| |
| ▲ | gojomo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Election integrity requires as much of the mechanics of elections to be transparent to all observers, including politically-disfavord groups, as possible. If the voter rolls are state secrets, only available to approved insiders, how can you know they're not filled with regime sockpuppets? | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > If the voter rolls are state secrets, only available to approved insiders, how can you know they're not filled with regime sockpuppets? Here in Germany, you can show up in person at the election office to check the voter rolls, although in practice you don't ever need to do so because registration of your residential address is mandatory and it automatically also updates voter rolls. Errors here are extremely, extremely rare as a result. | | |
| ▲ | gojomo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Useful comparison, but to my point: is that sufficient to detect fake entries created by incumbent insiders? Also: has that in-person mechanism ever been used by stalkers/abusers to find their hiding targets? | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Useful comparison, but to my point: is that sufficient to detect fake entries created by incumbent insiders? Scandals regarding voter roll fraud are extremely rare. I can only think of one scandal from 2014 where a farmer was alleged to have seasonal laborers register and vote for the party of his wife by mail [1]. In the end, the case against the farmer ended up being tossed on insufficient evidence. > Also: has that in-person mechanism ever been used by stalkers/abusers to find their hiding targets? If someone is in hiding and legally protected, it is not allowed to contest these entries [2] since the threshold is very high. For "normal" people, you have to bring clear evidence that fraud may have occurred. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/geiselhoering-wahlfaelsch... [2] https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayVV_2021_I_... | | |
| ▲ | gojomo 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks but I don't understand how either of your replies are responsive to my questions. The number of reported/memorable fraud scandals is not itself a reliable indicator of whether the proper controls are in place. It is only an accurate estimate of the actual fraud if you already assume the controls are working. I don't know what you mean about "contesting" entries. The original report implied people could review the voter rolls - not just their own entry, or some small number of intentional challenges - by going in person. If they can review the names & addresses of all voters, stalkers/abusers could leverage that. If instead they can only "contest" certain entries by name after specific articulable suspicion, that's a much narrower kind of review, which again seems to offer none of the protection against insider fraud that exists in more transparent democracies. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't want grocery store circulars on my front porch. They're trash, they're bad for the environment, an eyesore, literal physical spam. But our municipality can't ban them, because First Amendment jurisprudence says so. The circulars are speech and expression at their nadir of protection (commercial speech not of any public or artistic interest), and they're protected. Good luck getting in the way of political advertising, which is speech and expression at the apogee of its protection. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Good luck getting in the way of political advertising, which is speech and expression at the apogee of its protection. Again: what exactly requires candidates to know your name and address to send you propaganda via mail? There already exist bulk mail services that allow you to target specific areas, addresses and even limited demographics [1]. [1] https://www.usps.com/business/political-mail.htm | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Campaign speech isn't simply the right to address whatever demographics your mail services happens to have decided matter (in the context of a campaign, that is itself a political decision, core protected activity). It's the right to organize around specific voters. In local politics (which is where I engage mostly), these kinds of decisions get made on individual voter bases at times. I want to be clear here that while I believe the principles I'm describing to be normatively good, I'm also being descriptive; the restrictions you'd advocate for would almost certainly be held unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
