Re: As a scrutineer, I witnessed this ...
Takeda Shingen said:
As a scrutineer, I was encountered with a very "philosophical" question. A gentlemen with mental abilities showed up. He could not read but knew who he was voting for. Accordingly then, he kept murmuring that candidates name.…[snip]… The voter was read an oath and asked whether he understood what was read to him. However, he did not understand and therefore, the poll official was unable to act as a proxy for him ...
…[snip]… After fifteen minutes of phliosophical disuccusion, a poll official did assist the gentlement and checked off the candidate's name that was coming out of his mouth.
Fellow members, what would you do in such a situation?
Do you think this gentlemen was taken advantage of?
Personally, he absolutely has the right to vote. Nonetheless, he should not be taken advantage of and taught who to vote for!
It's a tough one. I was a poll official, a DRO, and our training emphasized that we were there to enable people to vote. At the same time ensuring the vote would be honest and the results worthy of trust.
An otherwise competent and qualified voter who needs assistance is asked to swear/affirm so, and that the assistance offered is what they want. Otherwise the 'assistant' might be bribing, forcing, or otherwise improperly affecting their vote. It's less than a perfect solution, but not so terrible. If the voter can't understand what they're being asked to commit to, it does raise the question of how competent they are to vote in the first place. But even if english is your first language, the legalisms in an oath/affirmation might be difficult to grasp, especially if you can't read. And what if the language you think in isn't english? Our system doesn't assess competence, or require an official language: one person's as good as another.
Eventually it seems there was the required undertaking from the voter to allow him to vote. The DRO, in this case, could have refused, since the person was not willing to take the oath at first. And the DRO, essentially, has the final say.
Was the guy thinking for himself? You could read more than one of the posts in this thread and say: "That guy's sure been programmed", but should they be prevented from voting? If he'd been mumbling the name of the candidate you scrutineered for, wouldn't the situation have looked a bit different?
It would be great if the only votes allowed were the thoughtful ones, cast in full knowledge by intelligent informed people, like us: Howard Hampton would be painting the town orange as we speak. But if we have to allow everybody to vote—and I'd rather do that than trust someone's idea of a qualifying test (it used to be wealth, extreme wealth at that)—then we have to allow everyone. Even the mumblers.
Besides, we're all going to mumble some day. And mumbling won't make you and me incompetent.
Well, me for sure.
So:
1) Like your DRO, If he wasn't drunk, I'd try to ensure the guy who took the trouble to come out got to cast his vote. But if he needed help, he'd have to say so in the appropriate way.
2) I can't see how he was taken advantage of by anyone in your tale. Was he programmed? Sounds like he might have been. But that's the aim of every TV ad isn't it? To get you to put your mark in only one place. If someone was buying his vote that would be actionable, but persuasion? Even with lies, distortions, or name-calling; it's all fair game.
The reason this clumsy, stupid system called democracy, so clearly full of flaws, is still better than all other systems, is because we don't trust anyone with power except ourselves. Each other. Start 'qualifying' voters and there goes the game.
Please stop me before I <Submit Post> again.
