A Plea for a Private Ballot

I don't even think this is just about horserace and excitment (though it's a part of it). It's also about people being pretty cavalier about taking a huge information source away from voters without really thinking it through.
 
I don't even think this is just about horserace and excitment (though it's a part of it). It's also about people being pretty cavalier about taking a huge information source away from voters without really thinking it through.
But the information is almost always not an accurate representation of the race, right? It's only a snapshot of whenever you are checking the ballot. In this case, I think a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Unless you wait until the very end to vote, you'll never know how the region has actually voted, only the people that voted before you. So, what use is this information?
 
I think your use of the word dangerous in this context is more dangerous, Calvin...
 
I think your use of the word dangerous in this context is more dangerous, Calvin...
I'm just using the idiom that already exists. :p A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, y'know? I'm just saying that people can be overconfident about what you can glean from the information available, since it won't show the whole picture. A lot of times people will think a race is over, and vote assuming things won't change from their current standing, but if they really knew the state of the race, would probably vote differently. But of course, people can never know the state of the race completely until its over, so people should just vote for the candidate they want to win.
 
I don't know if I agree with that logic, honestly. And if we're assuming that some voters are trolling and malicious, then whats to say they'll vote for their preferred candidate and not another to cause some sort of chaos?
 
I don't know if I agree with that logic, honestly. And if we're assuming that some voters are trolling and malicious, then whats to say they'll vote for their preferred candidate and not another to cause some sort of chaos?
But at least the troll voters will be doing so in the dark, and therefor less effectively.
 
I don't know if I agree with that logic, honestly. And if we're assuming that some voters are trolling and malicious, then whats to say they'll vote for their preferred candidate and not another to cause some sort of chaos?
But at least the troll voters will be doing so in the dark, and therefor less effectively.
This is all based on an assumption that this an issue we're facing, of course. I don't think it is.
 
I don't know if I agree with that logic, honestly. And if we're assuming that some voters are trolling and malicious, then whats to say they'll vote for their preferred candidate and not another to cause some sort of chaos?
But at least the troll voters will be doing so in the dark, and therefor less effectively.
This is all based on an assumption that this an issue we're facing, of course. I don't think it is.

I think that's an inaccurate way of looking at it. Whether we choose to address it or not, it's an issue we are facing in every race, because there is a choice to be made. Every time there is a choice to be made there is an "issue" that is being faced. Just because we've done it one way doesn't mean a choice hasn't been made - it has, and suggesting that changing it is the only time we are addressing the "issue" is actually incorrect. Choosing to keep doing it the same way is just as much a "choice" as choosing to make a change, so the question isn't really whether there is an "issue" or "choice" at hand, it's what we want to do about the "issue" or "choice" that exists - acknowledged or not - already.

I'm not saying that closing the screen is necessarily a good idea. I see the arguments on both sides. I think Calvin's most recent point is incredibly compelling however - people that are making decisions on the voter screen that they see when they show up to vote aren't really getting good data, unless they just wanted to see whether a candidate is viable *at all* - which perhaps you could determine after the first couple hours of voting, although again that's assuming there aren't a pool of voters that are coming later.

In any case, no matter what decision is made we as a region are making the decision to conduct the election in that way. Either way works, both ways have positives and negatives, and ultimately we just need to figure out which we prefer. I for one wouldn't mind a trial in the next election to see how it goes, written up initially as a one time only trial, probably. There seems enough interest from the electorate based on the poll I ran to at least consider that option and see how it works.
 
I literally can not think of a single instance where a troll tied a vote and then it ultimately stayed that way at the close of the poll.

Also, to Loen’s point just because this problem could happen technically does not mean it has enough added value to make the trade off of excitement ect worth while. Thoughout this discussion overall I think that the initial arguments for this are quite weak as evidently Darc apparently acknowledged up thread as the emotional stress of the election would likely not be impacted. Further as Lethen has noted repeatedly there is virtually no evidence that trolls are a problem of consequence and thus we shouldn’t be trading away the positive aspects of the results being viewable throughout to solve a problem that does not exist in anything but imagination.
 
I literally can not think of a single instance where a troll tied a vote and then it ultimately stayed that way at the close of the poll.

Also, to Loen’s point just because this problem could happen technically does not mean it has enough added value to make the trade off of excitement ect worth while. Thoughout this discussion overall I think that the initial arguments for this are quite weak as evidently Darc apparently acknowledged up thread as the emotional stress of the election would likely not be impacted. Further as Lethen has noted repeatedly there is virtually no evidence that trolls are a problem of consequence and thus we shouldn’t be trading away the positive aspects of the results being viewable throughout to solve a problem that does not exist in anything but imagination.
Yeah, I think the narrative that "trolls" are tying the vote at the end are a little disingenuous. Calvin didn't catch up at the end of the runoff because of trolls, he caught up because people who supported him were holding their votes.
 
I literally can not think of a single instance where a troll tied a vote and then it ultimately stayed that way at the close of the poll.

Also, to Loen’s point just because this problem could happen technically does not mean it has enough added value to make the trade off of excitement ect worth while. Thoughout this discussion overall I think that the initial arguments for this are quite weak as evidently Darc apparently acknowledged up thread as the emotional stress of the election would likely not be impacted. Further as Lethen has noted repeatedly there is virtually no evidence that trolls are a problem of consequence and thus we shouldn’t be trading away the positive aspects of the results being viewable throughout to solve a problem that does not exist in anything but imagination.
Yeah, I think the narrative that "trolls" are tying the vote at the end are a little disingenuous. Calvin didn't catch up at the end of the runoff because of trolls, he caught up because people who supported him were holding their votes.
Or people made last minute decisions. But I don't think any of those last few votes were trolls. In fact, I know they weren't.
 
I literally can not think of a single instance where a troll tied a vote and then it ultimately stayed that way at the close of the poll.

Also, to Loen’s point just because this problem could happen technically does not mean it has enough added value to make the trade off of excitement ect worth while. Thoughout this discussion overall I think that the initial arguments for this are quite weak as evidently Darc apparently acknowledged up thread as the emotional stress of the election would likely not be impacted. Further as Lethen has noted repeatedly there is virtually no evidence that trolls are a problem of consequence and thus we shouldn’t be trading away the positive aspects of the results being viewable throughout to solve a problem that does not exist in anything but imagination.
Yeah, I think the narrative that "trolls" are tying the vote at the end are a little disingenuous. Calvin didn't catch up at the end of the runoff because of trolls, he caught up because people who supported him were holding their votes.

For me it's not a question of trolls so much as voter behavior. Let's say you're thinking of voting for Candidate A, who has run a few times but never gotten much support. You think it might be time. You get in 6 hours after the polls open (after which quite a bit of voting has usually already been done). You see Candidate A only has 2 votes, Candidates B and C are both around 12. So you say "oh .. ok --- I guess I won't vote for A. I better pick B or C, or my vote won't matter".

Now, there's two ways of looking at that. One is that this was valuable information for the voter, and allows them to more strategically vote. Of course that information wasn't available to the earlier voters. They could hold back if they wanted to, and that's a fair argument to make - if you want the benefit of the info, don't vote right away. I'm probably swayed by it. But either way, it's true that you're now informing some voters to a greater degree than other voters.

Second, you could argue that this isn't a good thing - let's say it costs Candidate A 5 or 6 votes. That's enough to potentially discourage that candidate from running in the future because they see they continue to get 3 or 4 votes instead of getting 3 or 4 in one race, and then showing improvement to 9 or 10 the next time (this is hypothetical yes - I am not saying this WOULD happen, just that it is not unlikely). Is this a problem? I don't know - you tell me? Do we want voter behavior influenced in that way or not?

Again, I'm not necessarily on one end or the other of this although I'm leaning strongly toward supporting a trial. I just want to make clear that I see issues on both sides of this and think there are potential concerns either way, and there are tradeoffs either way.
 
Here's a question that matters the most here: how many people check the vote tallies before voting? I do sometimes - mainly Senate elections where strategic voting matters* - but typically don't. I always vote my conscience, personally.

*if we do implement this on any sort of basis, we can't do it for Senate elections. It really neuters the ability to selectively use ones votes and choose the number of seats strategically.
 
I usually vote within the first 20 seconds of polls opening so it wouldn't do me much good to check lol I get overly excited about voting :hype:
 
Here's a question that matters the most here: how many people check the vote tallies before voting?
That is the question that matters, and polling needs to be on the question for this conversation to reach a proper conclusion, in all honesty.
 
I usually do check the tallies before voting, but it almost never sways my vote.
 
I voted immediately each time I could in the FM election (all 3 times)! I have held my vote in the past, and sometimes that is to vote for whichever of my preferred candidates is most likely to be successful. Or sometimes I've given a pity vote to a losing candidate if it was unlikely to impact the results of the election. But usually I vote immediately and vote my conscience, and I only use the results to encourage others to vote for my preferred candidate.
 
I never check for candidates, though I do vote for Senators first then vote for # of seats.
 
I virtually never check before voting, and have never checked/held my vote in any instance for President/FM elections. The only time I have checked the vote before voting is when I myself was running in a Senate election and wanted to ascertain whether being as liberal with my vote distribution as I normally am (I always voted for the maximum number of candidates I could) would impact my own chances of being elected. If I recall, they did not and I voted as I normally would have anyway.
 
A follow-up to my other post: I almost always check the vote tally after I've voted because its interesting to follow the race, read the comments/live analysis, etc.
 
Back
Top