What's the rationale for making voting information public?
October 3, 2016 1:43 PM Subscribe
Your voter registration details (party, name, address) and voting record (how you were registered, where you voted, and the fact that you voted, but not your selections) are public record. What is the rationale for that? Why did anyone think that the safety and privacy drawbacks were worth it? (It doesn't seem like it to me, but maybe there's a good reason?) Is there some record of the deliberations from when this was decided?
Without some way to verify that voters were actually real people (via publishing their name & address), one could concoct a scheme where ballot boxes were stuffed, and fake voters were shown as voting at the appropriate polling stations. I don't know if there are any examples of anyone doing this other than Sideshow Bob, though.
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:08 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:08 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best answer: If someone is going to be a voter, it seems only fair that they should also be contactable, at least by mail, by candidates and political causes seeking their support?
This quote, from something called the California Voter Foundation, supports both my point, and the answers above:
This quote, from something called the California Voter Foundation, supports both my point, and the answers above:
The chief purposes of voter registration are to prevent voter fraud and to facilitate election administration. An equally important but less well-known purpose is to provide political campaigns with contact and personal information about voters and their history of election participation.posted by kickingtheground at 2:16 PM on October 3, 2016
The safety/privacy drawbacks, namely the ability of individuals who have been stalked or the victims of violence to remain hidden from those who wish them harm, have different mitigation strategies depending on state. Many states have laws concerning misuse of voter records -- looking up someone for the purposes of stalking would be a misdemeanor. Other areas have the ability to anonymize or remove information from the voter rolls depending on orders of protection.
There are a number of ways an address can be found for an individual outside of the voter rolls, and with less of a paper trail.
If someone were to request the information for reasons related to party affiliation, any actions they could take would likely be qualified as voter intimidation.
Outside of those specific instances where a person could be approached or intimidated based on the small subset of available information, there's not much you could do with the information that's not prosecutable. Commercial purposes? Against the law. The only real privacy drawback would be parties attempting to sway your vote, which is just a part of representative democracy. But you can refuse to answer your door (and post signs), not give political parties your phone number, and feel free to ignore anything you receive in the mail.
posted by mikeh at 2:25 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are a number of ways an address can be found for an individual outside of the voter rolls, and with less of a paper trail.
If someone were to request the information for reasons related to party affiliation, any actions they could take would likely be qualified as voter intimidation.
Outside of those specific instances where a person could be approached or intimidated based on the small subset of available information, there's not much you could do with the information that's not prosecutable. Commercial purposes? Against the law. The only real privacy drawback would be parties attempting to sway your vote, which is just a part of representative democracy. But you can refuse to answer your door (and post signs), not give political parties your phone number, and feel free to ignore anything you receive in the mail.
posted by mikeh at 2:25 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The main reason it's publicly available is ballot access. Less important up the ladder, but so common for local elections.
To avoid filing fees, a candidate can get a certain number of valid signatures.
The variance between signatures and valid signatures is pretty significant. There are duplicates. People registered in another jurisdiction. Fake names. Without a way to validate these signatures, it can be nearly impossible to complete. This creates an opportunity for another candidate to challenge your candidacy unless this information is readily available.
(This has been my job a few times in my more political days.)
posted by politikitty at 3:35 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
To avoid filing fees, a candidate can get a certain number of valid signatures.
The variance between signatures and valid signatures is pretty significant. There are duplicates. People registered in another jurisdiction. Fake names. Without a way to validate these signatures, it can be nearly impossible to complete. This creates an opportunity for another candidate to challenge your candidacy unless this information is readily available.
(This has been my job a few times in my more political days.)
posted by politikitty at 3:35 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that you are overestimating the safety aspects of this. In this post-whitepages world, it's easy to forget that names and addresses for just about everyone used to be printed in a book and delivered to people's doors.
The voting record data (party of registration, did you vote) is obviously useful for enforcement of election rules.
I could see the argument for making registration private, but ballot stuffing is absolutely a thing to protect against and giving people in the community access to data can help those community members recognize problems (how did Martha Johnson vote, she's been dead for 6 months? )
posted by sparklemotion at 4:25 PM on October 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The voting record data (party of registration, did you vote) is obviously useful for enforcement of election rules.
I could see the argument for making registration private, but ballot stuffing is absolutely a thing to protect against and giving people in the community access to data can help those community members recognize problems (how did Martha Johnson vote, she's been dead for 6 months? )
posted by sparklemotion at 4:25 PM on October 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I used to run campaigns at a local level. The voter file was essential to my work of getting voters on the ballot. I need 2k signatures of registered voters. Okay, who is registered and are they in the district? An opponent needs 2k signatures. Are they getting actual people to sign who live in the district or is this all coming from a signature factory in Nebraska? And I have gotten dozens of people thrown off the ballot because they do not live in the district or did not bother to get valid signatures. It is both a good and bad system.
posted by munchingzombie at 5:44 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by munchingzombie at 5:44 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Possibly relevant as far as origins—according to Wikipedia, even federal tax filings were public documents in the 19th century:
posted by XMLicious at 8:57 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe the default was just that government records were public in general, in the beginning? Intellectual property rights, though mentioned in the Constitution, lasted only a few years in the earliest laws, so even in the case of private writings and records almost anything written down you might come across was public domain and freely copyable.Tax filings in the U.S. were not private when federal income taxation began in 1861, but controversy led to Congress prohibiting any examination of tax records by 1894. Congress allowed public examination of individual and corporate tax payments only in 1923, but the disclosure was eliminated by 1924.
posted by XMLicious at 8:57 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the UK, you can be registered to vote (and therefore be on the electoral roll) but also opt to not make your contact details available to people / organizations / political parties wanting that information. (In the UK, you don't have to register your allegiance to a political party either - the assumption is that you will choose who to vote for on election day, and your political leanings are none of anyone's business but your own). The Electoral Commission keeps records of who voted, but doesn't make them public. So it's still all recorded by an independent body.
That opt out option doesn't prevent democracy from happening. It does, however, prevent a shed load of unwanted mail arriving in your mailbox and clogging up recycling facilities. If I want to be contacted by candidates, I'll give them - or their party - my email address directly. It doesn't stop me from making an informed decision when I go to vote.
So from an outsider's perspective, no, there is no rational reason for this, it's just how the US has always done it.
posted by finding.perdita at 12:58 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
That opt out option doesn't prevent democracy from happening. It does, however, prevent a shed load of unwanted mail arriving in your mailbox and clogging up recycling facilities. If I want to be contacted by candidates, I'll give them - or their party - my email address directly. It doesn't stop me from making an informed decision when I go to vote.
So from an outsider's perspective, no, there is no rational reason for this, it's just how the US has always done it.
posted by finding.perdita at 12:58 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are rules about what government info can be released and under what circumstances. For example if you are a law enforcement officer or a victim of stalking/domestic violence or a person in witness protection, in California you can request your voter info be hidden from public searched and be on a list that select personnel in the Registrar's office can access (in my county, only the Registrar himself, an elected official, can access it) so that the agency can verify your address and information but without exposing you to danger.
As a reporter it's very useful to identify where people call their primary domicile and where they vote from -- and you can find contradictions, esp. when someone is running for office. Like if you're registered to vote in a jurisdiction where you're running for office but your entire family is registered at a different residence, chances are you just leased that apartment to run and live somewhere else.
Our county doesn't allow online searches or publishing of voter info. I can see how many times people voted and in what election, but I can't see how they voted. It's an immensely useful tool.
There was one case where a county official was receiving campaign donations from people who were unemployed/retired in large amounts and this official was being investigated for possible money laundering. Most of the donors were immigrants or people with widely used surnames, and many were not registered to vote. It's fairly unusual for someone who isn't registered to vote or who last voted 20 years ago to give $2000 to a local candidate, especially if they are a senior living in a low-income area, or unemployed. Voter reg made it possible to track down many of these people.
posted by mmmleaf at 1:13 PM on October 4, 2016
As a reporter it's very useful to identify where people call their primary domicile and where they vote from -- and you can find contradictions, esp. when someone is running for office. Like if you're registered to vote in a jurisdiction where you're running for office but your entire family is registered at a different residence, chances are you just leased that apartment to run and live somewhere else.
Our county doesn't allow online searches or publishing of voter info. I can see how many times people voted and in what election, but I can't see how they voted. It's an immensely useful tool.
There was one case where a county official was receiving campaign donations from people who were unemployed/retired in large amounts and this official was being investigated for possible money laundering. Most of the donors were immigrants or people with widely used surnames, and many were not registered to vote. It's fairly unusual for someone who isn't registered to vote or who last voted 20 years ago to give $2000 to a local candidate, especially if they are a senior living in a low-income area, or unemployed. Voter reg made it possible to track down many of these people.
posted by mmmleaf at 1:13 PM on October 4, 2016
Party affiliation is public knowledge in the US due to primaries.
In most nations, parties are weaker, but more autocratic. They determine the candidate pool, and have much greater party unity. In the US, partisanship decides so much. But after we dismantled the caucus system, they lost a lot of their power. They can suggest candidates, but voters get the final say.
posted by politikitty at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2016
In most nations, parties are weaker, but more autocratic. They determine the candidate pool, and have much greater party unity. In the US, partisanship decides so much. But after we dismantled the caucus system, they lost a lot of their power. They can suggest candidates, but voters get the final say.
posted by politikitty at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2016
« Older Liability for car broken into while in garage. | How to collect on Stopped Payment Cheque Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:57 PM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]