the voting process

[fledglingoflove]

Let me begin by saying that I don't really understand why your vote is supposed to be secret. If you support a candidate, shouldn't you publically support him or her, and encourage people to vote for that candidate? Ah, well

Comments

[acdragonmaster]

The purpose of votes being secret is that so that people can't be pressured into voting one thing or another. Someone could try to bribe you to vote one way, but you don't have to follow through on that because they'll never have any way of knowing what you *did* vote for, just your word on it.

[akilika]

As I understand it, votes weren't always secret--they were, in fact, color-coded, and everyone could see who you were voting for.

But . . . well, you're familiar with the time of political machines, right? Boss Tweed and all that? If you didn't vote for the "right" people, you could be looking at more than a bit of trouble. At least, according to my high-school government class.

Granted, this sounds like it pertains more to local elections than federal, but the idea still stands . . .

Of course, not only did I learn this years ago, it was high school. I'm not quite sure how well I can trust the presentation.

[opt513]

I would imagine that machine politics put more than a few representatives in the House in their time. They may have never elected a president on their own, but that's still Federal level influence.

[back to present]

As for state and local, as heated as the presidential races have been this year, I'd be surprised if most people even know who their local candidates are, let alone what they stand for. Never mind that their votes make a bigger difference in the smaller box.

[izuko]

Tammany Hall was pretty darn influential in putting Jack Kennedy in the White House. Though they were based in Manhattan, their influence (though union connections) was felt in places like Jersey and Chicago. If you want to see true voter fraud, study Kennedy's election (and, understand, I like JFKennedy and support many of his policies and decisions, but fraud is fraud).

[countalpicola]

> As for state and local, as heated as the presidential races have been this year, I'd be surprised if most people even know who their local candidates are

I know I certainly fell into that trap. Until the night I voted, I only knew for sure of one other race going on in my district. That'd be where my five hour research campaign and that huge LJ entry spawned from, though I suspect most voters wouldn't put in even that much effort.

Presidential years suck.

[haibane_rachan]

*wanders in and steals some cookies*

-Rachan, "As random as it seems"

[brentdax]

But is murder against federal or state law?

I think I mentioned this once, possibly in a comment to this journal. 18 USC § 1111, part of federal law, covers murder, but restricts that coverage to "the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"--i.e. all the areas in the US outside of the individual states (territories, territorial waters, the District of Colombia, etc.). Murder within any state is covered by state law, not federal.

[fledglingoflove]

Ooooh, sweet. I do support the Libertarian position on abortion, then. Thanks Brent. ^_^

[countalpicola]

To expand on this a bit, murder has traditionally been viewed as a federal issue in some other circumstances as well. Murders committed on federal property or against federal officials on duty may also fall under the jusrisdiction of the federal government. This would be among the reasons why it's a Really Bad Idea to kill your letter carrier.

States, though, also have jurisdiction over these cases, which can sometimes lead to someone being tried for murder both in state and federal court. This is the only Constitutionally perimssible way of getting something that is essentially double jeopardy, allowed only because the federal and state governments have separate soverigenty. [/legal trivia of the day]

[vorkon]

Except, of course, when you are also governed by the UCMJ... Triple jeapordy would really suck. Urgh... There go my plans to kill the mailman...

Maybe we should call that final jeapordy?

[izuko]

The purpose of secret ballots is the ablility to cast your vote without fear of reprisal. This is especially important in strong union (as opposed to Right to Work, not as opposed to Confederate) states. At one time, union representatives even went into the booth to "assist" the voter in making the proper selection (in order to make sure the voter didn't accidently disenfranchise himself, mind you). Everone pretty much agreed that that was a bad thing.

Now, I know some people will condemn me for asking this question (screw 'em), but I know you saw Kerry as the greater of all evils. If he gets elected, how will you view your vote? Will you believe that your vote for Badnarik helped Kerry win, or will you stand firm behind your choice?

[fledglingoflove]

Kerry is the greater of the evils only by a small margin. I flip-flop back and forth sometimes as to whom I dislike more. I will be displeased no matter if Bush or Kerry wins the election, because I don't want to see either in the White House, not to mention at least one group of people will be angry. I stand firm behind my choice of Badnarik. He is the one I would like to see in the White House, even if I won't get to see it happen this election year.