Juho Laatu wrote: > > If private and public opinions differ, then which is the > > manipulated one? > > If they deviate it is hard to imagine > that the private opinion would not be > the sincere one.
That's because you are thinking of individual opinion. Consider: * private opinion informed by mass media, and likewise measured by mass elections with a secret ballot * public opinion formed in mutual discussion, and likewise measured by peer-to-peer voting with a public ballot It makes a difference when people act socially (inter-subjectively) amongst themselves, rather than alone. When they act alone, they are apt to be systematically manipulated as objects. Alone they have subjective truth (personal sincerity), but together they have communicative reason (mutual understanding or consensus). > I think the common practice is to force > privacy on everyone in order to allow > the weakest of the society to keep > their privacy. That's because you are thinking of an administrative context. Force is permitted in that context. We can be restrained from choosing our own voting methods, at the polling station. We can be forced to use the methods as provided, or to abstain from voting. The public sphere is different. There, people can choose their own means of expression. We cannot restrict them to a private voting method, except by violating the principle of free speech. And if that didn't stop us, the law would. > It is true that public votes help > implementing some features, but in > most typical ("low level") elections > privacy has been considered to be > essential. Privacy is essential, I agree, but it's insufficient. The secret ballot *does* work in state elections. I don't mean it any disrespect. But it will work even better when it's complemented by a public ballot in cross-party primaries. (That's what I argue, anyway.) -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info