The secrecy of voting ... and why the secret ballot should be abolished.

Before Matt Nash recounts his difficulty in casting a secret ballot in the year 2015, let's begin by considering the origins of this institution.

Did you know that Louisville was a pacesetter?

Abolish the Secret Ballot, by Sasha Issenberg (The Atlantic)

For the United States’ first century, Americans elected their leaders in full view of their neighbors, gathering on courthouse steps to announce their votes orally or hand a distinctive preprinted ballot or unfolded marked paper to a clerk. Such a public process made elections ripe for bribes and threats, although the scene around American polling places never matched Australia’s, where a population of criminals and goldbugs made electoral intimidation something of a democratic pastime. To end such shenanigans, each of Australia’s colonies began shifting to a secret ballot during the 1850s, and in 1872 England followed suit.

A decade and a half later, the reform crossed the Atlantic. Louisville, Kentucky, enacted a so-called Australian ballot in 1888 ...

Given Floyd County's propensity for gazing longingly into the rear view mirror, the surprising thing is that we ever accepted the ballot's secrecy in the first place, but we did. Take it away, Matt.

NASH: The secrecy of voting, by Matt Nash (Morris Trucking Fetish Daily)

 ... After the third failed attempt, a man came over and took my ballot and started to review the choices that I had made to see if I had “voted wrong.” I am not exactly sure what would happen if I would had actually voted wrong, but I would hope that the first machine would have forced me to correct the vote before it printed out my receipt. I can’t imagine that it would print out a ballot that showed I had voted for two candidates in a race where I was only allowed to pick one.

At that point, my wife was ready to put hers through the machine when someone said we should compare the two ballots. This is when someone from across the room yelled “secret ballot.”

I started to laugh because two workers already had access to who I voted for and one of them actually looked over it. I said I didn’t mind if we compared, and they were close to identical, and then her ballot went straight through the machine without any issues.

Voting centers, suburban power grabs and low voter turnout. Rinse, repeat.

First, the last word on yesterday's election, courtesy of Bluegill.

Voting centers represent yet another shift of political power to the suburbs.

The loss of walkable polling places negatively impacts thousands of New Albany voters, all in older city neighborhoods. Some will overcome it, some won't, but those numbers are easily enough to sway electoral outcomes. Those who choose to live in such neighborhoods spend every day, 365 days a year, making the city more efficient via requiring less per capita spending for basic services and creating less environmental damage. What's their reward in Floyd County? Declaring that two days of voting a year is just too expensive and having the whole representative system shifted in favor of increased car culture and suburban clout. If you're running for any office and not squawking about your plan to change that, now you know exactly why I'm not voting for you.

My thoughts, if any, will come in the form of tomorrow's ON THE AVENUES column. Until then, here are the numbers.

Voter turnout lower than past years; Clark, Floyd counties bring in about 13 percent of registered voters, by Elizabeth Beilman (CNHI Local Times)

SOUTHERN INDIANA — Polling centers saw a lot less people Tuesday in Clark and Floyd counties than they did four years ago.

Voter turnout for both counties was lower than 2010’s primary election for the same elected positions. Of the 87,014 registered voters in Clark County, there were 11,651 ballots cast, or 13.4 percent. That is a 7 percentage point decrease from four years ago when 16,388 of 82,525 Clark County voters cast ballots.

In Floyd County, 7,897 of the 57,047 registered voters cast ballots Tuesday for a 13.8 percent turnout — about 2,000 less votes than 2010’s primary election that had an 18 percent turnout.