The big question touching a nerve this election: "Can my husband find out who I am voting for?"
The big question touching a nerve this election: "Can my husband find out who I am voting for?"
Can my husband find out who I am voting for in the Presidential Election?"
Olivia Dreizen Howell, the founder of a website to help women get back on their feet after a breakup or divorce, tweeted last week, "We've been getting this question a lot," so she followed up with some facts. As the Washington Post confirmed with experts, the answer is simple: "No; it will be public record that you voted, but not how you filled out your ballot."
The GOP ticket is led by a sexual predator who a jury found "'raped' [journalist E. Jean Carroll] as many people commonly understand the word 'rape,'" the judge in the case wrote. His running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, has called for a national abortion ban, wrote the forward to a book that denounced contraception for making pregnancy "seem like an optional and not natural result of having sex," and repeatedly called women who haven't given birth "sociopathic" and "childless cat ladies."
Meanwhile, the Democratic ticket is led by a woman who chose "Freedom" by Beyoncé as her campaign song, and has dispensed with the mealy-mouthed language about abortion rights to declare she stands for "the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body." Her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, her running mate, has decried "weird" MAGA Republicans of the "he-man woman haters’ club."
You're viewing a single thread.
And THIS is why unlimited vote by mail isn't as great as some people think.
Why?
Just going to preface this by saying that I absolutely do support vote by mail, it's objectively a good thing
However, there's a problem that should be considered in that it can create opportunities for coerced voting either within a household, or by requiring someone to send a photo of their form.
The former being more of a problem than the later
But you can make that argument about anything...
Can't have salads because they could be used for voter coercion?
Where should a just and equal society draw the line, though? A person's partner can also use Life360 (or another app) to monitor their whereabouts and prohibit them from getting a job so they can't save up money to escape - does that mean we shouldn't have phones or that tracking apps should be restricted?
In a country like the US, where voting lines can literally be 8 hours long and employers don't have to pay you while you take time during the day to vote, can you guys afford to limit mail-in voting due to extremely specific scenarios in which abuse may occur?
It appears (from my position as someone who has not been in an abusive relationship) like we could more comprehensively tackle this issue with legislation that covers more situations that are directly coercive in nature (like your mail-in ballot being tampered with, regardless of your consent).
At the same time, I am a bit of an idiot, so I do genuinely want to read your perspective about how you think things should be. I am almost certainly not considering every avenue here, given that I lack first-hand experience with abusive relationships and have only really heard stories from friends and family (some of whom do have first- or second-hand experience).
does that mean we shouldn't have phones or that tracking apps should be restricted?
It is not my intent to equate "x has problem y" with "x should not exist" very good systems can and do get abused and misused.
There's a reason I started my comment with
Mail-in voting is objectively a good thing
All I'm saying is that maybe there should be a way for people to go back and override their votes (which admittedly could probably also be abused in some situations), or better yet, just better social safety nets to help people get out of those situations. I'm not suggesting I have all of the answers, just acknowledging that the person at the top of the thread raises a valid, if possibly overstated, concern.
Because your abusive spouse/preacher/etc. can make you show your ballot, or even mark it for you.
You can still go vote in person.
I think you don't appreciate abusive and controlling relationships for how bad they can be
a) some states are pure vote by mail. b) if you have the option of voting at home, that exact same abuser can make you exercise it.
I used to oppose VBM because of this. Now I see it as a trade off since there are also benefits that can outweigh the problems. But a person with their eyes open should not pretend that the problems don't exist.
Which states? I am not aware of any that are solely vote by mail.
If you wanted to, it would be easy to screw up your ballot request. Throw it out when you get it, mess up the form, forget to sign, offer to take it to the post office and never mail it... Then it's "oh no it never came, let's just go vote in person".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting_in_the_United_States#All_vote-by-mail
And, the existence of methods to escape abusers prevents some instances of abuse, but doesn't eliminate the problem.
From the article you linked
As of 2022, California mails every registered voter a ballot before the elections, but there is still the option to vote in-person
Yes, that is California. In the exact same paragraph, other states are listed which don't offer the option. Oregon was the one that came to my mind immediately.
The issue is, having an option to do something the right way is not all that helpful. If there is an option to do it the wrong way, attackers (using "attacker" in the sense of computer security) will do what they can to make you use that option, so they can exploit it. Therefore, security systems should make doing the wrong thing impossible, rather than merely making the right thing possible.
You're correct, I should have been more thorough.
Here's one of the sources cited by that Wikipedia article:
Mostly-Mail Elections (aka Vote-by-Mail, All-Mail or Vote-at-Home Elections) What Are Mostly-Mail Elections? In mostly-mail elections, all registered voters are sent a ballot through the mail. The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy sleeve or envelope if required, places it in a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope or otherwise provides verification of their identify and then returns the ballot via mail or by dropping it off at an approved return location.
Ballots are mailed out well ahead of Election Day, and thus voters have an “election period,” not just a single day, to vote. Mostly-mail elections can be thought of as absentee voting for everyone. This system is also referred to as “vote-by-mail” or all-mail ballot elections. While “mostly-mail elections” means that every registered voter receives a ballot by mail, this does not preclude in-person voting opportunities on or before Election Day. For example, even though all registered voters in Colorado are mailed a ballot, voters can choose instead to cast a ballot at an in-person vote center during the early voting period or on Election Day.
According to this, "All mail elections" are not different from "mostly mail" elections, and doesn't preclude the use of in person voting.
Also
systems should make doing the wrong thing impossible
Please no, imo that's an incredibly fucked line of reasoning
According to this, “All mail elections” are not different from “mostly mail” elections, and doesn’t preclude the use of in person voting.
You can't vote in person in Oregon. There are no voting booths in the state. It is ALL done by mail, the way I heard it.
"Casting a ballot at a polling place" is not "voting in person". I sometimes cast my own ballots (California) at polling places. That is, fill in the ballot at home, and drop it off at the polling station instead of mailing it. Voting in person means there is a physical voting booth that you enter, close the curtain, and THEN make your voting choices, in an environment where no one else can see them. Poll workers are supposed to make sure that nobody goes into the booth with you, with some exceptions for disabled people (there are similar exceptions for absentee voting in non-VBM states). It's against the law to photograph your filled-in ballot inside the booth, though in the phone camera era that has become near impossible to enforce.
Please no, imo that’s an incredibly fucked line of reasoning
It is what you have to do in a secure system. Voting (like retail loss prevention) is of course a security vs convenience trade-off, so you might choose to allow the insecure approach at least some of the time. Again, a person with their eyes open has to be aware of all the issues and reach an informed conclusion. See:
What do you mean by that?
See the discussion? VBM means you fill in your ballot at home, while your husband potentially watches. As opposed to voting with a secret ballot in a voting booth with the curtain closed.