Slashdot Mirror
Pull Lever, Don't Snap Shutter: It May Be Illegal To Post Your Ballot
An anonymous reader writes "Proud voters are already posting their ballots on Instagram but ProPublica's Lois Beckett reports that you may want to check your state laws first since showing your marked ballot to other people is actually illegal in many states."
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
I'm not showing it to anybody, I'm just putting on the internet.
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.
I am officially gone from
Have gnu, will travel.
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
In many places it is illegal to bring any sort of electronic device into the voting booth.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
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."
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.
I am officially gone from
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
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
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.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
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.
Please, don't feed the trolls.
Then again, that law is just another form of corruption...
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
or more likely: "Since you can prove you voted ${candidate}, I'll give you ${thing}"
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.
...I would NOT trust the ballot.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
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"
If you think the UN could add legitimacy to anything, I think you have bigger problems.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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?
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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
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.
How would you taking a picture ensure legitimacy?
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."
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
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 )
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
In addition to the very good reasons that have been pointed out in many other posts about how this is to prevent vote selling and vote coercion, it's important to note that nothing is stopping you from _saying_ who you voted for. You're only being prevented from _proving_ it by showing a photo. Note that your "free speech" to show recordings of certain things are constrained by quite a number of laws for things far more trivial than ensuring a fair election. You'd have a lot more luck arguing you have a right to record a movie in the theater and show it to other people than to argue that you have a right to record your vote in the polling place and show it to other people.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Would like to see someone get prosecuted over this.
I agree. I here by claim you have sold your vote to a corporation, which is a felony.
I present the evidence of your crime as a picture of your voting results, and it is now up to you to prove you did not do so, despite the damning evidence that you did. Why else have a picture of your vote if not to sell it? Good luck proving a negative.
You'll be going to PMITA prison for many a decade for your crime of selling votes. I hope you're happy about your request to be prosecuted!
Depending on which state you live in, political affiliation is NOT a protected class.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
or more likely: "Since you can prove you voted ${candidate}, I'll give you ${thing}"
Shouldn't that be "...I'll give you ${$$}" :-)
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
You might not need the government to tell you that, but guess what? Loads of people do. I just finished reading Guns, Germs and Steel, followed by Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. They come from opposite sides of the discussion (one is about war, one is about peace), but both have a lot just exactly how much better off we are precisely because we have for the most part surrendered our rights to violence to an impartial third party (the federal government).
The latter does, of course, also talk about the issue where the nominally impartial third party isn't always - the Hobbesian Leviathan is obviously only better than anarchy when it actually is for the people, not for itself. But while I wouldn't claim our current government in the US is perfect on that account (there certainly have been overreaches both military and police), I would claim occasional police overreach (and really, it is pretty occasional here) is still much better than no police.
You should read those books, and then rethink what you just said.
That would seem to be in violation of our 1st Ammendment rights.
Only if you don't understand the 1st Amendment - no one is stopping you from telling anyone and everyone how you voted.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And thus began the meme of taking photograph a photograph of your ballot having your feet of the ground with three other people who are spitting at horses and winking at publicly unshaven females whom they are unacquainted with who serve wine in teacups and who won't call them "master" when out on a date.
No one is stopping you from saying how you voted. It's about stopping you from proving it (and therefore being coerced into voting for someone you *didn't* want to vote for).
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Since when does property of an object influence who can take and distribute pictures of it?
Dilbert RSS feed
Learn how to do a Google search, then look for image map input. An indicator of a valid input is the area of an image highlighting to show the input to the user. A poorly-designed interface that intends to mislead would show a very small area of the image dedicated to input from the wrong button. A well designed interface would show the area being input but not the intended result. I don't think the lowest bidder would be that careful.
Photos would prove me either way.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Another is for all government interaction to be done in some electronic fashion with the screen displaying whatever language the user selects, probably up to and including Klingon.
If Klingon culture comes to voting, can I challenge the winner to a fight to the death if I don't approve of his policies? I'll wager that neither BHO or WMR have experience handling a Bat'leth.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
No, it's banning something because history has shown that corrupt political parties will abuse it if given half a chance.
This is something that can only undermine the process. There is zero public benefit and a real chance of public harm.
Did you do any business of any kind this Saturday, including shopping or housework? If so, I'm afraid we're going to have to stone you to death.
I am officially gone from
When the information on the object is legally privileged or confidential. If you take a picture of a piece of paper with the secret formula for Coca-Cola on it, sharing that image would certainly open you up to civil liability.
This isn't relevant to the issue at hand though.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Clever, mod parent up.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Verify who I am and sign for a paper ballot.
What's involved in that verification process? Here in New York, all I'm allowed to do as a poll-worker is ask you for your address and signature. If the address you give doesn't match the address on file you can't vote. In theory we can challenge you if the signature doesn't match but that never happens. Signatures change over time, and we are hardly handwriting experts. There is essentially no mechanism in place to keep people from voting under your name, which is a double whammy because you lose your vote even as they get to cast multiple ones.
Democrats don't like voter ID laws, because they feel (with some justification) that their base is less likely to have ID and more likely to be burdened by the process of obtaining it. I'm not sure what the solution is, but we need something that's more secure than what's currently in place across much of the country.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
She's a CIA spy and was propped up to keep tabs on Lady Gaga.
The old laws in my state deal with corruption issues of the past and work because those techniques are not a problem today despite advances in technology making old scams more powerful.
We can't MARK ballots incorrectly or they are thrown out and during a recount a panel must review ALL such ballots. The law was created because of a scam where special marks were used to show how YOU voted so you could be compensated or not fired etc. The spirit of such laws is sound and most are broad/vague enough to cover new methods of doing the same old scam.
Ignorant people need to be made aware of why such things were stopped and how they could become a problem again. This is the problem with democracy in that successful solutions continue beyond recollection at which point the citizens are unaware of their benefits and fail to maintain them in the long term. At some point the history education is too burdensome and relying upon appeal to tradition is dangerous which is one of the reasons democracies always fail and history repeats itself.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That's not the ownership of the object, that's the "ownership" of the information. You'd be just as liable if you owned the piece of paper with the formula.
Dilbert RSS feed
And the way to discourage buying of votes by third parties is to prosecute *them*, not those whose votes they attempt to buy.
And photographing your ballot makes perfect sense, in this day of untrustworthy automatic voting machines...
One example is Punchscan, a system where you vote by marking your choice on a double sheet of paper with holes punched through the top sheet so that you simultaneously mark both sheets. The top sheet, which has the candidates' names on it, is destroyed, the other is scanned and then taken home. The sheets you take home doesn't have the names of the candidates on them (they are referred to by randomly ordered letters), so nobody can tell who you voted for, but you can later look up the scanned version online to verify that the markings match and your vote was counted.
http://punchscan.org/
No, it's banning something because history has shown that corrupt political parties will abuse it if given half a chance.
In other words, it's exactly as I said: banning something entirely because some people might abuse it. Similar to collective punishment. You wish to punish everyone because you think it'll make you or others more 'safe' in some way.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
People should be totally within their right to sell their vote.
Of-course USA was never intended to be a Democracy in the first place, a Democratic Representative Republic, that's why it is electoral college and not direct democracy for the POTUS elections.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Ok... I haven't read it, but I did just look it up on wikipedia, and it doesn't seem particularly relevant. It's likely I would even agree with at least a decent chunk of it if I did read it, but it appears to be mainly economic in its scope. Pinker actually spends a good chunk of time talking about capitalism, too - as relates to his primary concern, the continued decrease in violence, he's all for it! Free trade reduces incentives to take by force what you could instead take peaceably through trade.
I wasn't talking about generalities, I was talking specifically about the example given, and how it isn't hypocritical to not support lethal vigilantism but to support lethal force as an appropriate response in extreme circumstances in the hands of those appointed to the position (assuming we're able to trust those appointed, and those doing the appointing). Surrendering the ability to legally murder to only those with no direct ties to either involved party dramatically increases the life expectancy and quality of life for the whole region (unless those to whom it's surrendered abuse that privilege). Does Hayek even talk about that specifically at all?
Road to Serfdom covers this topic from economic point of view. The relevant sections are: Individualism and Collectivism, Planning and the Rule of Law, Economic Control and Totalitarianism, Security and Freedom, Why the Worst Get on Top, The Totalitarians in our Midst.
I also suggest The Law by Bastiat.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
This is something that can only undermine the process. There is zero public benefit and a real chance of public harm.
There is a world of difference between being forced to prove you voted a certain way, and being told you are not allowed to freely share how you voted. Some Americans, like me, view restrictions on what you can and cannot say publicly as a violation of the first amendment right to free speech. Personally, I don't choose to share how I voted. I do care about my constitutional rights.
That's nice, but it didn't answer my question at all, of why you (or at least I assume it was you; the above AC, if it wasn't) claimed my statements were ridiculous and that Road to Serfdom would say in what way(s) that was the case. Yes, obviously, there will always be a tradeoff between personal freedom and handing over responsibilities to larger organizations to take care of in common. In general I lean on the side of personal freedom, but when it comes to deterring crime by responding to it, I don't so much.
p.s. I just glanced at The Law, he would seem to agree with me too, judging from passages like "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."
Sounds just like Pinker's argument to me!
I only suggested that such laws themselves do not show evidence of corruption, since they clearly exist to protect people and not exploit them, not that they are evidence that corruption does not exist.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Lots of people like to spout that talking point. It's not true. Most first world governments, domestically, have exactly the same rights where homicide is concerned as you do. Cops can't shoot you for any reason they feel like. They may only use deadly force against you in defence of themselves or another person, to whom you pose an immediate (and generally deliberate) danger. The only exception is that some backwards countries still have capital punishment.
Internationally there isn't really much law, but nations are subject to international "law", just as you are. Yes, some don't follow it very well and should be locked up.
Ten commandments? What a restricted view! Clearly laws laid down by God are incorrupt so we should implement ALL of them! Ever mouth off to your parents when you were young? Got a tattoo? Touched or been near a menstruating woman? Done any sort of work on a Sunday (or a Saturday, or a Friday....)? Worn mixed fabrics? Lent or borrowed money? Etc. And those are just the Christian ones! There are lots of other religions with all sorts of good, uncorrupt laws, straight from God himself (or herself, or themselves)!
Says the anonymous coward. This deserves a funny mod just for the irony.
Photographic evidence is not admissible by itself - it requires a person who can testify that the image is an accurate representation of what happened.
Lots of people will point out counterexamples to this, but the sum total is that people aren't aware of their rights, don't want to make the hassle, and haven't pushed the issue.
Evidence can be forged - this is why forensics investigators have to keep a chain of custody, and this is why police aren't allowed to simply read from their notes when on the stand.
In your specific case, all it takes is for the person to state "Oh, I didn't take that. My boyfriend took it and E-mailed it to me". The boyfriend can say the same thing, so who then is guilty of the crime? Add as many people as you like to this - if you believe that a crime was committed by one of 5 (say) people, but you can't with certainty point to any one, who is responsible?
People don't realize that if they simply don't admit to anything, there is little the police can do.
It is a felony to leave the voting booth and voting location with your ballot. Makes sense since the ballots are serialized.
But no prohibition on photographing or recording. So we can do it.
> No, it's banning something because history has shown that corrupt political parties will abuse it if given half a chance.
Just like alcohol ...
oh wait.
Video: http://youtu.be/QdpGd74DrBM
shows electronic voting machines are rigged and broke
No, I said will. Because, in the real world, there are people who will take advantage.. Not "might". Will.
That doesn't really matter to me. I think you focused on the wrong part of my comment to reply to, because I don't truly believe that there is no one that will take advantage of it; I just don't care.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
>(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).
That exact idea is bad, but there is cryptographic High Magic which allows taking home a token which cannot be used to determine how you voted, but which can be used to check online that your vote was counted the way you cast it, still not proving which way you cast it. See Chaum and Shamir.