131a-038.xml

Title: [[131a-038] 1819 May 20 Defence]

Description: [131a-038]

1819 May 20

Defence of the Ballot

Edinb

Ballot

Objection I

In ballot no secrecy

3

3

Follows an abstract of the subordinate position advanced by the learned Reviewer /Gentleman/ in support of the objection here in question: each is accompanied with a short answer. That To give the most efficient check which in the nature of the case can be opposed to misrepresentation on my part, undesigned or /and/ if it be more agreable to gentlemen to say /add/ designed, I shall not be angry – the text of the Review will be found at the bottom of these pages.

1. Proof 1. Case 1. Case of Clubs, where Members are chosen or rejected by ballot. By this means quarrels are indeed excluded: but secresy there is none. Answer. To this case as to every other applies the general observation: if the mode of voting is what it professes to be and might be, certainty as to the truth of any thing that is said about the direction taken by /effect given to/ the vote is impossible. But in small clubs, the smaller the club, the easier are each mans affections known in the loose sense of the word knowledge: the greater is the degree of probability of which a guess in relation to them is susceptible. In respect of numbers how opposite this case is to that in question, any /every/ body who does not shut his eyes will /may/ see.

2. Proof 2. Case 2. Case of House of Commons. Ballot produces not secresy; nor independent choice. This is admitted by J.B Answer. Oh yes that it is. Observation /Answer/ I. the universally applying answer as above: no use in repeating it any more. Answer 2. Neither is this case in point. In the principal case in question the individuals proposed for choice are proposed separately: in that case here referred to, in lists. This being a complicated case, an appropriate modification of the plan in question would be necessary. Answer 3. In this case to the purpose of practice the cause why secresy is not preserved is – that the intention is it shall not be preserved.

3. Proof 3. Case 3. Case of India House Ballots. Per Reviewer, secresy is not here preserved. Reason paid: because not desired to be preserved. Assumption for Reviewer. On this occasion every thing that any body says is true. Per J.B. On this occasion suppose a man who never says any thing about the matter, tell us which way it is he has voted, and how it you know it?

131a-037.xml

Title: [[131a-037] 1819 May 20 Defence]

Description: [131a-037]

1819 May 20

Defence of the Ballot

Objection I

In ballot no secrecy

2

What for my part I can not but admitt is: that in so far as the mode of voting employed fails of producing secresy, and that in such sort as to afford effectual means of operating to him who comes with a threat in his mouth or countenance, or with a bribe in his hand, the plan fails: and that if no mode by which failure of secrecy is rendered impossible can be found, the plan is impracticable.

But to cut the matter short and save talking in the air, before these pages are brought to a close, I propose to produce my vote of voting contrived for the purpose of ensuring secresy, and let learned gentlemen try their strength upon it.

That in any one of the modes as yet in use secresy is really ensured is more than I can pretend /take upon me/ to know, or have any need to know. For so as there is but one that serves /answers/ if there are a thousand that do not answer, they are nothing to the purpose.

This however, I must say, that whereas a learned Gentleman goes on altogether at his ease, taking for granted that in none of the cases in which he mentions secresy has place, so it is that for any reason he produces to the contrary there exists /is/ not among them all so much as one in which secresy has not place.

My assumption is – that where it is impossible for any one {but him /he/ by whom every thing is known} to know whether a /the/ man says true or no, it is certain that he says true. All men are liars says holy David: No men are liars, says the learned gentlemen: no man is ever a liar, even when he is out of all possibility of being discovered. Such, upon every proper occasion, is the simplicity of learned Gentlemen: babes and sucklings can not vie with them.

As to the colour of a lie of this sort – whether it be of the white or the black complection – and as to the means of saving expence in this shape to those who would rather choose[?] to save it, these are points that will […?] use when the time comes

131a-039.xml

Title: [[131a-039] 1819 May 20 Defence]

Description: [131a-039]

1819 May 20

Defence of the Ballot

Edinb

Ballot

Objection I

In ballot no secrecy

4

4

4. Per Reviewer. Universal suffrage men would not keep their own secret. Per J.B. General answer – it would not be in their power to break it. The talk which the Reviewer has in view what is the time of it? Is it before the act of voting? there is no act to tell of: nothing but the sort of intention a man chooses to profess. Is it after the voting? To this case alone is the general answer applicable or needful.

5. Per Reviewer, they could not if they would. Per J.B. Oh yes they could: any or all could: and at the worst at no other expence than that of a self-preserving untruth, such as a man would tell to another who should want to know where a barrel of gunpowder is kept that he might set fire to it. But even such untruths are better prevented than uttered For /As to/ the proposed means of prevention, see above and below.

6. Per Reviewer. The secret would be betrayed by the mode of voting. Yes; if contrived for the purpose of making known what it professed to conceal: as in Honourable House, as above: and this whichever side had the choice of it..

7. Per Reviewer. By secrecy at the Poll tumult in previous meetings would not be prevented. Per J.B. Be it what it may in itself, this objection is here out of its place: the objection to be proved is – not that the secrecy would if attained be productive of inconvenience, but that it is unattainable. The practice will be answered in its place.

8. Per Reviewer. In the canvas, affections would be betrayed. Per J.B. Neither is this position in its place, except in so far as the general answer applies to it. Canvassing and voting are not the same operation. Voting may exist without canvassing, in several of the United States it does so. Canvassing will be considered in its place.

9. By ambition, the leaders, though or because they were but petty tradesmen would betray themselves. Per J.B. General answer, as above. Such of them as choose to betray themselves do so: the Reviewers conclusion is they would all do so, whether they chose it or no.