Show me your Ballot Comrade

What's the first sign of a corrupt electoral system?  Public ballots.  You may not like Castro or Lenin, but when you vote in front of the Commissar you mark your X where you are supposed to and make a big smiley face next to it.  The ability to vote privately eliminates the political pressure.

That's why you should be concerned when someone wants to take away your ability to vote privately.  Sure they can frame the issue in terms of "fairness," or an "open process."  After all what do you have to hide?  If you don't like the Ayatollah, Castro, Bush, Clinton, or the Union Representative, then you should make your opinion known. 

Well, Congress is considering taking away the right of workers to vote privately when they seek to organize.  The business community is reacting.  Here's a response from the Phoenix Chamber.

Here's George Will's take on it. 

Repealing a right -- to secret ballots -- long considered fundamental to democratic culture would be a radical act. But labor is desperate. The card check shortcut to unionization comes before Congress after last month's announcement that union membership declined, yet again, in 2006, by 326,000.

Now the Chamber is running radio commercials in key districts.  Hmm, one of those districts is Arizona CD 5.  Click the link bellow and listen to the Chamber's commercial about Harry Mitchell.

“Congress is currently considering legislation that would stop the use of secret ballots in union organizing elections. By forcing workers to choose through a public "card check" process, this legislation will take privacy, power and voice away from America's working people. It is that simple.”  (http://www.uschamber.com/press/ads/card_check)

Comments

[Walter]

This won't be the last horrible piece of legislation Mitchell co-sponsors or votes for. He was bought and paid for by the unions, excuse me, Big Labor.

[Sonoran Sam]

For the other side of this assault on organizing rights, check out Rum, Romanism and Rebellion at: http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/

[Thane Eichenauer]

If private ballots were a guaranteed way to abolish corrupt election systems then I guess there were no allegations of election fraud in the 2004 Presidential elections.

If private ballots were a guaranteed way to abolish corrupt election systems I guess I never heard about jail inmates (yes jail inmates!) processing ballot requests in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Government voting systems are owned lock stock and barrel by the government officials and bureacrats.

Government makes it own rules and is organizationally as unlikely to provide an election system free from corruption as dung beatles are likely to avoid fresh dung.

[Travis]

It certainly pays off for the unions to do all that “free” work for Democrats during campaign season.

Unions have long past their usefulness and have become nothing more than the gorilla in the room in private business, public schools and politics.

When you think of good business practices and innovation, do you think “union”? No! You think free market and entrepreneurial spirit – not the bureaucratic bog that is the union.

When you think of schools that are producing well-balanced, intellectually superior students, do you think, “Thank God for the unions!”? No! And by the way, don’t say “God” in public schools.

When you think of free elections and private ballots – the basis of our election system - will you ever again doubt that the unions care more about advancing their own agenda than they do about the rights of individuals?

[Paul Srch]

Thane, it sounds like your argument could be summed up this way: "since secret ballots provide no guaranteed way to prevent all election corruption, it follows that we should not bother with secret ballots."

If I understood your line of reasoning correctly, I propose we do away with laws against theft and murder, since those laws do not guarantee a society free from them. What say ye?

If I misunderstood your point, perhaps you can help me understand.

[Paul Srch]

And if you aren't proposing we do away with secret ballots .... what was your point again?

[BobH]

Yes, we appear to have moved beyond moral equivalence to electoral equivalence, which states that there is no difference between a system that could be abused and one that is designed for the purpose of abuse.