Replies

"weegee"'s post 21 addresses the problem inherent in having identifiable information available. You can end up with a situation where an employer demands an employee's receipt number. So, there's a potential loss of secrecy in the ballot process inherent in the verification process you suggest.

I do agree, though, that it would work.

The general concept of a receipt has another problem which is related to its mischief-making potential. If you recall the way the first moments of the Florida recount unwound, the demo phone-banks made numerous calls to people suggesting that their vote was being miscounted, and, by golly, produced a significant number of seniors who decided that had, in fact, happened.

Issuing receipts presents a candidate who wishes to put the results in doubt with the opportunity to send a few "ringers" to the polls instructed to vote for his opponent. He then has them display the receipts showing a vote tallied for the opponent and claim that they had actually voted for him, and therefore the machines weren't counting votes properly.

Given sufficient publicity, this claim would result in a number of other people checking their receipts and would turn up a number of people who, through human error, hadn't voted for the candidate they wanted to. Of course, knowing human nature, none of them would accept that the error was theres, so they'd present themselves as additional "victims" of the "machine problems".

Essentially, you create a situation where every election can become a "Florida-type" contest.

Issuing receipts presents a candidate who wishes to put the results in doubt with the opportunity to send a few "ringers" to the polls instructed to vote for his opponent. He then has them display the receipts showing a vote tallied for the opponent and claim that they had actually voted for him, and therefore the machines weren't counting votes properly.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd have to disagree. The voter would be responsible for making sure the receipt correctly recorded their vote before they left the polling place. It could only challenge the tally if it differed from the "official" vote list. The "I meant to vote for Gore but it said I voted for Buchanan" argument doesn't work if their receipt says they voted for Buchanan.

Buying votes or voter intimidation is a legitimate concern. On the former, my libertarian streak says that an individual has every right to sell their vote -- it is their franchise to do with as they will, and don't many people already sell their votes for the promise of a particular program to benefit themselves? My conservative side is revolted at the thought that people would actually do it.

On the coercion issue... the only remedy would be legal enforcement -- attempting to interfere in such a manner with a federal election is a civil rights violation and possibly criminal in other ways as well.