[PAX] Should the names of petition signers be public?

[Satya]

I think the evidence of why there should be anonymity on such things is in Africa. If you're known as a voter for "the other side" you're hunted down and killed... that way the side that's in power always wins.

Without anonymity a democracy risks becoming a popular dictatorship.

So...when the founding fathers of this country put their names on the Declaration of Independence, effectively an act of treason against Britain, they were ensuring this country would head towards dictatorship?

Where in the 30 years that this law has been effect in Washington, has there ever been an incidence of somebody being hunted down and killed? Your argument is disproved by the reality.

 

[Satya]

On the one hand I agree that if you believe in something you should be willing to stand by it, but on the other it wouldn't surprise me if groups would use the knowledge of who votes for what to target those people and find ways to 'persuade' them from signing unfavourable petitions. I'd prefer it if people were simply open with their true opinions, however the general populace can and will shun those they decide don't fit their generally accepted mold.
Blast, i think I am going to have to be a fence sitter for the time being. :sad:

How are they going to persuade after the fact? Once they put their name on the paper, they can't turn around and go back and make them unsign it. And where has this happened in the 30 years or so that this law has been on the books?


What I'm struggling with is all these claims of, "Oh the poor people are going to be harassed or threatened or killed" when it simply has not happened the entire time the law has been on the books to make names of the signers public. If it hasn't happened, why are people so suddenly concerned about it happening now? With this one issue?

 

[Xander]

So...when the founding fathers of this country put their names on the Declaration of Independence, effectively an act of treason against Britain, they were ensuring this country would head towards dictatorship?

Where in the 30 years that this law has been effect in Washington, has there ever been an incidence of somebody being hunted down and killed? Your argument is disproved by the reality.

Were they not taking a stand deliberately? Were they not in fear for their lives afterwards?

The average person isn't prepared to take a bullet for what they believe in regards to local politics but it's a founding principle of democracy that their opinion is just as valid as the brazen buy with enough money to afford adequate security.

 

[Satya]

Were they not taking a stand deliberately? Were they not in fear for their lives afterwards?

Are they in fear of their lives, or are they afraid that a fraud they perpetrated will be discovered? Is it inconceivable that they turned in fake signatures and that if the names were made available on the internet, that they would be found out? Is not arguing that you are afraid for your life and safety a good way to demonize the opposition and get the public behind you in hiding the fraud you perpetrated against the system by casting it behind a veil of anonymity?

The average person isn't prepared to take a bullet for what they believe in regards to local politics but it's a founding principle of democracy that their opinion is just as valid as the brazen buy with enough money to afford adequate security.

I'm going to ask you one more time before I give up with you. Where is the evidence, in Washington state, that there is such a significant threat to the lives or welfare of the signers of the petition to override the domestic partnership legislation? As an NT, don't you find it a little irrational to be arguing about people "taking bullets" for something that they signed, knowing full well that their name would be public and knowing that there is no evidence that they are in any significant danger for doing so?

 

[bamf]

What I'm struggling with is all these claims of, "Oh the poor people are going to be harassed or threatened or killed" when it simply has not happened the entire time the law has been on the books to make names of the signers public. If it hasn't happened, why are people so suddenly concerned about it happening now? With this one issue?

While agreed that nothing of the sort has happened, future controversial petitions could have this effect. That is where my concern comes from. I know full well that my name is public when I sign a petition, and I agree with you that people should publicly support their positions. What I don't agree with is that they have to. While hiding petitioners names has the potential to make radically unjust positions gain support, it at the same time protects radically just (but possibly unpopular) opinions that might be facing monumental pressure. Definitely agreed that it hasn't happened yet, and may not happen in modern American culture, I personally believe that anonymity of signers is a defense against potential (even if not probable) harm. [And yeah, feel free to expand that position to other ridiculous protections against potential harms to people. My point isn't to protect everyone from all harm, but rather a harm I see as potentially dangerous to having a just society. I see this as a reasonable protection].

I however understand that petition signers names have been publicly available for 30 some years in Washington, and don't believe that this should change because of fears of protested business. They knew damn well that their names would be public, and to want to hide them now out of fear of lost business is asinine. To use this as a platform for change is selfish, and doesn't contain any real justification in doing so.

I believe that the publicity of names should be changed, but since it is legally (and widely known to be) public, this case has no merit. We should protect the identities of petition signers out of my reasoning above, but because this happened when names were known to be public (and no unjustifiable harm is coming from this), the names should remain public. The changes would only affect future petitions.

I feel that we will have to continue to agree to disagree on this, but I agree with you that in this case (because it happened with it was legal to make petitions public) such a change is unwarranted.

 

[Xander]

Are they in fear of their lives, or are they afraid that a fraud they perpetrated will be discovered? Is it inconceivable that they turned in fake signatures and that if the names were made available on the internet, that they would be found out? Is not arguing that you are afraid for your life and safety a good way to demonize the opposition and get the public behind you in hiding the fraud you perpetrated against the system by casting it behind a veil of anonymity?

I'm going to ask you one more time before I give up with you. Where is the evidence, in Washington state, that there is such a significant threat to the lives or welfare of the signers of the petition to override the domestic partnership legislation? As an NT, don't you find it a little irrational to be arguing about people "taking bullets" for something that they signed, knowing full well that their name would be public and knowing that there is no evidence that they are in any significant danger for doing so?

People's perceptions require no validation beyond that they believe in it.

Besides logically you have no proof of corruption of the system because of this anonymity. If you do then either it's not working or they've circumvented the problem of anonymity which again makes an objection against anonymity purely a question of personal preference and I'd imagine that most people would rather register their opinion than begin a debate, discussion or argument.

How many of those who said they don't want gay priests would actually stand there and argue the point? Not too many I'd imagine.

My point is that it's not about evidence any more than voting systems and petitions are. The problem with petitions is that they're unofficial but are typically getting knee jerk reactions. Realistically you'd be better off looking for politicians with a bit more back bone more so than removing anonymity as because they're unofficial there's no control on who's name you put down and if there is some kind of official support then there's no need to make the list of names publicly viewable which would kind of kill two birds with one stone.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm missing some nuance of culture here though...

 

[Satya]

See, that is what I am talking about. If they want to change the law, they should do it after these names are released. They lose all credibility by using this as a political shield. This is the same movement who uses the argument that courts that pushed through same sex marriage in states like Iowa are imposing their will on the people. Then they turn around and do what? They use the courts to hide their names!

 

[Satya]

Besides logically you have no proof of corruption of the system because of this anonymity.

I have the thousands of fake signatures they did find.

Which just in the first three days of counting, had the highest error count of any referendum petition the state had ever seen.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/175457.asp?from=blog_last3

My point is that it's not about evidence any more than voting systems and petitions are. The problem with petitions is that they're unofficial but are typically getting knee jerk reactions. Realistically you'd be better off looking for politicians with a bit more back bone more so than removing anonymity as because they're unofficial there's no control on who's name you put down and if there is some kind of official support then there's no need to make the list of names publicly viewable which would kind of kill two birds with one stone.

Why are you treating this like it is a removal of anonymity. This is a matter of a policy that existed for 30 years that names for referendum petitions were pubic up until this particular issue, when suddenly the traditional marriage side decided to argue that they felt threatened.

 

[Xander]

See, that is what I am talking about. If they want to change the law, they should do it after these names are released. They lose all credibility by using this as a political shield. This is the same movement who uses the argument that courts that pushed through same sex marriage in states like Iowa are imposing their will on the people. Then they turn around and do what? They use the courts to hide their names!

Would your response be different if twenty people out of forty that you know thought you were an ass and you didn't know which versus knowing which people had said it?

I would think that even with just one person, a rational and sensible being, the effects would be noticeable.

Now increase it to have it affect tens of thousand, hundred of thousands, millions. The herd mentality would start and you'd end up with a stampede of people trying to reign in their instinct for revenge and sometimes failing. The major difference being that if an individual fails they may see what they're doing and stop. If a mob does it then it's a lot harder to stop a stampede!

 

[Satya]

Would your response be different if twenty people out of forty that you know thought you were an ass and you didn't know which versus knowing which people had said it?

Not really since forty out of forty people really do think I'm an ass.

I would think that even with just one person, a rational and sensible being, the effects would be noticeable.

Now increase it to have it affect tens of thousand, hundred of thousands, millions. The herd mentality would start and you'd end up with a stampede of people trying to reign in their instinct for revenge and sometimes failing. The major difference being that if an individual fails they may see what they're doing and stop. If a mob does it then it's a lot harder to stop a stampede!

Basically, the justification that people should be allowed to discriminate behind a veil of anonymity will never fly with me. I'll guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Xander]

Not really since forty out of forty people really do think I'm an ass.

Ass


:evil:

Basically, the justification that people should be allowed to discriminate behind a veil of anonymity will never fly with me. I'll guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Oh I agree with the sentiment... I'm just unsure that change would improve things or whether you'd just end up with the discriminated against doing the discrimination in revenge.

Let's just face it. People are dumb. If they weren't dumb then the world would be epically cool.

 

[Skoffin]

How are they going to persuade after the fact? Once they put their name on the paper, they can't turn around and go back and make them unsign it. And where has this happened in the 30 years or so that this law has been on the books?


What I'm struggling with is all these claims of, "Oh the poor people are going to be harassed or threatened or killed" when it simply has not happened the entire time the law has been on the books to make names of the signers public. If it hasn't happened, why are people so suddenly concerned about it happening now? With this one issue?

Heh, I've never been good at writing down my thoughts. I can't really say much about this law in the area you are talking about as I know nothing about it, I can only speculate on how I perceive things where I am. Even if you can't stop one person from signing you can still target them in order to discourage others from joining. There have been cases over the years where I live that someone has started a petition against a group and said group doesn't like it, so they go after some people who have already signed so that those who have yet to sign will hear about it and decide not to risk it.

Frankly I'd prefer names to be public and people to be honest and open with politics and the like, however, and this may not be all that rationale, when people are involved I will always assume the worst.