Comments (23)

• Mark

  Coercion is still coercion regardless of the motives.

  Published: March 7, 2009 9:18 PM

• Mark

  Coercion is still coercion regardless of the motives.

  Published: March 7, 2009 9:18 PM

• newson

  i can't see anything intrinsically wrong with the secret ballot; the alternative is stand-over tactics.

  australia is unusual amongst western democracies in that voting is obligatory both in state, and federal (and sometimes local) government elections.
  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
  

  Published: March 7, 2009 10:20 PM

• Mark B.

  I debated this particular issue before. In the early days of our Republic, freeholders gathered and cast their vote orally or by show of hands. I think we did better when we had open voting.

  Published: March 7, 2009 10:29 PM

• Mark B.

  I debated this particular issue before. In the early days of our Republic, freeholders gathered and cast their vote orally or by show of hands. I think we did better when we had open voting.

  Published: March 7, 2009 10:30 PM

• Taylor

  Lysander Spooner says the secret ballot is for secret bands of murderers and thieves, not free and honest people: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

  Published: March 7, 2009 11:18 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

  Newson, your error is in thinking there are only two alternatives, the current one and the former Eatanswill approach. But it would be straightforward to have open voting and institutions that would defend voters against bribery or threats. My personal favourite would be, use cumulative voting so that persons elected would be roughly in proportion to their support, give representatives and those nearly elected some sort of tribune role to protect their supporters - and have secret votes for those elected to undercut political machinery. Of course, that's on the assumption that there are other constitutional changes to make the representatives separate from governments, which should also be winding back. I only see this as part of a transition away from governing at all, while having a temporary safeguard in place.

  Published: March 8, 2009 1:46 AM

• Crosbie

  A simple solution may be to use a bicameral legislature in which the lower house is elected by secret ballot and the upper house is elected by a publicly registered vote. The lower house would use secrecy to protect voters from intimidation. The upper house would use shame to protect property owners from theft. Bills would need to pass both to become legislation.

  Published: March 8, 2009 4:15 AM

• Justin

  Why should voters be protected from intimidation and stand-over tactics? That is exactly what they are voting for.

  As Spooner shows, secret voting means that there is in effect no way of knowing who are the people calling themselves 'the government', the principals of whom the salaried officers are the agents, the people who pretend to authorise the use of guns, tasers, truncheons, handcuffs and prisons to take your money and hand it out to whomever they want.

  There is every reason why these people should have to make their voting public, so they can be held responsible for their actions.

  Published: March 8, 2009 6:06 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  Classical Liberalism Protection
  Sunday, March 8, 2009

  Taxation Is Only One Means And Has Its Limits.
  
  The idea that all taxation should be local is such an incredibly powerful principle.

  The natural 'world order' does not imply anything political. People all over the world and cultures around the world functioning within the constraints of liberty (the right to own property in all of its forms implies the responsibility to respect property rights) can and will function without a parasitic class.

  
  The freedom to travel and to move will be all that is necessary to prevent taxation from becoming excessive. If taxation in a particular place is the best means to accomplish a goal then those who want to achieve that goal will be willing to pay the tax.

  If that happens to be a correct or an incorrect assessment, it will soon be discovered because people in pursuit of prosperity will either come or go.

  Without any coercive parasitic class taxation will simply be one choice, one means to attain an ends. For example, two neighboring communities may decide that connecting these communities with a rail line would be beneficial. To accomplish this they could decide to tax everyone to provide a capital fund for entrepreneurs to use. The farther away someone lives the less likely they are to benefit and the less likely they are to agree to paying a tax.

  If taxation is rejected a rail line may still be developed by other means if it truly is something that will beneficial. If taxation is accepted it will only remain in tact if it is unburdensome and if there is evidence that it is productive.

  The idea that all taxation should be local is such an incredibly powerful principle.

  Published: March 8, 2009 7:05 AM

• Mark

  Coercion is not the answer. The rule of law is the answer. It should be illegal for government at any level to take money from people by force to give to others in any form or fashion.

  Published: March 8, 2009 10:01 AM

• aussie_libertarian

  @newson:

  I am Australian and received a $57 fine for not voting in the local government election last November. I have no intentions of surrendering a cent of my money to this act of thievery and I am very curious to see what will transpire!

  Published: March 8, 2009 10:29 AM

• Deefburger

  Fear is leveraged in favor of servitude. Always has been, and always will be.

  We know, as libertarian thinkers, that our individual freedom is what empowers out society as a whole. Yet, we will all "give up" some of that freedom in order to "protect" ourselves from a minority with evil intent.

  This is done because of a lack of fortitude. We give in to our fear of those evils. The fear is magnified by the arguments made in favor of a solution to the problem. A simple, painless fix, comprised of some authoritative institution put into place to "combat" this evil on behalf of the populace in general.

  Unfortunately, the evil doers know this, and need only to create a fearful situation, offer a "solution", and then, with the willful participation of the populace, implement the "solution".

  So in the voting problem we are faced with evil in secret, and evil in public. In either case, the voting is cast at the same time, and in the same relative place. This is the jugular vein of society and the surest place and time to find the workings of evil. It is the the easiest and most fruitful target for leveraging fear.

  In a free and open society, the only public voting for anything that involves money and time, should be the open free market. Taxation is forced and is therefore a handy tool of an evil few if they can get a hold of it. Free and voluntary investment cannot be controlled or coerced. Take the example of the railroad between two towns. The value of the railroad must be measured in terms of revenue and investment cost, not the "benefit to society". The benefit to society will be a given, if the investment costs are low enough, and the revenue is high enough, the society will realize the benefit and "vote" with their rail fare.

  The use of taxation and the government as a means of investment is wrong. The project either has real potential and therefore the ability to attract investment capital on its own, or not. Forcing it by claiming universal benefit is a false pretense. If such benefit really existed, then the capital would reach the project.

  The only place that taxation has a place, is also the only place that government has a place, and that is in the common defense, and the enforcement of law. I say this only because I have not yet found a way that these functions could be supported by volunteer-ism or by donation other than a standing militia of an armed populace, the intent and purpose of the second amendment of the Constitution. But in a truly free and open society such defense is not nessesary. It would be like defending my right hand from my left, and visa versa.

  So, in the end, the problems of free society are actually personal, subject to the whims and folly of our own selves, our own strengths, and our own fears. I would rather take the chance that my fear is unfounded and remain free, than give in to it and take a step toward servitude.

  So how should we elect people to office?

  Public vote, subject to stand-over?
  Secret vote, subject to fraud?
  Lottery?
  All of the above?

  What would be the furthest from fear and the closest to freedom?

  Published: March 8, 2009 11:36 AM

• Curt Howland

  I prefer voluntary interaction. I vote with my money, my participation.

  No need for secrecy, unless it's the Masons and I wouldn't join them anyway.

  Published: March 8, 2009 1:23 PM

• newson

  to aussie libertarian:
  i'm curious too. non-payment may get you demerit points on your credit rating, so it might end up costing a lot more than the fine's face value. but i share your outrage.
  

  Published: March 8, 2009 5:58 PM

• newson

  pm lawrence says:
  "But it would be straightforward to have open voting and institutions that would defend voters against bribery or threats."

  i should have been more clear, my concern is more with peer pressure than blunt physical menace. most like to conform, and the fear of being marked out as "different" shapes decisions as much as fear for personal safety.

  i think bringing in secrecy in union strike-action votes was a step in the right direction, for example.

  Published: March 8, 2009 6:08 PM

• adafads

  Secret ballots make vote fraud easy.

  Imagine being able to audit an election by contacting the voters to confirm their vote?

  Published: March 8, 2009 8:07 PM

• Deefburger

  What if there were two votes? One secret and one public? The results should match, closely. And if they don't, then some kind of fraud or coercion is taking place.

  Another check might be the lottery. If each elected position had two seats, one by vote and the other by lottery, then the lottery seat becomes a "peer" seat like that of a jury. Corruption of the peers is unlikely, as they cannot be known before the draw. Any coercion of the peers is against a sitting member of the house, and carries penalties that would be difficult to buy off so long as the peers represent half the house. The terms of service would be limited to the term drawn, and the redraw of a peer is naturally suspect. The peers have the advantage of non-political connection. They do have connection to the community they came from, but they are not necessarily sitting for that community. A peer from California may be sitting for a district in Ohio.

  Why not have a Jury of Peers voting along side the career politicians? The Jury system works very well in the legal system, why not government itself?

  Published: March 8, 2009 8:25 PM

• Jim Chappelow

  It looks like Jim Fedako has asked an empirical question here, so instead of speculating why don't we look at some actual evidence. The New England states still practice town meetings with more or less open voting at the municipal level. With the glaring exception of New Hampshire, they generally rank low in economic freedom and high in tax burden.

  Published: March 9, 2009 9:10 AM

• Deefburger

  I don't think the method of voting has anything to do with it. I think that if the only things put before anybody to vote on involve more taxation, then eventually the number of tax bearing legislation will increase. It has to. If the only question ever asked is "would you be in favor of _______ supported by a ______ tax." then there is only one outcome over time...Yes to "some" Tax.

  The method of voting is relevant only to the question of voting honesty, not the content of the bills or the honesty in the bills themselves. What is the ratio of tax relief proposals to tax increase proposals? That is where the rubber meets the road. Throw darts if you like instead of voting, pick a yes or a no out of a hat, it doesn't matter. If the ratio (tax added):(tax removed) is weighted on the side of (tax added) then the tax will rise not fall, no matter how honest people are most of the time, or how they choose to vote.

  If all you can do is put money into the gumball machine, is it any wonder why it's full of pennies? Does the method of penny dropping change the outcome? No, except in the rare circumstance of a dishonest penny dropper dropping in a slug. That is the only instance where the method of voting might have an influence.

  Published: March 9, 2009 11:54 AM

• billwald

  First, the method of counting votes determines the outcome which is why Libertarians want an instant runoff system. If this wasn't true then why spend time and money campaigning for something that doesn't matter?

  Second, polsters can take a survey of several thousand people and report results +/- 3%. Don't remember the exact numbers but this is the way the math works out beyond dispute. The point? That if a national election of 50 million people is reported to have difference of less than 1% between the top candidates then it doesn't matter how the vote is counted because the difference is less than the margin of error and the the vote should be declared a dead tie.

  Third, if the difference in outcome is less than 1% (less than 10%) the pragmatic difference between the candidates can't amount to hill of beans. Hasn't Obama demonstrated this in his selection of appointed officials?

  In their guts, Republican business people know that they will do OK under Democrats even thought they might have an advantage if their party was elected and vice versa. This is we have all kinds of cheap talk about leaving the country if the wrong party is elected but no one ever does. No matter which party wins, the US is still has the best opportunity for working people.

  The people who are losers under Republicans (Democrats)? They would be losers in any system. Losers are losers. Anyone who can't live decently in the US in the last 50 years would be a loser any place, any time period.

  There never will be an honest secret election where ballots are transported over a distance to a central location for counting. Any election can be fixed. The only honest election is a raise of hands that everyone in the room can count.

  The solution is voting with a raise of hands that everyone can count. First, the voting rolls of every county should be posted on the web in a standardized down loadable spread sheet. Every person can check his neighborhood for dead people and nonexistent addresses.

  Second, every person's vote should be posted on the same spread sheet. Every person can then check to see if his vote is properly recorded.

  With the current generation of PC, counting the presidential ballot for 50 million people should be no big deal. A BASIC or PASCAL or WIndows or any program should be able to download the national vote county by county and state by state. Several programs could be written and posted on line. Every one should come up with the same result. Everyone should be able to make several runs a day. The down loading should take longer than the computation. Even I could write a BASIC program that would work.

  Published: March 9, 2009 12:38 PM

• pussum207

  What do they do in New Hampshire? I believe that a lot of public business is conducted at local town meetings by a show of hands. Am I right?

  Published: March 9, 2009 1:30 PM

• Deefburger

  @billwald: First second and third points- I hear ya. That's why I suggest two votes, one secret and one public. The margin of error between the two should be much like the currently un-official "public" vote shown by the exit polls.
  "The people who are losers under Republicans (Democrats)? They would be losers in any system. Losers are losers. Anyone who can't live decently in the US in the last 50 years would be a loser any place, any time period."

  You know, you might be right on this one too....

  "There never will be an honest secret election where ballots are transported over a distance to a central location for counting. Any election can be fixed. The only honest election is a raise of hands that everyone in the room can count."

  Still got to tally the tally of the tally. You may be sure of what you saw in the room, but you can't be sure it got reported properly. Unless you get to see the results of the secret ballot and can compare it to the public show of hands. Both votes should be within tight margins of error or there is an indication of monkey business.

  "With the current generation of PC, counting the presidential ballot for 50 million people should be no big deal....."

  I agree completely. Publicly posting the results by district, county, state and nation would make it possible for each region to check and double check that their vote was cast and tallied correctly. Add to this a double vote, public and private and post both results and there is almost no way in hell that somebody could rig an election.

  Published: March 10, 2009 7:36 PM