What type of voting preceded the secret ballot

Best Answer. Study guides. Politics and Government 30 cards. How are judges selected in Georgia. What do national and state party organizations have in common. Which is an example of an ideological party. Which type of minor party is most likely to appear during a period of high unemployment. Elections and Voting 21 cards. What is a party platform. Which president was forced to resign from office because of a scandal.

What important change occurred during andrew jacksons presidency. Which type of primary was ruled unconstitutional in US Constitution 24 cards.

What is a persons taxable income. Are appeals that use deduction an example of pathos. Which is a voting requirement of all states. Q: What type of voting preceded the secret ballot? Write your answer Related questions. Witch type of ballot encourages straight ticket voting? What type of voting equipment is used in Michigan - livingston county? What is a type of voting that precedes the secret ballot? What is a type of voting the preceded the secret ballot? What type of voting system is approval voting known to be?

In what type of voting is the names of the parties appear at the tops of the column's and the titles of the various offices are shown at the sides? What type of ballot is used in Texas? What type of election ballot lists the candidates according to the office they are seeking? The phenomenon of ticket splitting is most associated with which type of election ballot?

What type of responsibility is voting? On what type of ballot are candidates listed together under the title of the position they seek? What type of ballot voters say yes or no? How does the presidential caucus work in Iowa? The smooth parliamentary process implies that the facilitation of access to participation and equality perspectives were now perceived as being more important than the potential ballot secrecy risks. The use of two witnesses was to serve as a proxy for the election officials guarding the secrecy of the ballot Hallituksen Esitys Eduskunnalle Laiksi Vaalilain Muuttamisesta, , However, none of those other dimensions was salient in the discussion the way ballot secrecy was.

In this section, I focus on how the new practices of ballot secrecy were discussed in the government bill and by experts heard by the Constitutional Law Committee, and how they were later introduced for the postal voters to follow.

The government bill Hallituksen Esitys Eduskunnalle Laiksi Vaalilain Muuttamisesta, proposed that as postal voting would remove voting from the supervision of electoral officials and place the sole responsibility for preserving ballot secrecy on the voters themselves, the voter would be obliged:. The bill conceded that the electoral committees receiving the postal votes would not have the opportunity to check the authenticity of the signatures.

The Constitutional Law Committee further discussed the matter of sanctioning of the breaking of ballot secrecy. Nonetheless, it was also concluded that criminal cases would be difficult to pursue Ibid. The provisions adopted on postal voting in the Elections Act Vaalilaki, , 5a do not explicitly deal with breaches of ballot secrecy. Once the bill was passed and took effect, instructions on the new form of voting were formulated and published by the Ministry of Justice on their elections website www.

The postal voting instruction film starts with a presentation about the preparatory steps of postal voting eligibility, timing using text slides, animation and filmed material without actors.

The voter takes out the instruction and cover letter papers, the empty ballot—a folded white card—the turquoize ballot envelope and the voting letter envelope, colored yellow on the front. The voter is also shown scrolling through internet pages, searching for information about the candidates. Next, two witnesses have entered the room and stand with their backs to the voter who then marks the ballot see Figure 1. The voter slips the ballot into the turquoize envelope, dips their finger into a glass of water to moisten the envelope glue, and seals the envelope, running their hand on the flap to ensure that the glue sticks.

Screenshots from the postal voting instruction film duration Source: the Finnish Ministry of Justice. In the final scene, we see the voter first fill in their own details in the cover letter. They then explain to the witnesses, now standing sideways to the camera, what they are expected to write in the letter, and the witnesses are consecutively shown filling their part.

The voter meticulously folds the letter and places the ballot in the fold, then slides them into the yellow-fronted envelope and closes it. The film ends with an animation that repeats the steps of postal voting. Focusing on the material and physical aspects of the film, all the phases of postal voting that are presented by actors take place in a single space—a meeting room set as a home by adding a few decorative elements.

What happens before and after, requiring moving elsewhere, is presented in other ways. It is thus implied that the actual postal voting starts with the opening of one envelope and ends with closing another. The film is cut so that the viewer is shown little movement by people other than the movement of arms and hands.

This way, voting is constructed as a static event, rather like a craft activity: with the camera zooming in, the voter uses a letter opener and scissors, they fold and glue, they write. They readjust the cover letter inside the yellow cover envelope to make the address show better out of the designated transparent plastic window in the envelope.

The attention to the crafts makes sense from the perspective that even a relatively small slip can ruin the vote: leave the ballot envelope open and the ballot will be canceled. It is said in the film that the witnesses need to be present at the time of voting, and that they need to attest by their signatures that the voting has taken place appropriately in relation to ballot secrecy and electoral freedom.

How they can and should assess this is left unexplained. However, in order to be able to assert by their signature that specific principles have been practiced, the witness should make an assessment of it as the act of voting unfolds.

From the perspective of the witness, then, what one can observe in the film are the visual cues as to what participation is expected of them. The clearest example is set by the witnesses that the viewer encounters turning their backs when the voter sets out to mark the ballot. Next, we see them standing close to the seated voter showing the cover letter to the witnesses, who subsequently sign it.

Interestingly, the image instruction appearing on the screen Figure 2 places the witnesses behind a wall, possibly indicating another room for the time when the ballot is being marked. Either way, ballot secrecy and electoral freedom seem to be simultaneously emphasized by the prominence of the witnesses in the film and taken for granted by the implicitness of what the witnesses are expected to observe. It remains unclear if the witnesses are supposed to check that the ballot is unmarked at the beginning of the event for if it is not, they cannot really know under what kind of conditions it has been marked.

The voter on the film shows the empty ballot to the camera but it is as though this sequence takes place before the entry of the witnesses. Image instructions on the postal voting instruction film. Lastly, scrutinizing the instruction film through the lens of social interaction, the communication between the voter and the witnesses seems formal. Yet the voter and the witnesses are bound to know each other at some level, since a voter would hardly invite strangers to volunteer for this purpose. Indeed, the voter is advised to prepare for their postal vote by inviting two witnesses, indicating that voting will take place at a locality of their choosing, possibly in their home.

The witnesses in the film meet the voter in a space in which only the three of them are present. Although we can see that the actors in the room speak to each other on a couple of occasions during the film, their voices are muted, which underlines the impression of silence. We see the voter explaining about the cover letter form and the witnesses nod. The witnesses remain standing as they fill their slots and while the voter completes packing the cover envelope. It is almost as though the witnesses serve the voter; it is they who turn their backs instead of the voter turning or covering the ballot while writing on it.

The procedure is well-prepared by making the necessary tools available beforehand, conducted solemnly and meticulously, without much unnecessary talk or movement.

The witnesses turn away and turn back, staying observant at the side until the pieces have been put together and the second envelope sealed. The overseas postal voting option was welcomed by most respondents and interviewees reached by the FACE research project. Yet, they highlighted many inconveniences and limitations.

Out of twenty-four written comments submitted through the survey on the specific topic of the witness requirement, fifteen stated that the respondent had abstained from voting because of it Wass et al.

Judging by the number of successful postal votes 6, , many were able to solve the issue one way or the other. The variety of practical arrangements found in the interview and written response material is presented in Figure 3. A minority of the research participants 7 had conducted their voting by applying what I call the official choreography. Instead, most interviewees 18 had separated the practice of ballot secrecy from the formal requirement of witness signatures.

My reading of these accounts is that ballot secrecy, for these voters, rather intuitively meant keeping the moment of marking the ballot strictly private. Such view is exemplified by the end of quotation from interview four in the section below in which the interviewee expresses how they appreciate being able to mark the ballot in peace and unrestricted by polling station opening times.

In the following sections, I first discuss the interview material in relation to the official voting choreography. I have above placed the voting accounts on a continuum between the ideal choreography and voter-led arrangements in voting according to the degree of liberties taken in relation to the norm. While few participants had conducted their voting according to all the steps and turns in the official instructions, some variations were minor. At the other end, we find one participant signing the witness slots by themselves.

The research participants who conducted their vote along the lines of the official choreography had either invited witnesses to their home, visited someone to vote, or voted at their workplace.

Ballots were marked on kitchen tables and office coffee rooms. For some, voting this way was a quick moment during other activities—others served coffee, took time to chat or even celebrate the event. I And then of course you needed two witnesses, so I decided to vote at work. MW: So the moment itself when you gave your vote, noting the number in the paper, did you also do it right there, were the witnesses present in that moment?

I Yes they were. I did turn, I stepped aside a bit and wrote. In this coffee room voting situation, then, the interviewee happily compromised the secondary secrecy of the vote, letting more than two curious colleagues become aware about the fact of their electoral participation, to follow and discuss the event. Despite the open character of their voting space, they secured the primary secrecy of their actual voting decision and the marking of the ballot.

Thus, the main deviation from the idealized choreography in this example relates to the extended audience and possible coffee room buzz by the colleagues. In contrast, a typical voter-based arrangement would involve marking the ballot alone at home or a private office, and then taking the cover letter along to friends or colleagues. A variation would entail the voter signing the cover letter not the ballot paper in the presence of the two witnesses. At the low-key end of the spectrum, the voter would fill in the cover letter when it suited, and would ask for the signatures and details from each of the witnesses separately in other instances.

In the latter case, the cover letter seemed to represent a mere bureaucratic certification, not a proof of worthiness or integrity of the vote. In the excerpt below emphasis by author , the voter recognizes not having paid much attention to informing the witnesses.

The view was common that the witnesses were acting in good faith based on a solid trust in the voter rather than on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the Finnish postal voting procedure; also, voters who reported making some effort to explain the system could express mild skepticism about the level of awareness of the witnesses.

I4: Myself, I fixed two colleagues for it. A few local Finns organized it so that, because before the pandemic the Finns used to go for drinks once a month, they brought the papers there … and we then signed them for each other.

MW: Did the voting then also really happen there, or was the ballot marked separately so that they only had the witness papers at the pub? I4: Yeah. MW: And this is what you did with you colleagues, too, or? MW: … You had to organize it all by yourself. How did that feel?

I4: It was all right. Better that way, actually, because then you can do it whenever and in peace, even in the middle of the night. Focusing on the act of voting, the instructional film is characterized by a nearly static atmosphere.

In reality, many voters, even those applying the instructions conscientiously, carried the postal voting package from home to an external voting place, and those not voting in the presence of the witnesses could take the papers back and forth between the home and the individual meetings with the witnesses.

The material realities of voting are less tidy than the model, and the postal voting form, in a way, underlines the materiality of voting. However, the ballot box metaphor does not consider the vulnerability related to the mundane transitions of the envelope that, in contrast to the ideal model, characterize the journey of many postal ballots.

This was not presented as a problem, rather a mere observation, a feature of the system, as in the quotation from the response 12 below. Sometimes, a slightly apologetic tone was discernible, as the voter would know it to be their responsibility to inform the witnesses. I live in a small town where no other Finns live. None of them completely understood what they were signing, of course, as their English skills are not perfect, but they were all for it in any case W Judging from the interviews and written responses, it is likely that many witnesses considered their role to confirm that the voter had signed the cover letter and sealed their ballot envelope into the postal cover envelope.

Nothing about the cover letter procedure, as such, helps to establish those objectives. This highlights the discursive aspect of postal voting: a valid vote is made by proper words on the cover letter.

How the proper words are made to appear on the cover letter is a social process. None of the participants reported using notary or other paid legal services to witness but relied on their social networks. The voters navigated with two principles in choosing whom to invite: Who would trust them enough to sign this new kind of a document?

And how could it be done with the least possible trouble to any of the parties? Those who could at least partly rely on other Finns seemed to have had a more relaxed approach and could even celebrate their voting, such as by taking a photo of their voting letters at the mouth of the letterbox to be shared on social media.

Also, office work environments with close collegial relations seem to facilitate finding witnesses. In addition to the differences in the reliability of postal services, access to potentially willing witnesses creates differences in how feasible a form of participation postal voting represents.

This access may thus depend on a range of factors such as the length of stay in the area, stage in life or age, profession or type of work. Moreover, administrative cultures vary between countries so that people are faced with signing as a witness more frequently in some places than others.

I have never thought that the presence of an electoral official would protect my ballot secrecy W In the preparatory and legislative material, removing the act of voting from the reach of official oversight was presented as a foundational change only acceptable for an even higher principle of citizen equality.

Installing the witness procedure into the postal voting rules appeared a possibility to downplay the radical difference between the forms of voting and maintain legitimacy: the voter would still not conduct the vote completely unguarded.

The variation in this respect was considerable—from the interviewee in the first quote below I17 who appreciates the witness requirement despite its cumbersomeness; to the interviewee in the second quote I29 who thinks it their personal responsibility to critique the system by refusing to ask anyone to witness.

I … That can be cumbersome again. I think those are the parts that are very, very essential to the transparency of the process and the honorability of the process.

I think there are some pieces that you have to put layers on … So I like the extra layers. I Well, I was mostly thinking that I felt vicarious embarrassment for the organization that created those paper slips and system. I thought about how estranged they are from life. So it was my responsibility, too. If these participants were practicing ballot secrecy in ways different from the instruction and official choreography, it would be reasonable to expect the same to apply to those less motivated.

If this should be the case, what does it imply for the state of ballot secrecy among overseas voters? For the generations of postal voters who had previously voted by traditional means in the Finnish elections or were otherwise socialized into valuing highly the secrecy of elections, the small variations in where, when and with whom the marking of the ballot occurred, did not seem to matter much in terms of keeping their ballot secret.

An analogous cultural code of conduct between a visit to a Finnish polling station and the moment of postal voting is reflected in a written response by a voter who had organized to vote with a friend:. We discussed the candidates before the day of voting but on the self-selected day of elections we no longer touched upon that.

Ballot secrecy was kept the same way as any official polling station W Although this understanding of voting as a private matter should not be taken for granted, as it develops socially and discursively as any other social norm or practice Bertrand et al. As concern was raised during the legal preparation of postal voting about the potential threat of coercion, the interviewees were also probed about this issue, asking how severe a problem they would consider it among the Finns abroad.

Most responded with hesitation and difficulty to assess the issue. The most common assessment was that the direct pressure would be marginal; a few participants acknowledged the potential specifically as an issue of physical or mental violence in family relations and dependency on caregivers. The participants complaining about the witness requirement see also Wass et al. From the perspective of ballot secrecy, however, it could also be highlighted how this practice designed to maintain the primary ballot secrecy, i.

The witness requirement obliges the voter to disclose their participation—and this disclosure is bound to have a socially different meaning from what takes place at a polling station where the voter and the election authorities do not know each other, or are at least separated from their daily roles by the official setting.

The performance of voting, usually of a public and collective, even anonymous character, here becomes a performance for selected audiences that can consist of the two witnesses only or a larger pool of people:. Me and my work mate agreed on a date when we both took the postal voting form to the office. We asked … colleagues to witness …. Frankly, I think we made quite a spectacle out of our voting, surely no-one in our landscape office was left unaware that we were voting at the Finnish parliamentary elections W The participants in this study did not report the disclosure as a negative experience—after all, they were mostly very proud about voting and happy to share information about Finland with their local friends.

Other eligible voters might not feel equally enthusiastic, and we need to ask whether it is reasonable to compromise the secondary aspect of ballot secrecy to maintain a primary ballot secrecy procedure that many voters seem not to associate with keeping secrecy. In this article, I approached overseas postal voting at the Finnish elections as a novel situation for the electorate in which they make sense of, interpret and apply the official rules and guidelines in their varying situations and contexts.

Each of those votes was heard. The tickets, often colorful and decorated with distinctive images, were handed at booths, one per party, out by party workers. Standing in a line or before the crowd, the voter deposited a highly visible ticket in a box or transparent jar or handed it in to an election clerk.

Almost every one of those votes was seen. In both systems secrecy was made deliberately difficult if not impossible and in both systems the voters voted one by one, and in both systems onlookers could hear or see for themselves the party and candidates their fellow citizens were supporting. The sections to the left explain these two systems and explore the results of the elections conducted under these rules in Alexandria and Newport. By Voice explains the oral voting systems required by Virginia and Kentucky state law and used in the Alexandria, Virginia elections of May 26, and the Newport, Kentucky elections of March 2,