Secret Ballots should not be Secret
By Kevin Roeten (08/31/07)
Today the practice of casting secret ballots is commonplace. How else would one vote? But in the 19th century, secret ballots were highly controversial. In fact, the Constitution does not declare voting a 'right' at all, much less the necessity to keep it secret. But what if one knew how someone else voted?
What would happen if people knew if you voted for more taxes? Or for a candidate who would raise them? Or for a candidate who didn’t espouse a balanced budget? Or the coup de grace, for a candidate who was for more killing(i.e., abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, etc…)? Probably more stress and discourse would occur at the voting booths. But as we’ve seen, we’re already heading down that path.
Credit for the first secret ballot often went to the colony of South Australia(Oxford University Press). In the US, most of the states had moved to secret ballots shortly after the 1884 presidential election. Kentucky was the last state in the Union(1891) to stop the oral ballot. As a result, Grover Cleveland was the first US president elected by the secret ballot in 1892. However, West Virginia’s constitution still allows voters to cast open ballots.
In the early days of the Union, there were many restrictions on voting. A few examples: owning at least 50 acres of property, not being poor(e.g., a slave), poll taxes, and literacy tests. You also had to prove that your grandfather was registered to vote in order for you to be able to vote(original “grandfather clause”). Most voting restrictions were not actually outlawed until 1961(Amendment 24).
In the late 1800’s, Pennsylvania state legislator Mark B. Cohen said, “The secret ballot guarantees that it is one’s private opinion that counts. Open ballots are not truly free for those whose preferences defy the structures of power or friendship.” But who has preferences for structures of power or friendship?
Per several sources, voter turnout over the last 40 years has been steadily declining in all democracies. It also states that this has accompanied a decline in many other activities(e.g., participation in political parties; attendance at town meetings; church attendance; membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies; youth groups; and parent-teacher associations). But at the same time, people have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns.
Globally, voter turnout has decreased by around five percent over the last 4 decades. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, and single people are generally less likely to vote. Francis Fukuyama(philosopher/political economist/author) has blamed the welfare state. He argues that the decrease in turnout has come shortly after government became far more involved in people’s lives, and that high voter turn outs are easily dissipated by government actions. It seems trust in politicians has recently decreased dramatically.
The decline in voter turn out seems to be wholly concentrated among young people. It’s been argued that attack ads and smear campaigns give voters a negative impression of the entire political process. In the last 25 years alone, it’s been reported that US voter turn out has decreased 7%, German turnout 10%, Britain 19%, and Japan 23%.
So the overall steadily decreasing voter turn seems to be directly related to how much people think that government runs their lives. It’s possible that the next American presidential election will likely be decided by less than 50% of registered voters.
It may be time to scrap the secret ballot, know what everybody is voting for, and take as much of government out of the equation as possible. Some disagreement is inevitable, even when the system has been sliding in that direction for a while. If no violence is involved, disagreement will normally result in items being hashed out, and decided. For extremely important issues such as abortion, it’s good to get all the information out on the table. Legal disagreement can be good, especially when you think about what else might result.
Kevin Roeten
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
