Secret voting is a relative newcomer to America. It did not become general until 1888 when the so-called Australian ballot was widely accepted. (This form of ballot also brought several other voting “reforms,” but its lasting fame rests on the secrecy of the vote). Even Iraqi law today, thanks to the occupying forces, now provides that, “the voter go behind one of the empty voting screens (to) mark his ballot.”
It didn’t used to be so. Voting used to be a very public act.
When young George Washington stood for election to his local government he, along with other candidates, remained at the polling scene, greeting voters as they made their choice. When a man voted (there were neither women voters nor women candidates) he made his choice publicly – generally by voice, but occasionally by stepping over to join a specific group.
It was also common in those early days for the candidates to offer libation to their supporters, and a keg of cheer was often conveniently located at the polling place. As a matter of public safety, restrictions on liquor preceded the secret vote by many years. (And are still in existence where bars may not be open while voting is taking place). Two hundred years ago, a typical Gorham farmer, fresh from a cold hike into town from his morning milking, might have well welcomed a free flip (rum heated with a hot iron). As one historian says, “Election day. . .was quite an event: alcohol flowed, any women present were generally of low morals, and rent-a-crowds guzzled free food and drink supplied by politicians. A debauched and violent time was often had by many.”
Fortunately, there were no women of “low morals” in Maine – south of Bangor.
Today, ballot secrecy is paramount – and inviolate. But financial contributions are not. In the belief that sunshine will cleanse the sewer that campaign monies have become, detailed legal requirements exist for reporting political contributions – and these reports are very much public.
Like many new laws, these new provisions have brought their own unique problems. San Francisco, as in so many other things, has led the way. Opponents of the recent “Proposition 8” (which forbade the privilege of marriage to people of the same sex) have obtained the names of contributors to Prop 8, spotted those names by location and published a map showing residences. These maps have been provided to tourists – much like those of celebrity homes in Hollywood – and tour buses and various participants in the political process are now said to celebrate passage through those neighborhoods.
With at least some justification, there is outrage and fear among those so identified. They have suffered some loss of privacy. Many of them fear public abuse or have concern for their personal safety. They have filed suit to prevent such “public outing” in both state and federal courts.
And they were turned down in both venues.
Made aware of this development, Lucius Flatley opened the discussion at this week’s coffee seminar by observing that there were two sides to the question. Could this type of information be used to embarrass people and perhaps intimidate political participation – or – should people be willing to stand up and be counted? Is the democracy best served by public disclosure at the expense of privacy?
One computer hobbyist said he had Googled Cape Elizabeth residents for campaign contributions and was surprised to find that the Cape was such a treasure trove for Ron Paul. “I thought he was the poor man’s candidate,” he said – “but he sure has a lot of admirers there.”
Someone else wondered if the publication of contributors to the recent Peoples’ Veto, (which killed a tax on beer designed to support Dirigo Health) would have any adverse effect. Another thinker said not to worry – “everyone knows that 98 percent of that money came from the beverage industry and light beer couldn’t care less.”
Aside from that bit of gossip, no group conclusion was reached.
Lucius summed it up: “Technology has struck again in ways we are just beginning to understand. For the time being at least, if you contribute to any cause other than the Boston Red Sox – be prepared to be followed to your doorstep.”
Send questions/comments to the editors.
