There's public access to voting information for the same “reason” as many other social rules: it's just an unfolding of the history of the activity. At the time of the Founding Fathers, not only was whether you voted a public issue, but so was WHO YOU VOTED FOR, since the secret ballot was unknown.

Since voting started out as a public act, the extension of privacy rights has been halting and erratic, implemented only when prompted only by some specific, over-riding concern. (Voter registration and secret ballots were imposed to break the urban machines, for example.) As a result, a surprising amount of information is available about individuals' political actions. In many states – not Michigan – every choice of party ballot in a primary is carefully recorded and disclosed.

Sorry this is so far off topic, but I suppose it's the expression of my repressed response to all the fascinating points raised in the rest of this thread.

I do not teach construction, I am not married and I am nowhere near being “about the same age” as my uncle. And frankly, I don't think my “leanings” are any of your business except what I choose to reveal to you.

The only Ed Brayton I can find on Michigan's voter rolls lives in Paris – the suburb of Big Rapids, that is. If I've got the right person, he votes in every even-year general election, but nothing else in the past ten years. No political leanings are discernible from the records I have.

That Ed Brayton is married, and his wife voted in the Republican presidential primary 18 months ago, and I have her coded as pro-environment. It's not always safe to impute one spouse's political views to the other, but it's not a bad bet to do so.

My considered judgment is that Ed is not very interested in local or statewide politics, but is conscientious enough to vote when he knows what he's doing and he thinks his vote counts.

Update: I'm not sure if I've got the right Ed Brayton or not. The voter is a professor at Ferris State who teaches Construction. The writer is a science expositor. They both seem to live near Grand Rapids and are about the same age. And they have similar faces, but apparently different hair. If this Ed Brayton doesn't teach at Ferris State, he's not registered to vote in Michigan under the name “Ed* Brayton”.

There's public access to voting information for the same “reason” as many other social rules: it's just an unfolding of the history of the activity. At the time of the Founding Fathers, not only was whether you voted a public issue, but so was WHO YOU VOTED FOR, since the secret ballot was unknown.

Since voting started out as a public act, the extension of privacy rights has been halting and erratic, implemented only when prompted only by some specific, over-riding concern. (Voter registration and secret ballots were imposed to break the urban machines, for example.) As a result, a surprising amount of information is available about individuals' political actions. In many states – not Michigan – every choice of party ballot in a primary is carefully recorded and disclosed.

Sorry this is so far off topic, but I suppose it's the expression of my repressed response to all the fascinating points raised in the rest of this thread.

I do not teach construction, I am not married and I am nowhere near being “about the same age” as my uncle. And frankly, I don't think my “leanings” are any of your business except what I choose to reveal to you.

The only Ed Brayton I can find on Michigan's voter rolls lives in Paris – the suburb of Big Rapids, that is. If I've got the right person, he votes in every even-year general election, but nothing else in the past ten years. No political leanings are discernible from the records I have.

That Ed Brayton is married, and his wife voted in the Republican presidential primary 18 months ago, and I have her coded as pro-environment. It's not always safe to impute one spouse's political views to the other, but it's not a bad bet to do so.

My considered judgment is that Ed is not very interested in local or statewide politics, but is conscientious enough to vote when he knows what he's doing and he thinks his vote counts.

Update: I'm not sure if I've got the right Ed Brayton or not. The voter is a professor at Ferris State who teaches Construction. The writer is a science expositor. They both seem to live near Grand Rapids and are about the same age. And they have similar faces, but apparently different hair. If this Ed Brayton doesn't teach at Ferris State, he's not registered to vote in Michigan under the name “Ed* Brayton”.

There's public access to voting information for the same “reason” as many other social rules: it's just an unfolding of the history of the activity. At the time of the Founding Fathers, not only was whether you voted a public issue, but so was WHO YOU VOTED FOR, since the secret ballot was unknown.

Since voting started out as a public act, the extension of privacy rights has been halting and erratic, implemented only when prompted only by some specific, over-riding concern. (Voter registration and secret ballots were imposed to break the urban machines, for example.) As a result, a surprising amount of information is available about individuals' political actions. In many states – not Michigan – every choice of party ballot in a primary is carefully recorded and disclosed.

Sorry this is so far off topic, but I suppose it's the expression of my repressed response to all the fascinating points raised in the rest of this thread.

The only Ed Brayton I can find on Michigan's voter rolls lives in Paris – the suburb of Big Rapids, that is. If I've got the right person, he votes in every even-year general election, but nothing else in the past ten years. No political leanings are discernible from the records I have.

That Ed Brayton is married, and his wife voted in the Republican presidential primary 18 months ago, and I have her coded as pro-environment. It's not always safe to impute one spouse's political views to the other, but it's not a bad bet to do so.

My considered judgment is that Ed is not very interested in local or statewide politics, but is conscientious enough to vote when he knows what he's doing and he thinks his vote counts.