1. If someone is engaged in voter fraud, do you think they really care about breaking the law that says "don't photograph your ballot"?
It isn't as simple as that.
Consider the situation where a landord wishes to coerce his tenants into voting a certain way. HE may not be bothered about breaking the law but THEY are in a much stronger position to resist his pressure if he is asking them to do something that is illegal and enforced in the polling station.
2. If someone is engaged in voter fraud, go after them for voter fraud, not photographing a ballot.
Photographing a ballot is teh evidence of fraud so the two are inseparable. 3. If someone is engaged in voter fraud, it's unlikely they're then posting about it on Facebook.
Well if it is legal to do that then it makes it much easier for our coecive landlord to check up on his tenants.
I'm sorry but you aren't addressing the kind of voter fraud that secret ballots were invented to deal with.
"Whatever is not forbidden is compulsory" (T H White - later adopted by Murray Gell-Mann).
The rules of secret ballots were originally invented to counteract voter compulsion/bullying by landlords, employers etc.
If you can prove that you voted in a certain way then it is inevitable that bad people will find ways to force anyone over whom they have influence to do so.
Unfortunately this would seem to put a limit on free expression unless the voting mechanism can be designed in such a way that you can take selfies in the booth - but that will never amount to conclusive proof of how you voted.
Actually the Romans had already made the step forward and the concept of being a Roman Citizen already meant something similar to the modern concept of nationhood. In fact it went beyond that - you could be a Jew AND a Roman Citizen (as St Paul was). The founding fathers of the US seem to have leant heavily on the Roman concept of citizenship in order to accommodate a plurality of traditions within one nation.
Now the Roman traditions did in fact continue for quite a while - principally (until 1453) in what we now refer to as the Byzantine Empire (although everyone at the time still called it the Roman empire).
The situation you describe with warlords, kings etc came about gradually as a result of the disintegration of the Roman empire in the West - so the move away from the Empire to warlords was associated with a breakdown of civilisation - not a comfortable analogy with what corporations are doing now but probably a good one.
Seeing corporations as the modern equivalents of Goths, Huns, Vikings and Vandals might be a good way to inform public policy!
Huh - By videoing the fight they are providing vital evidence that could be used by the police later.
Any sensible police chief would commend them for doing so.
In the UK I have never seen any policeman or police representative recommend that you should physically help an officer in a way that puts you in any danger. They always say that the only assistance they would expect is that you help by calling for backup.
The US needs to think about what would have happened had this treaty been in place when Deepwater Horizon went up. The decisions of US courts on compensation would surely have been subject to some kind of review under ISDS and I am sure that BP would have had to accept far less liability than they actually did in the end. Of course one could argue that this would have been a good thing - since what BP ended up paying was well over the top - especially when compared with the relatively light treatment received by Haliburton (who were after all much more directly to blame).
The European parliament has one huge advantage over national parliaments. It can never be controlled by a single party. This means that the lobbyists have a much bigger job controlling it than they do for (say) the UK parliament.
To make matters worse the elections to theEuropean parliament are generally not synchronised with any national elections and hence a disproportionate number of "protest party" candidates are usually elected.
Sophos, as a company that deals with strong encryption is subject to stringent controls on what they, as a company, directly distribute, where they distribute it, and to whom they distribute to. Forms of encryption with keys larger than 56 bits are restricted. Sophos wouldn't want to put itself out of the running for government contracts or on the 'bad side of the law' by breaking any rules concerning the export of encryption software.