Releasing names would allow petition signers to be targeted
Mark Morgan
Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Letters
"I have in my hands a list of names…"
Sound familiar?
In a recent column in The Spectator, Josh Riedel called for the public release of the names of those who have signed petitions in favor of gay marriage bans and referendums. Despite clearly misunderstanding the nature of these petitions, such a call for institutions to "name names" has exceedingly broad and dangerous ramifications.
The names that would be released are simply the names of those who signed petitions calling for the issue of gay marriage to be put to a vote.
Despite Riedel's and others outlandish claims of signatories "frivolously" putting their names to a gay marriage ban, it ignores that many signers may or may not be in favor of a gay marriage ban, but rather signed that the issue should be put to a vote.
Given the emphasis Riedel places on democratic integrity, these signatures should be seen as virtuously upholding the power of the people to voice opinions at the ballot box, not "frivolous" or hateful.
Yet, it is not the misunderstanding of the referendum process that stands out in Riedel's article, but rather the dangerous implications of its intent. The article directly chastises those who signed "on something that is going to affect so many people if they don't even have the nerve to let others know their position on the issue." This statement gets to the heart of the matter. Since it is clear that the referendum signers have no actual direct effect on others, the intent is to publicly display those who do, the voters.
Despite the populist appeal such a claim of "voter and advocacy transparency" has, it ignores the fact that the system of voting is based upon anonymity, and for good reason. In a world where voting and individual advocacies are forced into the public's purview, intimidation and coercion are guaranteed.
Boss Tweed and the party machine were intelligent enough to see the practical implications of public voting knowledge, and one by one, states were smart enough to see that the only solution to maintaining any level of true democratic integrity was to ensure the individual's anonymity.
Sound familiar?
In a recent column in The Spectator, Josh Riedel called for the public release of the names of those who have signed petitions in favor of gay marriage bans and referendums. Despite clearly misunderstanding the nature of these petitions, such a call for institutions to "name names" has exceedingly broad and dangerous ramifications.
The names that would be released are simply the names of those who signed petitions calling for the issue of gay marriage to be put to a vote.
Despite Riedel's and others outlandish claims of signatories "frivolously" putting their names to a gay marriage ban, it ignores that many signers may or may not be in favor of a gay marriage ban, but rather signed that the issue should be put to a vote.
Given the emphasis Riedel places on democratic integrity, these signatures should be seen as virtuously upholding the power of the people to voice opinions at the ballot box, not "frivolous" or hateful.
Yet, it is not the misunderstanding of the referendum process that stands out in Riedel's article, but rather the dangerous implications of its intent. The article directly chastises those who signed "on something that is going to affect so many people if they don't even have the nerve to let others know their position on the issue." This statement gets to the heart of the matter. Since it is clear that the referendum signers have no actual direct effect on others, the intent is to publicly display those who do, the voters.
Despite the populist appeal such a claim of "voter and advocacy transparency" has, it ignores the fact that the system of voting is based upon anonymity, and for good reason. In a world where voting and individual advocacies are forced into the public's purview, intimidation and coercion are guaranteed.
Boss Tweed and the party machine were intelligent enough to see the practical implications of public voting knowledge, and one by one, states were smart enough to see that the only solution to maintaining any level of true democratic integrity was to ensure the individual's anonymity.
Be the first to comment on this story