Slashdot Mirror


No Secret Ballot for Military Personnel?

belmolis writes "According to this editorial in today's New York Times, US military personnel for whom regular absentee ballot procedures are inconvenient are being provided with a questionable alternative, the Electronic Transmission Service, run by a private contractor, Omega Technologies. According to the NYT, the secrecy of ballots could be breached when they are faxed or emailed from the field, when they are in the hands of Omega Technologies, or when they are in the hands of local officials. The NYT was unable to obtain any information on security procedures from the company or from the Pentagon. A manual describing the system can be downloaded here [pdf document]. Like Diebold, Omega is far from non-partisan. Omega President and CEO Patricia Williams has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee and is a member of its Business Advisory Council."

13 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. That is only one corruption of thousands. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting


    There are many, many situations of this nature. See Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

  2. If i understand the editorial correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the problem is not only that secrecy can be breached, but that it will be breached. After all you have to waive your right to a secret ballot.

    As if this wasn't bad enough already (though you might make an argument that it is justifiable in some extreme situations), the company that handles the ballots is far from non-partisan and there is no way to independently verify that the ballots are handled the way they should be handled.

    Finally, as an outside observer, I just don't get it that after the distater of the last presidential election in Florida, that also involved problems with absentee ballots from military personal, btw., things like these are still possible in the US. I get the feeling, that either the US can't get its act together (though I think that is very unlikely), or those in charge don't want to get their act together.

  3. Re:Compromised ballots? by kinrowan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure there are checks on the compromising of ballots, but isn't the real risk the chilling effect of other people knowing which way you voted?

    Especially in the military it seems to me that anonymity is critical to the practice of democracy.

  4. Re:why voting anonymous anyway by Superjhemp · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Am i somehow under threat if i vote for kerry or bush or even the communist party candidate and gasp someone finds out :o

    Maybe not you, but lots of other people might feel uncomfortable to vote Democrat if their boss votes Republican. A threat doesn't need to be a threat to your health and lifelyhood; a threat to your career is more than enough.

    And then, there's the specter of "vote buying". If ballots are secret, it's much more difficult to buy votes, because you cannot be sure that they guy whose vote you bought really voted the way he promised ;-)

    And then, the special case of the armed forces. Even if Joe the Soldier is brave enough to vote Democrat (knowing full well that his hierarchy would prefer Republican), and does not care that his might lead to his removal from the armed forces, we still have a problem: Now suddenly the Republicans have an army at their disposal which they know that they can trust. No risk of the army siding with the people, if ordered to commit unconstitutional acts, because the Republicans will have "weeded out" the untrustworthy elements before.

  5. Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Informative
    Bush only got in after some very suspicious vote counting. The Republicans aren't too bothered what it takes to keep him there.


    Thousands Registered to Vote in 2 States-Report

    "But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

    Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday."

    Feel any better?

  6. Ummm... by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That wouldn't put a huge dent in the military, which tends to vote republican 80+ percent of the time (I saw a statistic at one time that showed military officers voted republican 8 to 1 over democrat... Here's an article about the Duke Study ).

    I'd have to say from my own experience (former military officer talking here) that the percentage is probably higher than they think. I can count on one hand the number of real liberal democrats I encountered during all my years in the military.

    Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton. When I was in the service, many officers and enlisted so despised Clinton that they refused to display any certificates, awards, decorations, citations, etc with his signature on them. Despite the prohibition on using "contemptuous words" against the commander-in-chief and elected officials, most guys were (privately) very frank about how they felt... The level of enmity was really remarkable.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re: Ummm... by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the off chance that you really don't know, I'll try to offer some context.

      Much of the ill will regarding clinton came from his history. He stated that he "loathed the military", and subsequently dodged the draft. Despite this, he still managed to get himself elected commander in chief... that really rankled the older vietnam-era guys that were still around... some of them couldn't say Clinton's name without spitting. They resented very much having to salute and take orders from him (the younger guys resented Clinton for the same reasons, but it was really palpable among the older guys).

      Clinton's sexual indiscretions were also a huge liability. Military members can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for adultery alone; sexual indiscretions with a subordinate (ie. Miss Lewinsky) are even worse. Many active duty members felt that Clinton, as commander in chief, should be held to the same standard. It's a pretty terrible example to set when the commander gets off for something that would earn a lowly Sergeant a court-martial...

      Note: we haven't even started talking about his politics.

      Anyway, that'll get you started... I'm sure some others in this forum can add some additional thoughts.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    2. Re:Ummm... by subsailor · · Score: 5, Informative
      Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton.


      You must have been out a while.

      While there are still a large number of military who are pretty firmly GOP, I'd have to disagree with that "almost all" assessment. I'm active duty, and I've gotten into many a political conversation at my command, only to be surprised by just how many of my fellow servicemen are not Bush supporters at all. There are a surprising number (I'd estimate about 1/3 to 1/2 of those I've discussed it with) that are backing Kerry, mainly due to the Iraq war, which isn't supported as whole-hog in the military as some would think.

      From my (admittedly anecdotal and unscientific) observations, the staunchly GOP ones in ranks are usually the older, more senior enlisteds and officers (I'm Navy, so for me that is the senior CPO's and Commanders/Captains/Admirals). But many "blueshirts" and junior officers, I'd hazard to say a majority, are against a second Bush term...even those who normally roger up Republican. The Iraq war is a big hot-button issue driving this.

      It's interesting to me, in fact, to see how some reacted recently to the new "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal" and "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal". These were awarded to those who served in units that were in certain actions listed as being under the GWOT. One of these was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know several people who questioned the award of the GWOT medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom, as they didn't believe OIF was part of the GWOT. This started a rather heated debate recently (I managed to get right in the middle), with one officer telling people to jolly well not wear the medal if they didn't agree with it. I've not decided yet...I rate the medal since I served on a ship involved directly in OIF, but I question OIF being part of the GWOT myself. I don't wear the ribbon yet (though honestly I rarely wear a uniform that includes ribbons/medals...we don't wear ribbons/medals in our everyday working uniforms).

      But to get back on topic, the military isn't as solidly GOP as people would think. Many junior soldiers/sailors won't come out and say it for fear of publicly disagreeing with the brass, but if you get a fly-on-the-wall perspective of deckplate discussions you'd see there is a lot of Kerry support in the ranks.
  7. What pissed off the military last time... by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know several people in the military, who were absolutely enraged with the last election because their absentee ballots were'nt counted. See this for example. They were far more angry that their vote was usurped, then they were concerned about someone seeing their vote.

  8. Re:Not a big deal - yet by chewy_2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Incidentally, the secret ballot wasn't developed by the US or the UK as you may expect, but Australia back when it was a colony.
    Wikipedia has details.
    Not sure what relevence this has to the thread, so mod me down if you want, but I find it kind of interesting that a mere convict colony developed this 'fundamental principle a democratic society is built on'.

  9. The reactions here are scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everytime a story like this is posted I'm scared by the way people react.
    Obviously without even bothering to read the article people tell us that everyone who is concerned about these kinds of things should take of their tin foil heads.
    They tell us that 6 000$ isn't much, as if this was the point.
    And they immediately start the old Democrats vs. Republicans game. For every instance of republican foul play I will post at least one instance of the democrats doing something wrong. As if it did matter who deprived voter of their basic rights.

    Now take into account that this story is not the only reason to be concerned (Diebold anyone?) and what has hapend in Florida during the last Presidential election and it should be clear to anyone that there is reason to be concerned.

    The moment the outcome of an election is decided not by the people voting but by judges who decide if counting the votes one side wants to count or counting the votes the other side wants to count something is wrong and needs fixing. Seeing what is happening lately in the US this situation seems far from solved, on the contrary seems to get worse.

    What will happen to a country whose citizens don't seem to be concerned if their most basic right is undermined?

  10. Re:Gain control over the military first by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Whether the democrats like it or not the majority of military is behind their Command-In-Chief and will in all likelyhood vote for him again.

    Actually I've discussed the question with a few military people, and none planned to vote for Bush. Indeed, one Army officer pointed out to me that, given the "backdoor draft" going on, members of the Guard and Reserves "would be idiots" (his words) to vote for Bush. (Of course, I live in a pretty solid "blue" state.)

    I can also tell you first hand, that if your knowledge of the events in Afghanistan and Iraq is from the news media then you are basically ignorant of reality. The vast majority of the Iraqs' and Afghanistans' citizens are very glad the US stepped in and helped...Someday the true events will be revealed and you guy's will be amazed at how totally clueless you were.

    Right, I'm going to take the word of an Anonymous Coward on this. As if all the bombing and shooting was actually just an old Iraqi way of greating visitors.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  11. Re:Compromised ballots? by Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Ea · · Score: 5, Informative

    davejenkins is as wrong as wrong can be. The "Australian Ballot" system has remarkably strong checks on ballot integrity and trail. davejenkins has never taken a close look at a polling place, apparently.

    At the beginning of the day, an elections worker opens a ballot box to make sure it is empty, under the watchful eyes of observers from contesting political parties (e.g. a Democrat and a Republican). Given their contrary desires about election outcome, no observer would consent to pre-stuffing the ballot (i.e. they might like fake ballot of their own party, but not of the other party).

    Then the ballot box is sealed, and a lock is placed on it. The box is also watched by those mentioned observers during the course of the day, so stuffing becomes difficult.

    At the end of the day, everyone watches the box being unlocked; watches the ballots being pulled out and shuffled (to increase anonymity for early- or late-voters by eliminating sequence).

    Then under the watchful eye of all the observers (and of several elections workers), the ballots are counted and sorted. Totals recorded. Vote tallies posted at the polling place. Procedures signed off on by judges and observers. And the records sealed back up into envelopes or lock boxes.

    NONE of these safeguards exist in Omega's secret system that lacks any observers.