From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Originator: albion@bcrks63
Reply-To: alanbu@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:52:48 GMT


In article <1992Apr7.140400.10635@ssd.kodak.com>, dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.170023.6445@bcrka451.bnr.ca> alanbu@bnr.ca writes:
> >
> >In article <1992Apr04.213121.8468@robobar.co.uk>, gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") writes:
> >
> >> 
> >> OK, what you missed (and haven't noticed any time you voted) is that
> >> when you go to vote, they find your name in a large book.  Your name
> >> has a number next to it.  You are given a voting form with that
> >> number on it.  Therefore it is trivially easy to find out how you
> >> voted.  Wht we Brits have stood for this blatant disregard for
> >> democracy for so long never fails to surprise me. 
> >
> >This has nothing to do with democracy. If we all believed in democracy, 
> >the secret ballot would be anti-democratic as we should reveal our
> >opinion and hold ourselves accountable.
> 
> I'm astonished at this article, but I'll give you the benefit of the
> doubt, and interpret the above as "If everybody believed in the right to
> support the candidate of one's own choice, then nobody would need to be
> afraid of revealing what their choice was". 
> 
I see no reason for 'benefit of doubt'. You cannot justify anything beyond
the simple ballot unless you assume that there are those that do not really 
believe in democracy. My point is that the previous poster extrapolated
something from the original creation of the secret ballot that had little
to do with the process of democracy. The suggested action may be illegal 
but, due to its secrecy, could not have an effect on the voting process.
Noone has stated that they modify their voting because of knowledge of
such things.
> >
> >The issue is one of personal freedom. If some people are willing to indulge
> >in intimidation and coercion then the public has the right to be protected.
> >
> And who decides which are the parties from which the public must be
> protected?  Do they have to identify themselves as Communist or
> Anarchist to be singled out, or do they have to be labelled as such by
> the authorities?  How about, politics should not be coercive, and
> parties which can be labelled as coercive should not be given
> access to the ballot?  Is that the message we should get?  Peaceful
> means of change shall not be available as an alternative to violent
> means - well, we know where that goes.

I do not understand what you are saying. I am merely pointing out that the 
secret ballot protects us from a level of undemocratic action. The limit 
to the protection is directly in proportion the the perceived risk. To
suggest that the limit itself is undemocratic is absurd. It might,
however, be shown to be inadequate.

> 
> >Inevitably there must then be some compromise of freedom of information
> >over privacy and vice versa. 
> >
> A very different reading of "Freedom of Information" than that which
> currently prevails.  FoI means that government shall not withold
> information from the electorate, not that everybody's thoughts must be
> known to everyone else.

Freedom of information was not just invented yesterday and may not be
restricted absolutely to a single domain. In a perfect democracy we are
obliged to truly state our opinion. What justification for secrecy if
we cannot be threatened? My point being that often people mistake the
pragmatics of a current system for the theoretical ideal.

> 
> >In my opinion it is ludicrous to believe that an individual's voting 
> >patterns will have much importance to majority governments who could more
> >easily gather information on individuals by a more direct means.
> >
> I think it was more a case of wishing to single out otherwise unknown
> individuals for attention by the Special Branch.  You are singularly
> naive about govt's: they get interested in anything and everything, and
> tend to be quite careless about what happens to the information, or what
> it is used for.

I suspect that you are the one being naive if you believe that a
government of a 'democratic' country has need of such information. As for 
the security services, the use of the term 'intelligence' has often been
shown to be in error. I would not try to account for their actions.

To subvert democracy one best attacks activists rather than worrying about
those that simply cast votes. I make a very major distinction between the
stealing of membership lists and information on voting. 
> 
> >Given our likely opinion on our personal influence on the electing of
> >governments I would not be surprised if there was a minority of people who
> >voted for the extremes just for the hell of it. If 100 people vote for the 
> >'hell on earth' party candidate, then each voter can feel more 'special'
> >than one of the 10,000 who voted 'middle of the road'.
> >
> >These people would not necessarily be irresponsible nor politically
> >troublesome but just hold a different sense of proportion.
> >
> The opinions of extreme voters are not the issue.  Its what the govt.
> felt it wanted to do with those voters.

I do not believe that a government would have a purpose in a plan that
specifically targetted large numbers of people. What could they possibly
achieve through such poorly focussed information? It is not simply
necessary to show that something can be done, but you must suggest a motive.
Remember, the information concerning polling areas is already available,
which allows governments to manipulate aid etc. I believe that this a much
more insidious problem.


> >
> >Remember, in real life there are many decent honest people for whom a change
> >of government is the least of their worries and such niceties of democracy
> >would leave them unmoved.
> >
> None of which means that democracy is irrelevant or should be diluted in
> any way.

I rest on my previous points to show that this was neither the purpose nor 
the issue. However, we are not talking about a change but what exists, therefore
the question of dilution does not arise.

I simply believe that the entire thread of postings is out of touch with the
realities of the world. The presence of our democratic institutions is essential
 and must be defended, but the democratic process is the minimum requirement of
a decent society. People should be much more involved than simply casting votes,
and unfortunately it is from being involved where some really immoral activity 
can occur in regard to violation of freedoms.

> >
> >                            Alan
> >
> You disappoint me.

I think that you just misunderstood.
> 


                              Alan


--
Alan Buchanan       Bell-Northern Research, Ltd       Ph.: (613) 763-2750
Silicon Design      P.O. Box 3511, Station C          Fax: (613) 763-3970
  Methods           Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7  

alanbu@bnr.ca        

        Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
                         - William Butler Yeats
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty