Voting in Silence

[fast]

When our elected officials vote, they do so openly under the pathetic guise of being held accountable for being representative. This openness (in my opinion) is cause for grave concern. The benefit is great, but the cost is far higher, so much higher that the benefit isn't worth it. I could be wrong; I'm not solidified in that view, but I want to toy with the idea but in an unusual way.

When individuals vote, they do so in private, and here's how my toying will go: If you choose to favor open public voting by the elected, then you must choose so with the added understanding that the usual comfort of private voting by citizens will change and be open to the public and with the same intimidations that stand as the gradual yet great causal reason for why we are in the position we're in because of open voting by elected public officials.

So, it's like this: if you want the bun, you don't get the burger, but if you want the burger, no problem, but you don't get the bun. You can pick whatever side you want, but you get the exact opposite of what you want on the other end. So, your argument if left to your reasoning skills alone, won't fly unless you weigh in the antagonism.

Is your view that our elected officials should not vote in secrecy behind closed doors so strong that you would still prefer knowing our representatives votes that even if it meant going forward, all citizens votes would be (as well) open to easily accessible public view?

 

[Sarpedon]

Public officials vote publicly because it is literally their job to vote.

Just like Porn stars have sex on camera because that is their job, while most people have sex in private.

This is the stupidest post I've seen in a while.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Voting is a right among the citizens in a democracy. Secrecy of the ballot helps prevent intimidation and tainting the electoral process.

The people that being voted for are being elected to do a job. The voting performed by the elected officials isn't a right, it is their job, as Sarpedon notes. They are elected to represent people of a region. How in the world can those people know whether their candidate is voting in their best interests (Haw! I know, I know) if they don't know their representative's voting record?

Comparing the two types of voting is nonsensical.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you are implying that public voting by officials requires public voting by citizens due to some notion of consistency, then that is silly. There is no problem having different procedures for officials who are elected and paid to vote.

If you are attempting to point out that the dangers of corruption to making citizen votes public apply even moreso to having officials votes be public, then you are correct. Public voting makes it far more likely that officials can be blackmailed and bribed to vote a particular way. Without being able to verify how an official voted, such coercion has no leverage.

So, while public voting means that the general citizenry can hold the official accountable, it also means that the far more powerful political and economic forces can also hold those officials accountable. It does seem plausible that those special interests actually pay more attention and are willing and able to harm those officials depending on how they vote. OTOH, private voting means that the official's own self-interests can be the sole determinant of their vote, which will also often go against the interests of the general public.
This is especially true, since those elected are so highly non-representative of the general public in their SES, and therefore their interests.
So, it's a tough call, but my money is on public voting being a net benefit in holding officials more accountable to the interests of their general constituents over the combination of their own and specific powerful interests. Though, the private financing of very costly campaigns does so much to corrupt their voting for special interests that the difference made by having their votes be public or private in small by comparison.

 

[Sarpedon]

What is the saying? "Consistency is the Hobgoblin of small minds."

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is the saying? "Consistency is the Hobgoblin of small minds."

But wouldn't it be wrong to turn that into 'a saying?'

I mean, if people consistently say 'Consistency is...'

 

[laughing dog]

In my experience, when elected representatives vote "in public", they are seen either walking into the voting booths or placing their ballots into the ballot box (or voting machine) but that their actual votes are not made public. Any citizen who goes to vote can be seen by everyone there as well. The only difference is that an ordinary citizen is not usually filmed voting and then broadcast.

So, I fail to see how the point of the OP at all.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me give answering fast a shot. Elected representatives vote publicly as part of their effort to demonstrate sunshine government, to make governing transparent. Ideally their entire operations as elected official should be subject to camera with voice recording just as policing is now becoming. Money getting and money taking as part of law sausage work is hidden from public view and it should not be so. Confronting and arresting is now becoming a public domain in the interests of better policing. The down side is there will be less prosecution of ways and means to get laws made and changed out of fear that public actions will be misinterpreted. This latter point is what confronts good governance and law enforcement in the future.

 

[bilby]

Secret ballots for representatives voting in the legislature might not be a wholly bad thing; It would make lobbying less effective, as lobbyists couldn't know (unless there is a unanimous vote) whether or not the Rep voted as they had been paid to vote. It would also render political parties redundant, as every vote would effectively become a free vote - the whips wouldn't know who broke ranks any more than the lobbyists would.

Offsetting this, of course, is that the electorate would have to take their representative's word for it that he was supporting the things he claims to stand for - so it would be very easy for a Rep to tell his constituents, lobbyists and party bosses what they wanted to hear, while voting against the desires of any or all of these groups. With secret ballots, it would be easy for all of the Reps to tell their constituents that they cast the one dissenting vote in the passage of the deeply unpopular 'Payrises, Beer and Hookers for Congressmen Act (2018)', and correspondingly difficult for the citizens to identify and vote out the congressmen responsible for the passing of the bill at the next election.

Of course, the Reps would have to draw lots to pick one guy to vote 'Nay', to cover everyone else's arses.

 

[fast]

When people (of a certain and unnamed bent) stand before us and speak about filth of most any variety, they will inevitably twist how they truly feel into so many politically acceptable shapes that we can in no way guarentee any semblance of an accurate depiction of how most anyone actually views the subject matter. There's no honesty, just adjustments to mitigate reprocussions.

The long term cultural shift in attitudes among the general public is snowballing. They talk about a divide, and I'm talking about the rate. We can no longer openly say what we think without suffering consequences, but that's not the problem. The problem arises when consequences far (far) exceed the exercising of ones right to speak his mind. Those substantially increasing numbers on one side of the divide doesn't have anything to lose as compared to those who all but cling to their sense of decency and seek to speak on how they view things.

I have been taught right, and I have much respect for the traits I now find strategic advantage in pulling away from. People talk about transparency. I can't help but think it's the very last thing people on my side of the divide needs. It will serve to thwart their very own aims. If we cannot be open without unreasonable repercussions, then there's a significant (and unfair) disadvantage in doing things right.

We teach our young that it's not always about winning but how we play the game. True that, but when it's not a game but a life and culture altering situation that serves to increase the ugliness of our great ideological divide, then the ends (though perhaps not justified) raises up the priority ladder beyond that of how we play the so-called game of life.

That's how people can root for Trump. It's not an abandonment to values, but a temporary stay on them during a firestorm in the midst of battle. That we win becomes paramount over how we do it. We're tired of allowing the insanity of the stench to continue at the extreme rate that it continues to snowball.

So, no, it has nothing (nothing whatsoever) to do with a "notion of consistency." Just how damn important is it that votes are public? Is it so important that you'd be willing to give up something else? A cookie? How about the right for citizens to keep their anonymity when they vote?

 

[zorq]

When people (of a certain and unnamed bent) stand before us and speak about filth of most any variety, they will inevitably twist how they truly feel into so many politically acceptable shapes that we can in no way guarentee any semblance of an accurate depiction of how most anyone actually views the subject matter. There's no honesty, just adjustments to mitigate reprocussions.

You seem to think your political opponents are dishonest in their opinions and positions. I can almost guarantee you that nearly all of them are not dishonest. I suspect you simply can't understand their perspective and therefore are ascribing malicious motives to them. This is a very naive point of view.

The long term cultural shift in attitudes among the general public is snowballing. They talk about a divide, and I'm talking about the rate. We can no longer openly say what we think without suffering consequences, but that's not the problem.

We have never been able to openly say what we think without suffering consequences. But that's beside the point. You sound like you are pouting because the the "filth" that you prefer to spout now draws more negative consequences than the "filth" that your political opponents prefer to spout.

The problem arises when consequences far (far) exceed the exercising of ones right to speak his mind. Those substantially increasing numbers on one side of the divide doesn't have anything to lose as compared to those who all but cling to their sense of decency and seek to speak on how they view things.

Again you underestimate the sincerity of your opponent's position. They deserve the right to espouse their sense of decency just as much as you do. It's worth reminding you that the negative repercussions from your political opponents faced when espousing their morality when they were the minority opinion were quite significant also. I think it is just a fact of the universe that unpopular opinions face more negative repercussions than popular ones.

I have been taught right, and I have much respect for the traits I now find strategic advantage in pulling away from. People talk about transparency. I can't help but think it's the very last thing people on my side of the divide needs. It will serve to thwart their very own aims. If we cannot be open without unreasonable repercussions, then there's a significant (and unfair) disadvantage in doing things right.

You want your opinions broadcast publicly without suffering any negative repercussions. Sounds childish and cowardly to me. Let me remind you that life isn't fair. If you want to speak with anonymity you are in the right place, the internet. Anonymous speech is here and it's here to stay. But speaking with anonymity diminishes your power to affect the changes you want in the world. The anonymous are ignored. Public figures lead movements. I think if you try to shout your "decency" from the shadows you will have even less success at steering the public.

We teach our young that it's not always about winning but how we play the game. True that, but when it's not a game but a life and culture altering situation that serves to increase the ugliness of our great ideological divide, then the ends (though perhaps not justified) raises up the priority ladder beyond that of how we play the so-called game of life.

The stakes have always been steep, it's just that your side has rarely been faced with downhill slope. Learn some history and get some perspective.

That's how people can root for Trump. It's not an abandonment to values, but a temporary stay on them during a firestorm in the midst of battle. That we win becomes paramount over how we do it. We're tired of allowing the insanity of the stench to continue at the extreme rate that it continues to snowball.

So, no, it has nothing (nothing whatsoever) to do with a "notion of consistency." Just how damn important is it that votes are public? Is it so important that you'd be willing to give up something else? A cookie? How about the right for citizens to keep their anonymity when they vote?

I just don't see any necessary link between anonymous/public voting by representatives and freedom of expression.

 

[fast]

You seem to think your political opponents are dishonest in their opinions and positions. I can almost guarantee you that nearly all of them are not dishonest. I suspect you simply can't understand their perspective and therefore are ascribing malicious motives to them. This is a very naive point of view.

I read everything you said, and without doubt, there are many ears that it would be best that your words didn't fall on that are deaf. In other words, I find your post praiseworthy. The problem is that I'm not espousing the opinion that my apparent lack of clarity seems to indicate. My thoughts are specific not to political opponents but to political allies.

 

[Terrell]

You didn't vote the way we wanted you to, so you're fired.