The New Secret Ballot
How Washington's new voting system is designed to curb the corrupt practice of vote-buying.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Nearly everybody agrees that the Australian system is a good thing, and yet it is doubtful if one in three persons who endorse it really understand the workings of the system. The act provides that all ballots shall be printed and distributed at public expense. Each voter will be allowed but one ballot; should this become mutilated, another one may be procured by returning the mutilated one. The voting places are provided with booths or compartments in which the voter may mark his ballot secure from the observation of anyone. This system has, it is said, almost done away with the corrupt use of money at the polls where it has been adopted. Under the old arrangement, anyone who buys a man's vote could walk up beside him and see that he deposited a ballot that had been previously prepared. Under the new system, though money can be used for corrupt purposes, there is absolutely no security that a man will do as he is paid to do.
“The average man who sells his vote cannot be trusted, to use an old and time-worn expression, 'as far as you can throw a bull by the tail.'”
In 1890, Washington adopted the 'Australian' (secret) ballot to stop the pervasive practice of party bosses or bribe-payers watching how a citizen voted. Today, the debate over election security has shifted to different technologies, but the goal remains the same: ensuring that the act of voting remains private, protected, and free from external coercion.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.