Abolishing The Secret Ballot In The United States
Before the secret ballot was introduced into American politics, voting was a very public display of one’s political affiliation or political support of a candidate. In most places, citizens attended a public event and would either stand in line or in crowds, and come forward one by one to vote. Though only men could vote at this time, anyone interested could come to watch. Most states provided different colored or otherwise marked tickets designated to certain parties, in which a person would hand to an election official or place in some sort of box to cast their vote. Sometimes the paper was provided by election officials or partisans, and sometimes citizens had to cut out and bring their own. Other states required a vocal vote, in which citizens would vocally state which candidates they wished to vote into the office being contested. Their vote would then be entered in an official poll book. Both methods of voting were very much public displays of support for candidates - secrecy was intentionally made nearly impossible.
Problems arose with these methods of voting when citizens were manipulated, intimidated, or otherwise influenced to vote a certain way, regardless of their own beliefs, potentially warping the outcomes of elections. In some elections, mobs with intentions of intimidating people into voting a certain way would show up to the events. In other elections, exciting celebrations took place and voters were somehow awarded by the candidates in which they voted. Employers could twist the arms of their employees, landlords of their tenants, and traders of their fellow traders, in order to get them to vote in a certain way. Losing candidates could attempt to discourage citizens from voting for other candidates, in person. Violence plagued the polls, and a handful of Americans died due to fights that broke out over their votes, whether or not they had already been cast.
Because of this, the secret ballot, imported from Australia and also known as the “Australian ballot”, was first implemented in 1888 in the U.S., starting in Massachusetts and gradually spreading throughout the states. Today voters in the U.S are provided a ballot at the polls, with which they enter a private booth, often closed with a curtain, where they can mark their ballot and vote how they please, in private. The ballot is not connected to the individual, and unless they choose to share for which candidate they voted, their vote is considered secret. The idea was for citizens to be able to cast their votes without the possibility of intimidation, blackmailing, bribery, or any other form of influence swaying their vote.
However, the secret ballot was - and is - merely another patch for the broken election system, in an effort to make it seem less broken. But it isn’t less broken - it is further breaking down. The system is disintegrating due to low voter turnout. Low voter turnout is largely caused by a lack of connectedness to politics. The flame of younger generations’ apathy is fed vigorously by the isolation of voting today. It is no longer framed as a collective action - it’s just one small, singular vote. Because of this, many people decide it doesn’t matter enough to participate.
The recent decades have produced numerous ways to vote. Absentee ballots, early in-person voting, even online voting, are just bringing in the people that were already voting. These methods have been ineffective in regards to bringing the younger generations to polls. The largest percentage of voters is over the age of 60. And it’s not news that those people are getting older. What will happen when the generation producing the largest number of votes passes the baton to the next, more apathetic, generation? We currently frame voting in such a light that it becomes a personal chore, a duty, something mundane and boring to those without significant interest in politics (which apparently happens to be a majority of the population).
The main problem with the secret ballot is that the act of voting is currently shining under an individualist spotlight, rather than collectivist. People view it as a singular act - a personal act - rather than a social act, or even a social event. Due to the lack of community involved today in casting a vote, a large amount of Americans don’t feel connected to politics, feel their vote doesn't matter, and choose not to vote at all. Many Americans today have either no opinion, no preference, no feelings, or even no knowledge regarding many facets of politics and the government. And to a small extent, that’s fine - but when it comes to choosing our leaders, I don’t see how it could be any more detrimental. Recent elections have experimented with things such as individual mail-in votes, individual online voting in one case, and other equally isolated methods of casting votes for candidates. There is little, if any, sense of community and connectedness while casting your vote.
The secret ballot was implemented in order to protect citizens’ vote and make it secret, but at least some of every eligible voter’s voting data is public in some way. Voter records made public, on purpose or accident, contain information such as one’s party affiliation, and elections in which one voted. Even though the content of the vote itself is kept secret, many people are “outed” by that information alone. And if it didn’t come from an official government database, it will probably come from a person’s social media profiles. Many people probably don’t realize that there’s a viewable list of who they are following and whose posts they are liking on Instagram or Twitter. Anyone with a presence on the internet is likely to have some visible trace of ideology tied to them. Already, the idea of “secret” ballots is tried by these factors. Your actual, physical piece of paper ballot may be secret, but your vote is not.
Why does shame have such a designated space in voting booths? Why are people afraid to state who they support? We have been made to believe our vote is something to be kept secret, when we should be initiating a conversation. Many people are uneducated or miseducated about the candidates they vote for. Abolishing the secret ballot would at least initiate the conversation and bridge the gap between voters that do not care and simply vote on a whim, and voters that really understand the values of candidates. People are not currently held accountable for their votes. Should the winning candidate turn out to be a hindrance for the country, we can generally point in a vague direction, but the root of the problem is not being addressed. If there is a dialogue, there is a sense of community, and a sense of connectedness to the “other side”. As of now, each side can discreetly vote and retreat to the comfort of their anonymity.
The ballots themselves are causing issues as well. Ballots today, though provided at polls, or in the mail via absentee ballot, are often deceptive or confusing to the averagely-educated citizen. And some ballots, no matter how clear the wording, are simply poorly designed. For example, in Chenango County, New York, the instructions are printed at the bottom of the ballot, rather than the top, and New York’s election code doesn’t allow for that to change. We are taught from childhood to read the directions first - but in Chenango County, many people do not, and therefore incorrectly mark their ballots. In one election, about thirty thousand voters in Broward County, Florida, completely skipped over the section designated to the Senate candidates, because it was directly under a giant block of multilingual instructions. Most blunders such as these are noticed and accommodated for or otherwise “fixed”, but others go completely unnoticed. There is never going to be a foolproof way of counting votes. One seemingly obvious solution is to fix the layout of ballots, but mistakes happen. If people are not voting singularly, instead voting as part of a collective or group, the chances of simple, honest mistakes due to poor design, intentional or not, will decrease.
The argument regarding bribery, intimidation, and other forms of influence is also watered down in today’s society. There are laws in place preventing discrimination based on political affiliation in the workplace. Perhaps there are not currently enough laws to cover every situation in which an employer, landlord, or public institution could discriminate against people based on their political affiliation. To make this proposal work efficiently, the right to one’s political affiliation would need more protective laws in place.
Instead of secretly voting in a closed-off booth at the polls, I propose that registered voters be assigned certain dates to vote, with randomized groups of other registered voters. Party affiliation would not determine which group any one individual is assigned. There would need to be a system in place to ensure that there are somewhat equal levels of people from differing political affiliations. On the day each person is assigned, they will meet at a public event, where a dialogue will be initiated prior to casting votes. This would work similarly to a jury - except their dialogue is viewable by the general public (by anyone who wishes to attend). This would provide an opportunity for under informed citizens to see perspectives from many different viewpoints. There would, of course, be protection in the form of police, or something similar, to ensure the safety of all voters.
This is not a long-term solution. This is not the most sustainable way to vote for the future of America. However, I strongly believe it would at least provide a starting point for those who consider politics irrelevant or unimportant - which is currently too large a number. There are not nearly enough civil political conversations between ordinary citizens today. The political discourse we witness is often conducted by extremely partisan candidates whose main goal is to be elected - not to bring citizens together as a country.
The arm-twisting of citizens to vote a certain way was a very valid argument in favor of a private vote. However, voters today have more protections in place, and the randomization of my proposal would largely prevent it. The digitalization of voting registration lists, political donations, even social media profiles, can all basically tell you for whom a person probably voted. Having a public system of voting would hold people accountable, because to stand by an issue, you would be actively encouraged to have the political literacy to stand by it. The visibility of public voting would promote people to really understand for whom and what they’re voting, before casting their vote, and be able to take in and give out ideas regarding their votes. The sense of community would also provide an end in sight to the “us vs. them” mentality of our voters today.
We are largely unmoved, unchallenged in our beliefs, and ultimately under-involved in politics, especially elections, in today’s society. There is political discourse present, which is healthy in a democratic society, but anonymity allows it to either be extreme or mute, without much space for opposing sides to meet in the middle. Not many people are forced to think, consider carefully, and stand by their opinions about things as important as the people they are choosing to put in charge. Technology allows us to support candidates on a whim, a general feeling, simply false information, and other problematic reasons that hold no real merit. We can’t do much about people believing silly (or plausible) rumors and choosing to support a candidate based on that alone - but we can force people to question - and be questioned by - their peers. The secret ballot is outdated and no longer necessary, and should be abolished and replaced with my proposed form of casting a vote, in which groups of people registered to vote in certain parties would have a public voting event.
