Skip to main content

View Diary: Today is the end of the electronic voting machine (372 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can't see that this is in Oregon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheRover

    Since you're talking about absentee ballots.

    Wherever you're located, I hope you explained to your students that voting is a right and a responsibility of citizenship, that it's their right to vote however they want, and that no one is allowed to coerce them to do otherwise.

    And - I do think your concerns are unjustified.  My 18 year old voted by himself.  I have trouble believing other 18 year olds are unable to do the same.

    •  So your 18 year old... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gator Keyfitz

      is just like every other 18 year old?  Come on, Ernest: surely you know better than that.

      And there are women out there, lots of them, who are married to hardcore dittoheads but who secretly vote Democratic themselves (at least in some elections--these women I think are often swing voters).  My former mother-in-law was one such person, and her family is such an archetypical one I have to think this is fairly common.  And knowing such a patriarch's personality, I have no doubt that filling out the ballots would be a family affair.  It wouldn't be as some scoffers imagine, like Dad is playing the role of evil dictator; in his mind he's just "helping" his family to make sure they don't make some error that costs precious GOP votes.  But you'd better believe he'll blow his top if someone goes "off the reservation"--and the other members of the family usually aren't rebellious enough to want to deal with that hassle.

      Furthermore, in one of the celebratory posts about VBM, people talked about how fun it could be to have "voting parties" where people sit around with some drinks, ballots, voter guides and laptops (for research) and debate whom to vote for.  Sure, sounds great--until the "party" is held at the Southern Baptist church potluck.

      Bad bad bad bad BAD idea.

      -Alan

      -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

      by SlackerInc on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 02:24:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope. Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheRover

        I think it's a good idea.  I think it has been proven in Oregon and is being proven in Washington.

        It may not work everywhere, but the fear mongering and hypothesizing being put forth in these comments are not founded on fact.  They are worry fantasies, often based on misinformation or misunderstanding.

        I think we'll have to part company on this.  You have your fears based on guesses and worries.  I have my confidence based on facts and a decade of experience.

        •  How do you know... (0+ / 0-)

          this isn't already happening?  Where would you find your "facts" to refute this?  Just the fact that it obviously can easily happen makes it unnecessary to prove that it does (and it's pretty tough to prove something like this happens, especially behind the private veil of the nuclear family home).  I'm using the same logic here, btw, that works fine for vulnerabilities in Diebold machines.


          -Alan

          -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

          by SlackerInc on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 02:52:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The "facts" (0+ / 0-)

            reside in the absence of credible examples of this actually happening.

            Listen - I'm willing to be convinced, but I haven't seen any reports of this in Oregon.  No cases being brought forward.  It doesn't appear to be a problem.

            Is it is potential problem?  Certainly.  

            Is it an actual problem?

            Judging from the evidence I've seen, no.

            Have you seen anything indicating that this is a pervasive problem in Oregon?

            •  You're still missing my point (0+ / 0-)

              If a wife goes ahead and votes the same way as her husband because she doesn't want to risk starting a big brouhaha, why would she "come forward"?  Understand, I'm not saying he takes her by the neck and threatens her life unless she votes the way he tells her.  He has no idea he has "intimidated" her into voting a certain way; he simply assumes they are on the same page politically, the way he has always assumed.  Only now that she doesn't have the automatic privacy of the voting booth, and he "helpfully" oversees the voting process (though in his mind he's doing this simply because he thinks she might goof it up, the way she does when she tries to operate his many A/V remote controls), she actually does vote Republican to avoid a fight.

              So what's she going to do, go hold a press conference to announce that her husband didn't actually threaten her or do anything illegal, but she voted differently than she really wanted to out of self-consciousness?  The same woman who didn't want to start a fight within the family is going to go blab about it to the whole world?  I mean, what planet are you living on?

              -Alan

              -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

              by SlackerInc on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:53:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This fearful wife that you're so concerned about (0+ / 0-)

                Is she a really good liar?

                Is she capable of withholding information from her spouse even under extreme intimidation and pressure?

                She would have to be for your concern to be valid.

                And - in Oregon if you wish you can go to a county elections office and fill out the ballot there on election day.

                •  No she wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

                  What you're still missing is that the husband I'm talking about isn't inherently suspicious of his wife.  He assumes she votes the same way as he does because (a) she's his wife, and he's egocentric and sexist, as right wing patriarchs tend to be; and (b) she never argues with him about politics.  (One might think the fact that she also doesn't get all riled up about right wing issues like he does might be a clue, but this is a common difference between the sexes and doesn't tend to arouse suspicion.)  So she doesn't get any "extreme intimidation and pressure" from him.

                  That would all change, though, if everyone else the guy knows were voting at their kitchen tables, under the watchful eye of the patriarch, overseeing the process to make sure there are no errors or spoiled ballots to dilute the family's political power.  (Again, remember that he thinks of his patriarchal role not as we do--that of a tyrannical jailer--but as God's chosen family leader, a benevolent protector of his family's interests.)  Under these circumstances, if his wife wanted to go off and fill out the ballot in an unusually secret way, that's what would set his radar off, and then the questions and pressure would begin.

                  -Alan

                  -9.00, -3.69 Bush, 12/12/05: "I think we are welcomed [in Iraq]. But it was not a peaceful welcome."

                  by SlackerInc on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:09:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                  Is she a really good liar?

                  Is she capable of withholding information from her spouse even under extreme intimidation and pressure?

                  She would have to be for your concern to be valid.

                   
                  What extreme intimidation?  We are describing a situation in which the pressure is not extreme.  
                     
                  Example:  I grew up in a conservative family.  If we voted as a group, I'd feel pressured into voting along.  I wouldn't face violent reprisal (my parents were not abusive,) and yet there would still be pressure not to "come out" as pro-choice, for example.
                   
                  There would be no extreme intimidation or pressure.  When I did vote (by secret ballot) nobody asked me how I voted, nobody pressured me, I didn't have to lie.  See?

            •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

              ...the absence of credible examples of this actually happening

              ...is not evidence of absence.  You cannot "judge by the evidence you've seen" because you haven't seen evidence either way.

              Let me ask:  has anyone done any study to test for this specific phenomenon?

              We do know that people in OR overwhelmingly prefer mail-in ballots.  We know that this is true across all major demographics:  men, women, the young, the old.  We do know that logistically it's wonderful and everyone finds it incredibly convenient.  This is good.

              But has anyone polled the populace to ask:  "were you planning on voting for someone else and felt intimidated because people would know how you voted?"  What percentage?

              If not, then what's the evidence?

              •  I'm unaware of any polls that asked that question (0+ / 0-)

                You're getting into philosophical territory here - asking me to prove something isn't happening.  That's not possible.

                Have surveys been conducted asking that question?  I'm unaware of any.  Perhaps you should suggest one.  I suspect the Republican Party of Oregon would support you on it.  

                And - one can infer from the widespread support of VBM that a lot of people aren't being intimidated into voting ways they don't want to; or else they'd prefer another method of voting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site