Talk:2066: Ballot Selfies

What harm do laws banning ballot selfies do? Ryanker (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)ryanker

You're coming at it from exactly the wrong direction. What harm does taking a ballot selfie do? 40.57.163.322 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I'm against anyone who is holding up the line for the rest of us who are trying to vote, especially those egotistical who think anyone wants to see their stupid pictures. 162.158.123.127 05:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Photos are pretty quick. I'm against those who are making oil paintings of their voting. -boB (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking the flavor text is talking as if from the point of view of someone who has grown used to sharing photos of themselves with others, to communicate, encourage, feel connected. Depicting their own behavior so directly might even seem a valid way to sway someone's opinion to such a person. I guess when thinking about it, it would support democracy better to share the act of voting rather than the actual vote made. Curious regarding other opinions. 162.158.91.83 16:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

yes, fully agree with this. Just take all the selfies you want on the way there, in front of the place where you vote, on the way back. Just not during that one minute you spend inside the booth, and not showing your actual ballot. If you absolutely want to disclose what you actually voted for, you can still do so by writing a caption. It's that simple, and probably legal in most places around the world.--141.101.77.140 16:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thought of another reason: if the government were to hack or misrepresent the vote, the people could use proof of voting to prove the fraud. 172.68.50.136 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If a government can hack your vote, couldn't they hack your phone? ;-) Kev (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But you could just print out the photo, and it becomes physical, unhackable proof. 162.158.79.101 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Additionally, to fake your vote, all they need to do is lie. 162.158.93.27 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Banning photos in polling stations is sensible. If I offered you $1,000 to vote for Trump you would be mad not to agree - you could vote how you wanted, and tell me you voted for Trump and get your money. If photos were allowed, to get your money I could request a photo of you with your ballot paper. If people can take photos of their vote, people can buy votes. If they can't, it's much more difficult to do that. DrDave (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Not just positive coercion but also negative - spouses, religious leaders, or whomever demanding proof that you'd voted the way they told you to "or else." 172.68.58.113 12:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY my point. My concern would be employers (e.g. Hobby Lobby) making voting for or against a specific candidate or issue a condition of employment. If ballot selfies are allowed, then there is no way to stop this. I don't mind selfies of people going into the polling place. However, there should be no (legal) way to take a picture of your ballot and make it public, including another voter, accidentally or not, capturing you and your ballot in the background of their selfie. Ryanker

In the United kingdom it is illegal to take a phtograph of the ballot paper even if no vote is recorded - as such an image could reveal the mark used to authenticate the ballot paper. Until recently this was a pattern of holed stamped into the paper as it is issued, though now printed bar codes are used. Theoretically if you know the mark, you could then stuff a ballot box. Although if the number of papers does not match that recorded by the returning clerk then the entire box would be declared invalid and the election rerun. Arachrah (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're saying that in states where vote selfies are legal, somebody might be able to use such a selfie to produce counterfeit ballots, and submit them. Also that the ballots are counted and a vote is rerun whenever the count is wrong, to additionally deter this. It's hard to believe that count is always correct for such huge numbers of physical objects each handled by a human being: does this rerun happen commonly? 162.158.93.27 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would someone need to look at someone else's selfie to produce counterfeit ballots? Seems like a very round about way when it's easy enough to get an actual ballot yourself. 108.162.245.58 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not about counterfeits - it's about The Secrecy Of The Ballot. It is essential to a free and fair election that the voter can vote in complete secrecy AND that they be completely unable to prove how they voted (or indeed, if they voted at all). In the UK, the way you voted (or IF you voted at all) is intended to be completely secret - only you know - and you have NO WAY to prove it. But selfies, printed paper receipts from eletronic voting machines and online or postal voting all circumvent that concept. The concept is important because if someone tries to coerce you to voting in a way you do not wish to - then that coercion will be ineffective if they cannot confirm that you did as they wanted you do to. I've updated the explain to try to cover this point more carefully. However, this alone is not enough - an evil-doer can instead find people who are demographically-likely to vote against their preferred candidate and instead coerce them to not vote at all - which isn't as effective as forcing them to vote the opposite way - but is still enough to flip the election. Some laws (such as in Texas) that make it increasingly hard for poorer people to vote by demanding proof-of-identity in ways they cannot manage is a classic example of that. Even a homeless person has a right to vote - but without papers that establish that they are who they claim to be - they are effectively disenfranchised - which is unconstitutional. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey SteveBaker; I really agree with your views here. I notice you removed the phrase "violent coercion" which I added when you made your edits. I have a smidge of experience with being violently coerced to do things, and how crowds of people who are for example addicted to the products of a drug lord can be forced to behave as he or she wishes in order to continue their lives. I feel it's really valuable to use the word "violent" here to bring people's minds into how intense this could become, or could be already in areas where votes are provable. I'll try a little to add it back, but if I disrupt the new flow I'm sorry, I do not mean to. 172.69.62.226 18:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)