— by Odysseus
One would have thought that this article would be unnecessary. There was a time when “civics” was taught in the public schools. Later, the “civics” portion of the curriculum was picked up by the “American History” classes. It was commonly understood that in order for a democratic republic to function, the citizens had to understand at least some of the ideological underpinnings of the system and how it functioned. Particularly, the part they play in voting. Apparently, this no longer occurs in grade school or in college because even our voting laws are changing in ways that nullify the central aspects of democracy. Issues, such as providing identification in order to be able to vote, are but part of the problem that is now occurring in our elections. How is it that the public and our “political leaders” seem to fail to understand even the basics of what is necessary for the democratic portion of our governance to function? Specifically, how democracies safeguard “the vote”?
Put in the simplest terms, “democracy” is primarily a system designed to resolve issues that are contentious in a society. Rather than resorting to violence, the individuals in the society agree that they will follow the majority view, and that vote must be counted in some fashion to determine what the majority — no matter how slim — thinks. Since they are subjugating their own deeply-held views to the process, all participants must feel that the honesty and integrity of the process is secure. Without that surety as to the fairness of the process, humans will return to another method of advancing their opinions and views . . . violence.
The primary concern with administering the voting process in a democratic system is not “convenience”. It is that the vote must be protected and secure from domestic or foreign subversion and that it be freely cast in the way desired by each individual suffrage holder. In the most elemental forms of democracy, the “ballot box” was created.
When humans started to experiment with self rule, we considered democracy by a “show of hands”. You gathered everyone together in a room and had people raise their hands to show their position on a matter. This system does not work very well to protect the integrity of the vote. If you held a position that was unpopular to others of concern to you, e.g., your neighbors, family or spouse, you would feel intimidated that everyone would know the position you took through raising your hand. Further, people could suffer fear of reprisal for a position they took, through either social stigma or perhaps even violence. Bully factions could intimidate their way into controlling every vote. Consequently, the method of voting by “ballot box” was invented.
When people write down their preference on a slip of paper and put it into a box to be counted at the end of voting, they are protected from personal intimidation or pressure of other kinds, and thereby able to vote in the manner their conscience directs. When it was noticed that the “box” could be tampered with and votes could be switched, the custom became to place a lock on the box. The votes would then be counted in the open, carefully watched by observers from both sides of the issue to ensure there would be no cheating.
These and other dangers are precisely why the elections that the United States sponsored in Iraq and Afghanistan utilized these time-honored methods. Those people had to brave gunfire, rockets, and suicide bombers to get to their voting stations on election day, risking their very lives, much less “convenience”, as America struggled to provide them with the most fair, honest, verifiable vote that was technologically possible. To do that, they had to actually show up.
Throughout most of the history of democracies, voting was held to be on a specific day, “voting day” or “election day”. All votes were cast on a single day, chosen in advance, so that it would be a true measure of opinion of the majority on that day. “Early voting” was impossible, and if one could not be present on voting day, one’s vote was forfeit. This was a small sacrifice to ensure the integrity of the process. Early voting would not take into account matters that came up late in the election. New issues come to light, new information is discovered, a candidate can suddenly take a horribly unpopular position or even commit a dastardly crime, in the weeks or even days before an election. If a person had already committed to a ballot, then he or she would be “stuck” with their vote and would be unable to express their true choice of conscience on the election day.
In the United States, there was, in relatively modern times, established a means of voting if one absolutely could not be present on “voting day”. If one knew they were going to be out of the country on that day or having surgery or other serious impediment, they could request an “absentee ballot”. However, requesting that “absentee ballot” had to be by personal letter to the local election authorities, explaining how and why they would be unavailable for this particular election on this particular date. The election authorities could then decide if the reason was sufficient to allow an exception and could issue an early ballot to the requester. This was meant to be a rare exception and not the rule. It was an accommodation to the general principles long established to secure the integrity of the vote. As long as there have been “democracies”, there has been adequate “mail service” to allow for “vote by mail”, but this was rejected early on as an unacceptably insecure method of voting. Having a specific voting day with secret ballot, cast by hand, was chosen for a myriad of reasons.
When a vote is cast by hand, at a polling place, everyone can be assured that the vote is indeed “secret”. No one is standing over the person writing the ballot, and able to apply the intimidation described above. In political science classes in the 1980s, this was explained in terms of the potential “overbearing husband” who could force his wife to vote as he dictated, if she had to vote by mail. No one was there to protect her at the kitchen table. Obviously, the same rule applied to factories, where the owner could demand of all employees to fill out their ballots on the shop floor where he could observe them, collect them, and mail them as a group or they would lose their jobs. A church or cult could dictate and monitor the voting of their parishioners. Likewise, unions, mob bosses or thuggish party bosses could fill a room with people at gunpoint and force their votes to be cast a certain way.
In any political science or civics class, this was taught as a basic point of how and why democracies use the methods that they do for voting. On a given day, election day, a citizen goes to public place and steps into a booth. He or she is protected in both their safety and privacy to choose as they see fit. It may be the only moment in their entire lives that is not dictated or controlled by some other person, but we are assured that, in that moment, they are free. This is the very essence of democracy, the vital element, without which democracy ceases to function. This is why this method of voting was created and enshrined because it was the best way to ensure the sanctity of the vote.
With the voting booth, we can be assured that the person casting the ballot is indeed alive on that day. We know that this is their choice and they are not lying in a coma somewhere with the ballot filled out by another person. We are assured that it is indeed their vote, and that they are not the unwitting victim of identity theft with some party activist voting in their name after noticing from records that they, themselves, rarely come in to vote. We are assured that they are not subject to outside influence or pressure. We can be sure that they are indeed citizens, eligible to vote, parties to the social contract they are influencing, rather than the horde of an invading army seeking to subvert the enemy’s government.
The “accommodation”, the “absentee ballot”, was a chink in the armor of the integrity of the vote that is being ruthlessly exploited and imperiling our form of governance. Convenience is not integrity, and, of the two, integrity is vastly more important. Elections are a function of governance in countries that choose some form of democracy as their type of government. Voters are therefore members and participants in the government, a “branch” that simply meets less frequently. No branch of government, including the electorate, can be allowed to direct the country without assurance that they are indeed lawfully empowered to do so and are free from outside influences.
The original systems were designed over millennia of experience with human mendacity and subterfuge to give us the greatest assurance possible that our vote and democratic elements of governance would be fair, secure, and free. Modern “tinkering” for the sake of mere “convenience” is an unnecessary and foolhardy peril that we inject into our system. We are not only undermining the legitimacy of our government, we are doing so for no good reason. Our leaders are either fools who lacking in basic knowledge of governance and history or, alternatively, they are meddling with our democracy for reasons they are unwilling to publicly acknowledge.
