you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Eh. The entire state of Oregon gets by just fine without absolute ballot secrecy. And any other state that largely or to a significant degree exercises no-excuse vote-by-mail. Basically everyone in Oregon votes by mail. There are in-person voting booths at each county election office for the few oddballs that want to vote in person, but almost everyone votes by mail. It's October 22. My ballot is already in. I've already voted. I filled out my ballot in my kitchen.

There was nothing physically preventing someone from forcing me to fill out my ballot the way they want to. There would be nothing physically preventing my employer from saying, "fill out your ballot the way you want in front of me, sign it, and then give it to be to turn in. If your refuse or cancel your ballot later, you're fired."

Yet that doesn't happen. Why? Because we made it a serious fucking crime to do that. If I'm reading Oregon law right (I'm no lawyer), coercion of a vote that way would be a class C felony punishable for up to five years in prison and a $125,000 fine. And I'm less sure on this part, but I imagine that would apply to every single employee you coerced this way. So you're risking a felony for ever single vote your coerce. That's a huge risk for a single vote. It's just not worth it. Some real morons might try it, but no one with two brain cells to rub together is going to give it a try. Plus any federal penalties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    apply to every single employee you coerced this way.

    I don't think I've ever actually considered the risk that an employer could force people to vote a certain way. I'm far more concerned about people living in abusive relationships.

    we made it a serious fucking crime to do that.

    People living in abusive relationship are already victims of serious crimes every day. Yet those crimes often go unreported for years, because the fear and control is so strong. I see no reason to believe that someone who is already controlling their partner with physical violence would balk at forcing them to fill out a vote a certain way before mailing it for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    And yet it doesn't happen. Could an abusive spouse do this? Sure. But again, it's a huge risk for not a lot of gain. It's one extra vote in exchange for a felony. It's just not a serious problem the way domestic violence in general is.

    You have to balance competing interests in law. Mail voting makes voting much more accessible, cheaper, and more resilient to manipulation such as closing poll locations in targeted precincts. And stretching election day over a few weeks gives people a chance to more easily correct errors that pop up, and makes the voter rolls more resilient to political ratfucking.

    That huge increase in accessibility does come with a slightly increased risk of vote coercisiom, but it's more than worth it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    We should be concerned about any sort of coercive control. Yes, children, elders, elders, and other vulnerable populations may need to be prevented from skipping proper nutrition, hydration, hygiene, and shelter, force and coercive control need delicate handling, where practical and possible. For instance, while proper nutrition is a noble goal and the sweeteners, oils and other questionable ingredients in a nutrition beverage may give us pause, that's still preferable to ng tubes or force feeding.

  • source
  • parent