3

The Wikipedia article on the 1788 Presidential election says that people voted with ballots, where a public vote was actually conducted.

In Britain, voting for MPs was done by public meetings. Ballots weren't used until the 1870s.

Did elections in colonial America always used ballots? Or when did they change, and why?

  • 1
    That is interesting. I'd always understood that the "Australian Ballot" (or "Secret Ballot") wasn't introduced in the US until the 1884 Presidential election. I suspect it may mean a public ballot - "until the 1800s, as voters would sign their names under one candidate’s name or another’s on a public ballot." – sempaiscuba Jan 20 '18 at 17:49
  • Yeah, it does mean public ballot. However, British elections didn't use any kind of ballot at the time. – Ne Mo Jan 20 '18 at 17:54
  • 1
    They had poll books which amounted to much the same thing in practice. – sempaiscuba Jan 20 '18 at 17:58
4

Voting in the 1788 Presidential election seems to have been carried out by public ballot, although some states continued to use an oral ballot until the late nineteenth century (e.g. Kentucky, which continued to use an oral ballot until 1891).

Secret ballots, also known as "Australian Ballots" were introduced to the United States in the nineteenth century, but were only extensively adopted after the 1884 Presidential election.

Secret ballots system were introduced in the United Kingdom by the Ballot Act of 1872. Prior to that, a public ballot system had been in use with the votes cast by individuals recorded in Poll Books. These poll books had been introduced by an Act of Parliament in 1696

"to stop electoral fraud and were the responsibility of the local Sheriffs".

  • Poll books - University of Reading Special Collections

There is an interesting article, Public Voting: Before the Secret Ballot, from The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia. It discusses the various methods of voting used in the United States before the secret ballot was adopted in the later nineteenth century.

  • I'm a bit suspicious of this. The Results only report votes for the other candidate in 3 of the 6 states that held a vote. I'd find it unlikely that nobody in those other 3 states voted for the other candidate. Interestingly, Washington's lowest % margin (of the 3) was in his home state of Virginia. It was still greater than a 40 point margin there. – T.E.D. Jan 22 '18 at 2:15
  • @T.E.D. Which bit are you suspicious about? – sempaiscuba Jan 22 '18 at 2:18
  • Well, I'd say either they decided not to report any of the votes against for some weird reason (hey, they were new at this, right?), or they were using a method that was very different than those other 3 states. – T.E.D. Jan 22 '18 at 2:22
  • This kind of goes back to that "unanimous voting question" that someone bumped today. Is it really credible that eg: 17,740 voters in Massachusetts had the ability to vote for more than one choice, yet they all voted for the same one? When the guy's own state voted 30% against him? Something was very different between those two votes. – T.E.D. Jan 22 '18 at 2:26
  • @T.E.D. Maybe they only recorded the vote-count of the winning candidate in those states. Like you say, they were doing it for the first time and learning the rules as they went along. – sempaiscuba Jan 22 '18 at 2:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.