Posted on 06/26/2012 3:45:45 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
For the United States’ first century, Americans elected their leaders in full view of their neighbors, gathering on courthouse steps to announce their votes orally or hand a distinctive preprinted ballot or unfolded marked paper to a clerk. Such a public process made elections ripe for bribes and threats, although the scene around American polling places never matched Australia’s, where a population of criminals and goldbugs made electoral intimidation something of a democratic pastime. To end such shenanigans, each of Australia’s colonies began shifting to a secret ballot during the 1850s, and in 1872 England followed suit.
A decade and a half later, the reform crossed the Atlantic. Louisville, Kentucky, enacted a so-called Australian ballot in 1888, and 32 states did the same by 1892—over the objections of machine politicians. By the turn of the century, most of the country had changed the public spectacle of Election Day into a solemn occasion for curtained isolation. This shift coincided with a dramatic drop in turnout rates, from nearly 80 percent of the eligible population in 1896—which had been typical for the era—to 65 percent eight years later.
They have never recovered, falling to around 50 percent in 1996.
As modern civic activists have tried to increase turnout, their focus has been on reducing the hassle of participation. The most-successful reforms of the past decade, however—early in-person voting, “no excuse” absentee ballots, elections entirely by mail—appear not to have lured new people to the polls so much as merely made it more convenient for regular voters to cast their ballots.
What actually works is mimicking some part of the 19th century’s surveillance culture. The most effective tool for turning nonvoters into voters—10 times better than the typical piece of preelection mail, according to a 2006 Michigan experiment—is a threat to send neighbors
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Which is fine, because realistically they cannot retaliate against you. All you have to do is look at what happened to those that donated to support Prop 8 in California to appreciate a secret ballot.
I like your proposal, but I know the Constitution pretty well and am not familiar with an "Elections Clause." Can you clarify this?
I was referring to Article I, section 4, clause 1, which provides that “[t]he times, places and manners of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed by each state by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators.” (That last caveat was put in to clarify that Congress couldn’t dictate that senators would no longer be elected by the state legislature, which was required by the Constitution prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913.) Congress legislates pursuant to this clause when it sets Election Day for congressional elections as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when it approved UOCAVA, etc.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have referred to Article I, section 4, clause 1 as the “Elections Clause,” since the term may be confused with Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 1, which provides that each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its members.
I believe that this was mostly due to the fact that Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot and write-ins weren’t allowed in most Southern state in 1860 (I’m not saying that there weren’t threats against Southerners who expressed support for Lincoln, but the secret ballot won’t help you if you’re not on the ballot and write-ins aren’t allowed). Similarly, President Taft didn’t receive any votes in SD and less than 1% of the vote in CA in the secret-ballot 1912 elections, but it wasn’t because of threats of violence against Republicans, it was because Taft wasn’t on the ballot in those states (Teddy Roosevelt was the Republican nominee in both SD and CA), and SD didn’t even allow write-ins.
The author most likely is a Democrat (pretty much the same thing).
If learning how to speak, read and write basic English is not a requirement for naturalization of immigrants, it's about time that it came to be again like it was for my grandparents.
All of this is a product of government overaccommodation of immigrants, as Democrats (and, to a lesser extent, Republicans) seek new ethnic bloc voters.
If learning how to speak, read and write basic English is not a requirement for naturalization of immigrants, it's about time that it came to be again like it was for my grandparents.
All of this is a product of government overaccommodation of immigrants, as Democrats (and, to a lesser extent, Republicans) seek new ethnic bloc voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.