Re: How can Neal say Boulder's election was accurate

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

I agree...Evan

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Paul E Condon wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 05:35:12AM -0700, Some Guy wrote:
> > Excellent suggestion Joe! I keep telling people that our country did not
> > start out with secret ballot, but few believe it.
>
> I also believe that it did not start with a secret ballot, and I
> believe I know the case history of why a secret ballot became the
> norm. Look into the history of John Wilkes, not John Wilkes Booth who
> was named after him and became famous in his own way. The original
> John Wilkes had his privacy invaded by officers of the King of
> England. At the time, the US was in the run up to the Revolution, and
> the case of the ill treatment of John Wilkes informed early arguments
> about freedom in this country. I would not recommend going back to a
> pre-Wilkes view of privacy. It is not good, particularly to the kind
> of people who populate this list.
>
> >
> > Not only did the voter verbalize their vote, but often the judge inquired
> > with the voter for what reason they'd made their choice? A test of the voter
> > to find out if this was their choice, or someone else's.
> >
> > I'd *vote* for this.
> >
> > SG
> >
> > [|>] ----
> > <tongue-in-cheek>How about we go back to verbal voting in front of
> > election judges with a fully public hand marked tally sheet, at least
> > then you better be willing to stand by your vote -- the ultimate in
> > voter verification for voters of diverse abilities -- and after all,
> > our ballots aren't secret anymore anyway.</tongue-out>
> > [|>]
>
> I'm too serious about liberty, and too fearful of its loss, to find
> this funny.
>
> --
> Paul E Condon
> pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>