Lawsuit Seeks To Block New York Ban On 'Ballot Selfies' (msnbc.com) 317
You have have the right to vote, but should you have the right to take a selfie at a ballot? According to ABC News, a federal lawsuit is challenging a New York state law that makes it a misdemeanor to show a marked election ballot to others: The lawsuit filed late Wednesday in Manhattan federal court seeks to have the law banning so-called "ballot selfies" declared unconstitutional. The lawsuit says publishing a voted ballot on social media can be a powerful form of political expression. It says that someone claiming they voted without photographic proof reduces the credibility of the individual. Attorney Leo Glickman, who filed the suit on behalf of three voters, says the lawsuit is consistent with claims made in Michigan, Indiana and New Hampshire, where similar laws have been struck down. In a separate report, Mother Jones' Kevin Drum explained the reasoning behind why a law against "ballot selfies" would exist in the first place: Just for the record, then, there is a reason for selfie bans in voting booths: it prevents vote buying. After all, the only way it makes sense to pay people for their votes is if you have proof that they voted the way you told them to. Back in the day that was no problem, but ever since secret ballots became the norm vote buying has died out. Selfies change all that. If I give you ten bucks to vote for my favorite candidate for mayor, I can withhold payment until you show me a selfie proving that you voted for my guy.
because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score:2)
I guess...
Re: because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the ability to mark a ballot, take a selfie, mark the ballot again to spoil it, then ask the poll worker for a new ballot.
Re: because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if someone tries to browbeat into voting his way. That's the whole point behind making a secret vote mandatory.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean ignoring the easy ability to manipulate a photo, or change your vote and then sign next to the vote "Changed my mind". A law against selfies does nothing to prevent someone from doing it discreetly. It's not like you go through a metal detector or are waved for bugs.
Prosecute vote buyers and sellers. Not the technology which enables it. If someone even offers to buy your vote they would face tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus jail time. It's not worth the risk, someone will blab.
If you
They are publicly buying votes in Pike County, IL (Score:3, Insightful)
> If someone even offers to buy your vote they would face tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus jail time. It's not worth the risk, someone will blab.
You say it's not worth the risk, but the Democrat party is doing so openly and publicly in Pike County, Illinios and elsewhere. Here's the Illinois vote buying statute:
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying.
Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person
Re: They are publicly buying votes in Pike County, (Score:2, Informative)
This happens practically every major election:
http://www.politifact.com/pund... [politifact.com]
I recall during the 2004 elections it was done pretty openly by Democrats, under a program called "smokes for votes".
Re: (Score:2)
Carlson said that Democrats give Newports to the homeless to get them to the polls. Based on the evidence, Carlson is citing an isolated case where authorities were unable to prove that votes were traded for cigarettes, or that the cigarettes were an enticement. On one occasion in Milwaukee, as many as three Democrats gave rides to homeless men to City Hall to cast absentee ballots. At some point, they gave some of the men cigarettes. There is no evidence that the cigarettes were Newports, and investigators did not find that the cigarettes were offered as an inducement to vote.
This is a pathetic citation. I'm sure there's shady business going on here and there, and that's especially true when your standard for evidence against a huge group is the slightly dubious actions of a few individuals, but even by that pretty worthless standard this example fails.
No, I didn't say Republicans are perfect (Score:3)
I mentioned that "voter party busses" giving stuff to people while driving them to the polling station is standard operating procedure for Democrats. Some people with stunted intellectual development will see that and think I said "Republicans are perfect". Obviously that's a complete non-sequitur, but some people will think that.
For the record, the Republican party has other issues. This year, they've managed to nominate, against the wishes of party leaders, a reality show clown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The right answer to that isn't to oppose the act, it's to propose amending the constitution.
Re:They are publicly buying votes in Pike County, (Score:5, Interesting)
You can not do it, if the vote is anonymous. That is the real danger, that stupid selfie thing is a direct threat against democracy. Allow selfies and you allow selfies to be forced. Vote the way you are told to or else and I want to see the selfie. How many freaks would force that on their family members or on others. Get caught taking a selfie vote and you should spend a week behind bars. The threat against democracy is extreme and should be punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means you'd never prove that the corruption happened unless you just outlaw the photo in the first place. This protects people. It's not like this couldn't have happened 30 years ago with a Polaroid.
Re: (Score:3)
So if I host get-out-the-vote cocktail party for my friends in Illinois I should be convicted of a class 4 felony?
Either Illinois or you are insane. Readers can decide for themselves.
If it's at the polling place, yes (Score:2)
Yes, if you give people stuff to come to the polling place (in other words, to vote) that is a felony in Illinois. Note I didn't write the law, I just read it (and copy/pasted it for you to read).
Re: (Score:2)
Look again (Score:2)
You're a reasonably intelligent guy, Marc, so I imagine if you read the statute again you'll notice it *is* vote buying:
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying.
Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to
influence such other person to vote
OR to register to vote
OR to influence such other person to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election
shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Re: (Score:2)
Any person who knowingly gives [...] valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person:
[to vote OR to register to vote]
committed a felony.
Yup, the way you wrote it, the law says "encouraging someone to vote, or encouraging someone to register to vote, is a felony."
So now, I'll move on from "that's not illegal" to "that's a stupid law that will be found unconstitutional the first time it's challenged.
The Supreme Court has been sadly consistent in that mon
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At what point should get-out-the-vote initiatives be banned? Obviously, paying someone to vote Democrat or Republican or whatever is a serious threat to democracy, but paying someone to go to the polls and vote for their choice on the secret ballot isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean ignoring the easy ability to manipulate a photo, or change your vote and then sign next to the vote "Changed my mind". A law against selfies does nothing to prevent someone from doing it discreetly. It's not like you go through a metal detector or are waved for bugs.
Prosecute vote buyers and sellers. Not the technology which enables it. If someone even offers to buy your vote they would face tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus jail time. It's not worth the risk, someone will blab.
If you blackmail someone into doing it and then prove it... I guarantee that person will find a way.
Thats what mail in ballots are for, which are apparently becoming more and more popular and widespread. Mark the ballot at home, with a goon watching over you, mail the ballot in.
Re: because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score:5, Insightful)
My god. Has the land of the free become so incredibly incompetent at democracy that it does not realise a key feature of a secret ballot is removing evidence (intentional or not): about how someone voted?
Do people really not understand that this created unsure this party pressure on how people vote? No? Still cannot see it?
'We all voted for xxx.. Why didn't you Facebook YOUR vote Debbie! We thought you were one of us! Obviously not!'
Still not seeing it?
Sad.. I guess Americans really do deserve the system they have created.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you aren't seeing is that there are much bigger problems with our democracy than whether the ballot is secret or not. It has been known since the time of the Greeks that our kind of democracy leads to oligarchy. Furthermore, our democracy has turned into a tyranny of the majority,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they're my employers and I want to know whether my employers do what I hired them for.
Re: (Score:2)
When you remove the meaning of voting, people don't really care too much about it.
Re: because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score:4, Insightful)
If you go into the voting cabin yelling "Vote A", you come out yelling "Vote A", drop your ballot with a "Vote A" and tell everyone on your way to the door that they better "Vote A" because that's what is going to save the country, that's freedom of speech.
Showing someone your ballot isn't.
The difference is easy: I can say whatever I want. I can yell from the top of my lungs that I support A while actually, secretly, voting for B. Ballots have to be secret to avoid buying vote or intimidation.
And no, voluntarily showing that you vote a certain way 'cause everyone knows you're going to vote that way anyway isn't acceptable either. Because then wanting to vote in secrecy could already be seen as "dissent". Not trying to Godwin here, but the "Anschlussabstimmung" 1938 in Austria would actually be a really good example of why this is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
that's freedom of speech.
That's also electioneering. And illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
And voting is one of the more important forms of free speech. If your vote is influenced by being coerced to provide evidence of voting for the "right" candidate, this infringes on freedom of speech, so outlawing the photos actually helps protect those rights.
In Texas (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not buying Vote Buying (Score:2)
Making it illegal to post your "Ballot Selfie" on social media does not achieve the goal they claim to desire: preventing Vote Buying.
If someone is buying your vote, you can just take the picture/video and send it directly, or upload it to a private group, or any number of things. Publicly posting is not required at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Making it illegal to post your "Ballot Selfie" on social media
That's why the law actually bans all photos and is much older than the "selfie."
Public postings on social media are among the easiest to catch, so they're getting some news attention.
Vote-flipping Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
There are already a lot of videos circulating that show vote-flipping, where you vote for A, but the machine records B. Making selfies illegal would make the evidence that this has happeened inadmissable in court.
Re:Vote-flipping Evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why we need verifiable ballots. Both paper and electronic voting could be designed so that your vote can be verified, but without a third-party being able to coerce you. It's an age-old problem with decades-old solutions, but when we put in these poorly-implemented voting machines with no audit trails, we lost all that.
Re:Vote-flipping Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
There are already a lot of videos circulating that show vote-flipping, where you vote for A, but the machine records B. Making selfies illegal would make the evidence that this has happeened inadmissable in court.
Are you a cop by any chance? Because you do not understand the rules of evidence. Evidence gathered by a citizen during the commission of a crime is still admissible in court. It's evidence gathered by a police officer that isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already a lot of videos circulating that show vote-flipping, where you vote for A, but the machine records B. Making selfies illegal would make the evidence that this has happeened inadmissable in court.
If "a lot" of videos have not done enough to change or secure the voting technology, a selfie law is going to do fuck-all for the cause.
Re:Vote-flipping Evidence, Ohio! (Score:2)
Yeh, I know here is one of the more credible videos.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There are already a lot of videos circulating that show vote-flipping, where you vote for A, but the machine records B. Making selfies illegal would make the evidence that this has happeened inadmissable in court.
What is happening is a combination of poorly calibrated machines and parallax on touch-screen devices.
People touch one place and the adjacent spot is activated. All the voter has to do is touch again a bit higher or lower to get the vote they want.
It's not changing the vote after the fact.
The same thing happens on bank ATMs when you try to touch $20 but get $50 instead, but people realize this and don't post to Facebook that they think the bank is cheating them.
Why fight vote-buying? (Score:2)
Seriously, what is wrong with vote-buying? Yes, selling one's vote is mildly disgusting (though should not be illegal), but buying something another person wants to sell? Why not? I know at least one guy, who is equally disgusted with Trump and Clinton — he plans to stay home this time. If someone else felt like offering him money to go and vote for their candidate, why should that be illegal?
What are ethical justifications b
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever thought politics were corrupt, wait until its literally just whoever paid the most for votes.
There's no point in even having elections then.. Just put Bill Gates in charge and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he'd be a better choice than most of today's Congress-critters...
But, seriously, how much would this hypothetical Mr. Gates have to pay per vote to make a difference? People, who don't care, will sell theirs cheaply, but that's Ok — they didn't care anyway, so theirs is not an important vote. People, who do care, will need a substantial sum to "sell out"...
Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton will spend a whopping billion [huffingtonpost.com] on her campaign — m
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that you are asking this question anonymously...
Re: (Score:2)
130 million voters is 55% turnout, for 2012. To change the results, you need 5-10% change in vote totals, only considering additional voters. Swapping votes requires less.
So 13 million voters out of the remaining 100 million, at most. Payments of $10 might mobilize some, estimate $100 million in payouts. Easily achieved. And races other than presidential, like congress, are significantly less expensive since they are state level or lower.
So now both parties do it, and it becomes an auction for each vote. Ba
Place and manner (Score:3)
The lawsuit says publishing a voted ballot on social media can be a powerful form of political expression.
Sorry. Campaigning by the voting booths or threatening to hurt people who don't vote or who do vote differently from you would also be some powerful forms of political expression, but all those are also prohibited by lawful place and manner restrictions on free speech.
There are certain places where no public expression is allowed, and the voting booth is one of them, unless your 'selfie' is to expose some newsworthy thing, and not, say, what your votes were....
In other words.... campaigning, or taking selfies is prohibited, regardless of the content of your message or who you voted for, so it's not a particular restriction based on content of your message, so it's not considered an infringement on free speech rights.
Showing a marked ballot violates election safety (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are ALLOWED to post a selfie, then you can also be FORCED to post a selfie proving you voted the way you were threatened to vote.
*facepalm* (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have the elections we need, we have the election we deserve.
Of course this whole shit started because some stupid celebrity was charged of doing that.
The idea is extremely simple, and I think everybody should have learned about this in school. Voting needs to be secret not as an option, but as an obligation to keep it as fair as possible. It became a law for a reason, not out of a whim or something.
The moment selfies in ballots become legal is the moment a bunch of candidates will start trying to rig the system.
I'll give you this or pay you this much, but only if you vote for me. If you don't vote for me your boss will fire you. You go there, vote for me, take a selfie, publish it, and then we'll be ok.
If people think stuff like that won't happen, they are delusional. It's in the history of every democractic country. It's why the law is there in the first place.
It's also ridiculous that someone would imply that political expression on social networks is dependant on such a frivolous idiotic thing.
Yeah, you took a fucking stupid selfie in front of a ballot, how politically engaged you are. Now go save some african children from starvation and poverty by giving some likes. Powerful form of political expression my ass. This is the weakest most lazy form of political expression I've ever heard about.
Secret ballots are a right, not a duty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the right to be able to buy electoral rsults, you should be able to.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
free to do so.
This is the part that's a bit hard to prove and the reason for the laws in the first place. If you are being coerced to vote for a certain candidate, and must take a photo or else, that's not evident. This is the only safe way.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Secret ballots are a right AND a duty, for exactly the same reason guns are in the Second Amendment.
You have the right to bear arms. You have that right because it is "necessary to the security of a free State". What you do NOT have is the right to leave your loaded gun laying around out in public where anyone can use it or record your ownership of it on a list.
Completely False (Score:4, Insightful)
All this hyperventilating about "vote buying" and "undermining the election" is utter crap. Unless you can show a printed receipt of exactly who you voted for, any photo is meaningless. Old style machine - until you pull that handle to open the curtain your vote is not recorded and may be changed. Scanned ballots? Oops! I made a mistake, rip this one up and give me another please, thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
What about people who vote by mail?
Re: (Score:2)
This only makes sense if regular voting is made completely painless - one way to help with this would be to make election day a federal holiday.
Does a student or intern temporarily in another state or country qualify as an 'exceptional circumstance'?
Re: (Score:2)
> this would be to make election day a federal holiday.
If America's political system was about democracy, I think this would be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Another alternative is early voting - many places in the US allow voting weeks before election day. Ideally it should be allowed on weekends and outside normal business hours as well - after all while not having to wait in long lines helps, being able to vote on your day off helps even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, election day is NOT a holiday in the US?
Guess democracy is something you have to be able to afford and have spare time for there...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So should I have to drive to the US across the North Atlantic from Iceland in order to vote? Nice "screw you" to expats you've got there.
Re: (Score:2)
So should I have to drive to the US across the North Atlantic from Iceland in order to vote?
Yes. A True American would love their car enough to drive anywhere. If you're not prepared to drive it, perhaps you should not be eligible to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I still have citizenship and because I still have to fill out stupid freaking IRS returns every year (unlike every other country on earth concerning their expats)?
US citizenship is a big disadvantage to carry around and getting to vote is the one decent thing that one gets out of it as an expat.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember Americans getting rather heated about taxation without representation at one time.
Didnt that work out well?
Another way to avoid vote buying/coercion (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow Internet voting, with the following modification.
Authenticated voter can vote any number of times over a period of one month. Only a hash of their identity is stored with each ballot.
Authenticated voter can come back to the system at any time during the month, and either vote again, or select which ballot, by date and time submitted they wish to be counted as their real vote. If they don't specify, then either their first vote, or their last vote is counted, depending on a setting they can secretly pre-set before the election.
So the vote buyer or asshole husband has no way of knowing which vote of the person was counted, short of imprisoning them for the whole month.
People who get imprisoned for a month to control their vote have much bigger problems than the right to vote freely. They need to escape and contact the police.
Re: (Score:2)
With the added ability of also being able to cast a ballot in person, and have that override the online ones.
Indeed, it's not too hard to make a system with online voting deniable. And meanwhile, the current system which allows mail-in voting, does not guarantee deniability.
Re: Another way to avoid vote buying/coercion (Score:2)
A voting booth doesn't guarantee deniability either, cameras are small and there is no security. Furthermore you can fill out a ballot, photograph it and change your votes and sign that you made the changes. They explain on the ballot how to change a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Why so complicated? Just intercept the credentials and the victim can't even overrule your vote.
Gee, people, you act like you have no experience with election fraud...
Re: (Score:2)
I hope in the half time break, who has time for beating his wife during the game?
Re:I wanted to take a photo of my ballot (Score:4, Interesting)
1. USPS loses about 3% of all letters. Would you be willing to take a 3% risk that your vote is never received?
I call BS. If the rate were that high, all USPS customers would be up in arms, demanding improvements.
And furthermore, you're conflating letters that are truly lost or destroyed (a very tiny percentage) with those that are undeliverable because they are improperly addressed. That's unlikely to happen with a mail-in ballot that is mailed in an official pre-addressed envelope.
Re: (Score:3)
1. USPS loses about 3% of all letters. Would you be willing to take a 3% risk that your vote is never received?
I call BS.
Of course it's BS. Michigan is the only state to require reasons for an absentee ballot and most polls show MI to be going to Clinton rather than Trump winning by 10%. In fact, I bet this AC is overseas, sitting in Russia someplace.
Re: (Score:2)
In Oregon everyone votes by mail.
1) If you want to be sure, drop it off at a drop off site.
2) You don't have to qualify by being overseas or elderly
3) All votes are mail in, so they certainly count mail in votes
4) I'm deeply sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That 3% number is clearly nonsense. And you can contact the county offices to make sure your ballot was received and is in order (which I did).
My vote is overseas. They're counted at the same time as local votes. You're thinking of absentee ballots.
What state are you? Don't forget about the downballot races.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Embassy voting is not a real thing. Nor would it make any sense, as different states handle elections differently, but embassies are a unified federal system. Nor does the US have embassies in every country. Nor are embassies guaranteed to be anywhere remotely near where a person lives within a country.
2) "Advance voting" makes no sense for expats. Believe it or not, some citizens live overseas. Including the military, by the way, who you apparently want to disenfranchise.
3) Your #1 case does nothing t
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, you mean each state does it differently? No independant electoral commission?
Holy shit thats even more stupid than I thought the US system was.
Voting in embassies works great for us.
Re: (Score:2)
The US system is patently absurd. And no, they'll never change it. They don't even tackle the low-hanging fruit - for example, 1,2% of Americans have no voting representation in congress (DC, Puerto Rico, others).
Re:Misdemeanor? (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially since it won't be just payment (pretty minor thus easy to turn down), but loss of a job, social ostracism and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
A misdemeanor is a criminal offense, just not a serious one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That being said, I think that vote-buying or other fraud should be considered a serious crime. Not sure about ballot selfies, though.
Re: (Score:2)
In some areas a misdemeanor can get you a year in county jail and a $10,000 fine (plus thousands more in legal fees defending yourself before you lose). Plus bail. Plus loss of your job because now you have a criminal record.
That's serious enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And by "integrity" you mean that people walk like sheep to the ballot box and make a bunch of choices based on empty promises and no understanding of the issues involved, while their representatives are chosen by baroque rules, and politicians then go on merrily ignoring what they promised?
Well, hell, maybe that "integrity" deserves to be undermined. It certainly doesn't deserve the kind of blind ad
Re: (Score:3)
You are comparing apples to oranges while talking about bananas.
Re: (Score:2)
You are comparing apples to oranges while talking about bananas.
Not trying to be snide, but did you just verbally build a fruit arrangement that looks like genitals?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.... you have lopsided genitals, mine would be apple banana orange :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are taking about the bananas again, but let me "draw the dots" for you.
United States of America = Country (or Apple)
Europe = Continent (or Orange)
The banana bit comes in equating free speech with photos, they are not the same thing, ask all of the pedophiles in prison that tried that one on.
It may have appeared retarded to you, but that was because you did not understand the statement, and yeah, what you don't understand may appear retarded.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"If First Amendment protections are to enjoy enduring relevance in the 21st century, they must apply with full force to speech conducted online and through social media platforms, especially where this speech is pol
Re: (Score:2)
Photos and free speech go hand in hand.
Not even close, there are certain circumstances when you can argue that photos can by covered by free speech but not the other way around, they are not equivalent or even close to being the same thing.
If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections.
Well done, you just modified your argument because you realized how stupid you statement was. However, just because you are backpedaling it does not mean that I have to adjust my argument to mat ch yours, get back on subject buckaroo. (I can "draw the dots" for you back to what was said if you like/cant reme
Re: (Score:2)
Photos and free speech go hand in hand.
Not even close, there are certain circumstances when you can argue that photos can by covered by free speech but not the other way around, they are not equivalent or even close to being the same thing.
Yes very close. Nearly all photos are free speech. Seriously, go read anything on the first amendment. It's why you can film cops. It's why people can show pictures of aborted babies while protesting. It's why taking ballot selfies has been affirmed by federal courts 3 times. Unless it falls under a very specific set of exceptions like obscenity (your child porn example), libel, treason, and a few others. Thus the vast majority of pictures do in fact constitute free speech, which is a giant "durr" to anyone who gave it more than 2 seconds of thought or had passed US Government in HS.
If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections.
Well done, you just modified your argument because you realized how stupid you statement was. However, just because you are backpedaling it does not mean that I have to adjust my argument to mat ch yours, get back on subject buckaroo. (I can "draw the dots" for you back to what was said if you like/cant remember)
You can draw the dots but I saved myself a few seconds by typing "Europe" instead of "Every country in Europe." If you think that's worthy of rebuke, well I can't change your admittedly feeble mind. In the meantime, feel free to read about photography and the 1st amendment. You might actually learn something.
http://www.firstamendmentcente... [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Misdemeanor? (Score:4, Insightful)
It did. 1938 in Austria. The outcome is very well known.
When it is allowed to vote publicly (and taking a picture of your marked ballot pretty much means this), it's very easy to scare people into voting publicly lest it would be assumed that they vote "wrongly". Because there's no reason to vote in secrecy if you vote how you "should".
Don't go there. Just don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comparison is bizarre, inaccurate, and completely out of line with anything regarding reality. People are free to vote in secrecy. There is nothing to stop that. Existing laws punish what you purport is a huge problem. However your "concern" for
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's concept of free speech is far more limited than the US version, so no1curr
...and on the other hand, Europe's concept of the election is much less corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Europe's concept of an election actually offers a choice, too...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)