be printed on stiff paper and be machine readable as well. This way, third party auditors could recount electronically extremely quickly. A group like the ACLU should be able to walk in with a small card reader, and under official supervision, they should be able to recount all of the votes by just putting the cards in their reader and letting them run through.

If the votes don't come out the same, it would make it much easier to track down legitimate technical errors, or shenanigans. Since they are human readable, anyone wanting a hand vote could still do it.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (2)

The Rizz (1319) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894935)

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

So, you're saying that Congress wants exclusive rights to vote-selling?

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894955)

So you're saying any way to make sure the machine correctly recorded your vote is a bad idea?

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894971)

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

um, if you want to sell your vote, you can easily provide proof without sharing it on the internet.

These sort of laws are stupid, because they can NOT stop anyone from doing it, unless they decide to start searching everyone, confiscating cellphones, camera's, whatever before they step into the poll booth.

In fact, I never considered selling my votes until I saw this article, now I'm like, fuck, i should be selling my votes. Capitalism at it's finest!

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1, Informative)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894999)

*its finest.
Yeah, Grammar Nazi here. Sue me.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

cob666 (656740) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895183)

Parent is talking about selling his vote and you comment on his grammar?

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (2)

MitchDev (2526834) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895297)

Not like your vote matters, Politicians say what you want to hear to get elected, then do whatever they want anyway :) Might as well make a few bucks on it yourself.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895307)

An you do no harm Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

FTFY

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894977)

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Thats a reason, but I wouldn't call it a 'good' reason. It should be illegal to buy votes, but that is a very separate issue from providing transparency in the voting process. If I want to use my phone to live-stream my polling experience to the entire internets, it should be my right to do so.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894985)

This is also why the afterthought attempt to "fix" electornic voting systems by adding a toilet paper roll printer to them fails. It's entirely possible to take a photo of the paper tape with both your vote and the marking that says it is your final vote. This is unlike a paper ballot where a photo of the ballot does not prove you submitted that ballot into the ballot box.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894989)

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea

You're completely correct up to here, but I kind of disagree with this bit. I think a receipt you take home is a bad idea, but a paper receipt you can review and stuff into a physical ballot box for use in situations when there's a discrepancy in electronic totals makes a lot of sense to me.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

RobinH (124750) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895325)

Yes, in fact that's the only way you could make a trustworthy system. Sure, make it count electronically, but audit a random 3% of the polls by manually counting the receipts, and also audit any where the results don't match the exit polls, etc.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895045)

Then you have shit like this "interface error"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895071)

Wouldn't an anonymous posting venue like InstaGram be the perfect deterrent for coercion?

I could show you "proof" that I voted a dozen different ways.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895079)

Actually, I disagree. I understand the concept, but I don't consider that a "good reason" to make it illegal, because the ability to prove how you voted could ALSO be beneficial, especially in cases where a 3rd. party candidate is reported to have received VERY few votes. If a fair number of people were posting proof they did, indeed, vote for that candidate in that district -- it would be a pretty clear sign that fraud was taking place in the counting.

Not only that, but really, I'm not sure how damaging the "buying of votes" thing could really be, considering how many millions are spent campaigning already? I mean, the argument would hold more water if we had some real restrictions placed on how much could be spent on a campaign. I'd like to see some ground rules in place that ensure someone can effectively run for office without it practically requiring they're wealthy or come from a wealthy family. For example, place a limit on the number of political events a candidate can hold. Place strict limits on the amount of TV advertising they're allowed to do. Put a cap on spending for such things as flyers or billboards or print ads. Make them use a very limited maximum amount of money as effectively as possible, and force them to make better use of less costly options like hosting an informative, full featured web site. In THAT scenario, people wouldn't be endlessly subjected to political ads to the point where they just tune them out -- and campaigns could be fought more on providing information, and less on just attacking the latest thing the other guy said or did.

But as it stands? Come on... They're all trying to "buy your vote" by throwing as much money as possible at the goal.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895215)

Well, for starters, there is a significant difference between spending money to by commercials to convince people of things, and offering direct cash for a particular vote.

As for the 3rd party candidate element... no, that would just be a scattering of anecdotal evidence that true believers would then shows that the votes were rigged. Completely useless except for getting a small group of people who are bad at math riled up.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895085)

we already buy peoples' votes.

don't you guys get it?

money is embedded in politics. at the lower levels, its not nearly the issue as with the superpacs and such.

low lying fruit is not significant. but the high hanging fruit is 'off limits' for the media and press. afterall, THEY (their radio/tv/print stations get ad revenue when A fights B on commercials).

tl;dr: voters are not the problem.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895117)

The solution for this is that checking has to be done the same way voting works. By you going there, identifying yourself as you, then going into a booth where you're alone with the information, and where the same restrictions apply (i.e. nobody with you and no photography allowed).

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895133)

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Let's just hand them a receipt with a checksum on it, which can't be decrypted, but can show whether vote was tampered with by some Diaboldical CEO who promised to deliver votes to a certain candidate.

Congress has a monopoly on vote selling (2)

MDMurphy (208495) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895257)

This rationale means that citizen votes that carry a little more weight than throwing a coin in a wishing well can't be "sold". But a senator/congressman who votes on something that has a much more direct effect can and are sold every day.

Conveniently, keeping voters from having a receipt prevents them from verifying how (or if ) their vote was recorded. This suggests the question: Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?

If you're in the election fraud business, which would be tougher? Buy raw votes and require validation from each voter, or buy a person or persons involved in the tallying of those votes? (or hire a 3rd party to tamper with electronic voting systems )

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895281)

If people choose to show others their vote, then that's how it is. They should have that right, and people should stop being paranoid about cheating.

1st Amendment (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894781)

Would like to see someone get prosecuted over this. This is a clear freedom of speech issue and the government would lose.

Re:1st Amendment (4, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894887)

No, there is a very good reason for this law: if you can show which way you voted to third parties, then it's possible for you to sell your vote to those third parties. As it stands, it's not possible to "sell votes" (at least, not in the direct sense), because you could just take the money and say you voted a certain way, when you didn't.

(Incidentally, I see a lot of people proposing reformed voting systems that include a hard confirmation that your vote for X was counted. Voting reform is good, but that particular idea is bad, for this exact reason. Cut it out).

If someone tried to defend their right to post a picture of their ballot on First Amendment grounds, I'd be willing to bet that a court would rule that a fair election represents the overriding concern and would still prosecute.

It's easy to sell your vote (3, Interesting)

killmenow (184444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895033)

It's unfortunately all too easy.

1. Request absentee ballot
2. Receive absentee ballot
3. Sign absentee ballot
4. Receive payment from buyer
5. Hand over absentee ballot to buyer
6. Walk away while they fill it out however they like and mail it in for you

IMHO, this is the easiest, simplest, and most commonly abused form of voter fraud. Yet none of the supposed "voter fraud" measures proposed predominantly by Republicans address this at all. It's all a smoke screen for suppressing voters that typically lean Democrat.

"Preventing Democratic Votes" under the guise of "Preventing Voter Fraud"

Re:It's easy to sell your vote (1)

Imagix (695350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895105)

Note that in some jurisdictions, the absentee ballots are not counted unless the race for that riding is closer than x%.

Re:It's easy to sell your vote (0)

killmenow (184444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895341)

That's great in landslides because it negates the fraud. But it also means absentee vote fraud has even more potential to decide close races.

BTW, not directed at you but I think it's funny I got modded "Troll" for stating fact.

Mod: Hey, I don't like the way you pointed out the truth! What a dick! Have a downmod!
Me: LOL

Here's even more fuel to add to the "flamebait/troll" modders: You know why Republicans haven't called for any regulations or anything to fix the potential for absentee voter fraud? Because the #1 largest group who votes absentee are military personnel, of whom a large majority vote Republican. Don't want to make voting for your core constituency any harder, now do you? Only on the poor, elderly, and student populations...you know...the ones who typically vote Democrat.

But...shhhh...it's not partisan. No. Not at all. (Nudge nudge wink wink saynomore...)

Re:It's easy to sell your vote (5, Interesting)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895265)

There is the dead voting thing. I know of two examples. We received a voter ID card for two of my grandparents. Both registered Democrat. One died 19 years ago and the other died 20 years ago. Only this year we received their new voter ID cards. Odd since I know both were not registered Democrats. When we called it in saying that these people have been dead for a while now, we were initially told to let it be. Why were we trying to take away their right to vote. Even after stating that these people were dead for 20 years and offering to mail or fax in their death certificates we were told to leave it alone. A few other calls and getting managers we got it straightened out. Also both people died in different states. They never lived in the state where we received the voter ID cards for them. How many other people would just leave it alone?

I believe voter fraud is more common then is being reported. Not many people look into it. If no one is looking no one is reporting it. Also look at the black panthers in Philadelphia. Even this year they are outside polling places. isn't voter intimidation against the law as well?

Re:1st Amendment (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895311)

No, there is a very good reason for this law: if you can show which way you voted to third parties, then it's possible for you to sell your vote to those third parties.

Banning something entirely because certain people might cheat is a good reason? I'll have to disagree.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894945)

IANAL, but the pertinent question here might be: Who owns the marked ballot?

Perhaps you can tell anyone you want how you voted (exit pollsters, etc.). But if your ballot is the property of your state, you could be out of luck sharing an image of it.

In Soviet Russia .... (1, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894793)

... ballot marks you!

Re:In Soviet Russia .... (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895185)

... ballot marks you!

That's Putin it mildly...

I'll get me coat

more government overreach (0, Redundant)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894797)

This is not federal gov't, but States are not much better. Why would you want to allow your State to do that to you, to throw you in jail for a year and fine you thousands of dollars for telling people how you voted? The government is full of dirty pigs and dogs, not people. People OTOH need to learn that all government laws and regulations and taxes are corruption by default.

AFAIC every law is corruption. Government would have to do something extraordinary to prove otherwise to me and even if they did prove a law not to be corruption by default, they would have to prove it to me over and over, maybe every week or every month that it is not corruption, because anything that is passed CAN be corruption even if it is not originally intended or used as such.

Re:more government overreach (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894875)

to avoid things like: "You know, when you come back from the ballot, you should have voted for my friend. Because, you know, I know where you live and I know where your kids go to school. So be a nice boy, when you come back from the electino, bring me back your slip."

Re:more government overreach (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894967)

or more likely: "Since you can prove you voted ${candidate}, I'll give you ${thing}"

Re:more government overreach (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895159)

or more likely: "Since you can prove you voted ${candidate}, I'll give you ${thing}"

Also clogging the courts up with civil lawsuits where the plaintiff sounds something like this "Well, yes I did get fired after getting to work late 3 times after 2 written warnings, but they REALLY only fired me because I posted my ballot showing I voted for "O" and the restaurant owner is a born again neocon christian." Repeat until nausea sets in and the courts are clogged. Anytime some goof ball does something "wrong" and the opponents can prove they voted for different candidates, they'll be dirtbags trying to muddy the waters by dragging election fraud and intimidation into an otherwise straightforward civil suit. All citizens are better off if its illegal to have "proof" of who you voted for.

Re:more government overreach (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894879)

AFAIC every law is corruption.

How about that one that says that I can't shoot you just for the heck of it? How about the one that says that I can't smash the window of your house, go in and grab your stereo and laptop, and leave?

I mean, if "every" law is corruption, then you have to be prepared to back that up and explain what you have to offer that might be better.

Re:more government overreach (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894943)

Please, don't feed the trolls.

Then again, that law is just another form of corruption...

Re:more government overreach (1)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895011)

Prove it. You have to prove that the law in question is not corruption. AFAIC you CAN shoot for the heck of it.

You can't murder people, and this has a very convincing proof. What is funny is the duplicity. YOU are not supposed to murder people. OTOH the government murders people all the time, be it cops or the military, they can now kill people who are Americans or not Americans, doesn't even matter.

You are throwing the case of individuals murdering other individuals, I am going to tell you this: I do not need a government law to know that murdering individuals is the wrong way to go for a person.

OTOH I haven't seen anything that proved to me that NDAA and Patriot Act and DHS has any purpose but to extend the tyranny of government power.

fish in a barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894889)

So, the law against murder is corruption?

Re:more government overreach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895087)

AFAIC every law is corruption. Government would have to do something extraordinary to prove otherwise to me and even if they did prove a law not to be corruption by default, they would have to prove it to me over and over, maybe every week or every month that it is not corruption, because anything that is passed CAN be corruption even if it is not originally intended or used as such.

Is the law against murder corruption? How about the laws against rape and other forms of abuse? Laws are what prevent rule of the jungle.

Re:more government overreach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895209)

What a complete and utter moron you show yourself to be with comments like that.

Re:more government overreach (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895301)

*EVERY* law?

What about laws that guarantee a certain minimum wage (and, in effect, avoiding slavery conditions)

What about laws prohibiting such activities like theft, rape, or murder?

I could probably come up with a few dozen more if I sat down and thought about it for a few minutes, and I'm not going to deny the existence of many laws which may be indicative of some type of corruption, but it's pretty obvious that there are no small number of laws that exist to protect people and not exploit them. That you can't think of any offhand is not a reflection of the notion that the number must be small.

One used to "declaim" one's ballot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894807)

People would stand up on a temporary platform and shout out their choices to the recorders, optionally followed by a fist-fight if it was a close election (;-))

--dave

Re:One used to "declaim" one's ballot (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895213)

People would stand up on a temporary platform and shout out their choices to the recorders, optionally followed by a fist-fight if it was a close election (;-))

--dave

Here's hoping people will drop their petty differences after this round.

Kinda tired of going places and hear people grumble about it. Tomorrow it's over. Let's get on with things.

and by that I don't mean gridlocking government and plunging it into crisis to give our party some sort of edge 4 years from now.

What shutter? (2)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894813)

In many places it is illegal to bring any sort of electronic device into the voting booth.

Re:What shutter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894855)

and i'm sure they are frisking people and providing lockers/coat room service for their cell phones..

Re:What shutter? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895319)

Actually, they do (kinda) in my country. It is illegal to bring recording devices of any sort into the voting booth (with a rather steep fine), you get reminded a few times while standing in line that you must not take your cell phone with you into the booth and that you can leave your cellphone with the voting observers if you have one with you and have nobody around that you trust enough to hold it for you while you're in the booth.

And with two policepeople (one male, one female) present at every election station, frisking is actually a possibility if they have reason to believe you're trying to sneak something in. And believe it or not, this is actually one of the few occasions where I don't even mind the overreaching arm of the law. Voting is too serious a business to risk anything.

Re:What shutter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895007)

My Zenit 35mm camera doesnt have an electronic bone in its body.

Re:What shutter? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895127)

Blast! Our nefarious efforts to use EMP to block electronics in the voting booths have been completely foiled by one lone AC and his obsolete camera!

Re:What shutter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895331)

Neither does my hand grenade, but I doubt it's legal to bring that, too.

(point: there can be more than one law covering what you are allowed to bring in the booth).

Re:What shutter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895249)

Ballot stuffing and hacking electronic voting machines to run a fraudulent election is illegal too, that didn't stop Bush and it won't stop the latest gaggle of lying shitstacks that you're shuffling about.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894825)

Why would you do that? And why does anybody believe these are ballots being cast? As other /.ers have pointed out, if somebody paid me to vote a certain way, I'd photograph the ballot, then I'd spoil it and ask for a new ballot. Good grief.

Re:Why? (1)

The Rizz (1319) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894991)

if somebody paid me to vote a certain way, I'd photograph the ballot, then I'd spoil it and ask for a new ballot

...or photograph a blank ballot, and use photoshop.

Re:Why? (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895177)

or just download a dozen pictures graciously uploaded to the internet

"Here's the one where I voted D ... here's the one where I voted R ... lemme scroll to the one where I voted in your district. Oh, here's one where I voted Cthulhu/Dagon"

Re:Why? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895227)

Either way you can sell your vote twice, and thats fraud and will be prosecuted and legislated against. Just like selling your car or house twice to two people. There are plenty of verifiable non-fraudulent ways to sell your vote, mostly involving absentee voting by mail that have nothing to do with cameras. The only reason to photograph your live in person ballot is because you're planning to commit fraud ripping off the guy who bought your vote by asking for a new ballot.

See, its the bad guys who want to take pix of their ballots, to collect money.

If the parties trusted each other better, they could share lists of who they bought votes from, and in a bipartisan manner break their kneecaps or whatever. But its simpler just to tell the Sheriff (who probably is a R) that anyone taking a pix is probably selling their vote to at least two parties, so go get em

It can indeed be illegall (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894837)

In FL, if you enter the polling place and take a picture you're going to be talking to the police/sheriff. Well, if you get caught. And besides, the whole point is to have an anonymous vote. Put a damn picture of you and your "I Voted Today" sticker online.

Re:It can indeed be illegall (1)

The Rizz (1319) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894979)

So, you can show a picture of yourself with an "I voted" sticker, and you can type up a list of every single thing you voted on, and how you voted, but somehow a picture (that says it all faster) is illegal. Sure, that makes a lot of sense...

Re:It can indeed be illegall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895095)

The "type it all up" is easily forged, and that's the point.

Re:It can indeed be illegall (2)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895115)

I believe the point of it is to prevent media, reporters, mobsters and one else who may be interested in seeing how people vote. The ban is a blanket ban because you could easily pretend to be taking a picture of yourself when you snap a picture of someone else. It makes sense. You can broadcast how you vote all you want, but there should be a level of privacy inside the actual room that you vote in. Note that the media and others are welcome to wait outside for you to come out. They just can't go inside to film you.

Re:It can indeed be illegall (2)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895201)

So, you can show a picture of yourself with an "I voted" sticker, and you can type up a list of every single thing you voted on, and how you voted, but somehow a picture (that says it all faster) is illegal. Sure, that makes a lot of sense...

Actually, it does make sense if there's a possibility that you might be coerced or bribed.

The difference is that you can put anything you want on your typed-up list, whereas a picture of your ballot (to the extent that such a thing is hard to fake) would be actual evidence that you voted one way or another. So your abusive husband (or controlling boss) could demand the latter (and threaten punishment if you don't provide it) as a way to control your vote, but with the former you could easily keep control of your own vote by making up whatever choices he wants to see.

1st Ammendment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894845)

That would seem to be in violation of our 1st Ammendment rights.

Re:1st Ammendment? (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895097)

The court typically rule that our right to a free and fair election trumps our right to speech in this case. There's very good reasons for these laws. Because, you know, that's a very nice house you have there an it'd be a shame if something happened to it. Voting for candidate "a" is a great way to protect your investment, why don't you bring me a picture of your ballot?

Re:1st Ammendment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895333)

Your spelling is atrocious - your argument is invalid.

6 posts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894847)

6 posts, and 2 of those are from that retarded gipsy roman_mir

As it should be. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894867)

As it should be.

Before people rant, let's make this simple, cut and dry.

If I am allowed by law to prove who I voted for -- then people with guns can coerce me to prove I've voted for their candidate.

This is about electoral integrity, not speech.

Now -- to be blunt, it would be nice to be able to snap a picture of my ballot up until the moment I hit "submit" or "vote" or pull the lever. But never during or after.

who cares? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894873)

It's not like our police force has the resources to enforce this. The worst that might happen is your picture is taken down for terms of use violations.

Re: who cares? (1)

martijn hoekstra (1046898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895077)

The police force should make the resources available. As dkleinsc above you noted, enforcing the secrecy of the vote reduces the chances of fraud, and as we have seen in Florida, and may see this year in Ohio, a few votes can make a ton of difference. If you can't demonstrate you voted a certain way, you can't be coerced (either by bribery or by extortion). Police resources spent in safeguarding free elections are well spent.

No need (1)

kid_wonder (21480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894883)

Apparently there is no need to prove who you voted for now, since you can't really choose anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM [youtube.com]

First Amendment (0)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894923)

This is obviously a violation of the right to speech (and I do not care to call it 'first amendment', you have all the rights until the government proves that it needs authority to violate a right that you have, and the authority is defined by the Constitution, so check with your State Constitution whether it is in violation).

Here is another case of First Amendment violation by a government official [huffingtonpost.com] . Dick Durban forced the company in question (Parkmobile), to retract their statement, which they issued, that laws passed by Senate (including one Dick Durban's amendment to 'consumer protection rights act') cause prices to go up. This is obviously true. If a credit card issuer cannot charge different fees to different people (price discrimination) based on their use patterns and such, then all prices must go up to cover the costs of the lost revenue, otherwise it can be a loss to the credit card company. I know that credit card companies are not universally loved or anything, but they have to generate a profit on their operations, not a loss, and any government law that fixes prices causes mis-allocation of resources, some sort of re-allignment of cause and effect. Any time government fixes prices that act has consequences, and they are all negative to the consumer (rising prices, fewer choices, worse quality, etc.)

So Parkmobile responds to the credit card issuer price hike by raising their prices by 13 cents and they send an email explaining why the prices went up. The Senator hears it and attacks the company, threatens it in various monetary ways, etc. This is clearly violation of the first amendment as well, Dick Durbin should be forced to resign. But hey, this is America, politicians are not held to the simple standard of upholding and protecting the Constitution, politicians are above the law.

employers like this trend (5, Insightful)

a2wflc (705508) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894927)

Think of the emails we've been seeing that employers have sent to their workers. I think many of those employers would love to see how everyone votes. If showing your ballot becomes the norm, I'd expect "someone" at the business to start throwing a "we voted" party with a slideshow of everyone's ballot. You may want to keep yours secret, but "everyone does it" so make sure to send your pic to the party organizer to prepare the slideshow. And if you don't care about employers seeing votes, maybe you care about unions, churches, schools, bar owners, or neighborhood thug. Best to not allow proof of votes if we care about keeping them secret.

Re:employers like this trend (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895129)

Think of the emails we've been seeing that employers have sent to their workers.

I was in an Office Max yesterday and I caught a glimpse of an email/web page (not sure what) on one of their work computers that looked suspiciously like the company suggesting to the workers how the local ballot should be marked. It was full screen with large pictures of the candidates with green check marks against at least some names.

Re:employers like this trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895229)

The sense of entitlement in some people! You should vote the way your corporation tells you to!

Re:employers like this trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41895241)

No harm done as no one who works at Office Max is likely to be smart enough to vote.

Re:employers like this trend (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895171)

My grandfather had to do this, but it was a lot lower tech, and it was for his union, not his employer.

Re:employers like this trend (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895347)

make sure to send your pic

How do they know its your pic? Nobody pays attention to copyright laws, even though its technically a violation to upload someone elses pic as your own.

Lets say you attend your church's party first, you could probably collect a pix of every conceivable ballot (depending on how narrow minded your fellow church members are), then upload whichever is appropriate for work. I suppose if the stereotypical neocon CEO demands everyone vote rmoney, and he gets 50 pix of Rmoney ballots ALL BIT FOR BIT IDENTICAL then he's probably gonna flip his lid, but...

Our local ballots are utterly anonymous optical scan things. I suppose if there's a /.er out there where ballots need a photocopy printed onto them of your drivers license, then that could be a problem...

Not Allowed in Maryland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41894995)

You are not allowed to take photos in Maryland [state.md.us] .

"2. You cannot use your cell phone, pager, camera, and computer equipment in an early voting center or at a polling place."

They don't want your employers demanding to see your marked ballot. They don't want people to stand around photographing who is voting. Etc.

The exception is journalists who may photograph the voting process as long as no ballots are visible and no individuals are identifiable.

Not a problem (3, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41894997)

Although posting your ballot may be illegal, it's unenforceable as a matter of law.

There's no way to prove that an image is your ballot.

The state has to prove chain of custody. Can they prove that you actually took the image (as opposed to, for example, downloading it off the internet)? Can they prove that you snapped your actual vote (as opposed to taking a picture and then changing the vote)? Can they prove that you didn't snap a picture of someone else's vote?

Can they prove that you didn't photoshop the image?

Even if they can make a good case for chain of custody (a video of you actually casting the vote would take a lot of effort to fake), would the state actually prosecute? The bad publicity for prosecuting this while taking time away from more serious crimes (murder, rape) would be a big disincentive.

There's also the personal freedoms angle. Certainly no one can be forced to prove their vote, but if someone wants to proudly show their vote, could this not be considered a freedom of speech issue?

There may be some grumbling from government about this, and some websites could be asked (without a warrant) to take some pictures down, but that's about all that will happen.

Government is powerless to prevent this, and they know it.

Re:Not a problem (2)

preaction (1526109) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895173)

Thats why it is illegal to take a photo of ANY ballot, not just your own.

Re:Not a problem (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895303)

The state has to prove chain of custody. Can they prove that you actually took the image (as opposed to, for example, downloading it off the internet)? Can they prove that you snapped your actual vote (as opposed to taking a picture and then changing the vote)? Can they prove that you didn't snap a picture of someone else's vote?

If the arrest you seize your camera, and find the picture on your phone, that is probably enough to convict. They don't need 100% proof, they need to convince a jury.

So, no international oversight and no photos.... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895001)

...I would NOT trust the ballot.

Re:So, no international oversight and no photos... (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895083)

If you think the UN could add legitimacy to anything, I think you have bigger problems.

Re:So, no international oversight and no photos... (1)

preaction (1526109) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895179)

How would you taking a picture ensure legitimacy?

First amendment issue? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895121)

This could be a good test of my first amendment rights. I'm in Michigan, I'm tempted to test this out. I'm voting Libertarian, so none of my guys are going to win anyway.

Re:First amendment issue? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895203)

> I'm voting Libertarian, so none of my guys are going to win anyway.

Nod. I understand. I am Libertarian also, and I used to do that. Now I spend my vote where I think it can do the most good, switching between the major parties as necessary to participate in key primaries. But that's a lot more work than just voting for whomever has a capital L after their name.

Do it anyway...not a priority... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895141)

If we aren't going to chase down voter fraud or even implement the same identification requirements for voting as we require at the local DMV, what are the chances we're going to chase down people taking photos of their own ballot?

State-By-State List (5, Informative)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895161)

Legal to Photograph Your Marked Ballot
Alabama
Delaware
Maine
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Wyoming

The Law on This is Unlcear
Arkansas
Connecticut
DC
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio

Illegal to Photograph Your Marked Ballot
All Other U.S. States

Source [citmedialaw.org]

haven't you kids gone to school? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895167)

and didn't your parents pay any attention to you. all the kids these days seem to be attention whores posting look what i did crap on the internet for their friends to comment on and to show the world how important they are

seriously, i learned about this in social studies. up to the early 1900's before the secret ballot everyone sold their vote. Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall were big in NYC.

for all you dumb kids who think movies are like real life go check out an oldie called Gangs of New York. the main character votes 5 or 6 times.

Posting the pic shouldn't be illegal... (1)

RobinH (124750) | about a year and a half ago | (#41895245)

It's not that posting the picture should be illegal, it's that you shouldn't be allowed in to vote if you're taking in some way of proving how you voted. I know that's a bit heavy handed, but any other way allows an employer or abusive spouse, etc., to force you to prove to them how you voted. At least this way you can say "they won't let me in."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>