BALLOT (in French, ballotte) is a little ball used in the practice of secret voting, which is thence called " voting by B.," whether it be a ball or a ticket that is used. Votes may be taken by B. in various ways—e.g., the voter may deposit a ball m either of two boxes, so conjoined that no one shall be able to say into which he drops it; or lie may be presented with two balls—a white and a black—and so drop one of them Into a box that it shall be unknown which lie used. Tickets marked " Yes,'' "No," or with the names of candidates, will clearly serve the purpose of balls in private voting. The dicasts in Greece voted secretly by means of balls, stones, or shells, with marks. From this use of marked shells (Gr. ostrakon) in popular voting came the Greek oslracisns, or secret vote of the people, by which they drove into exile those who became obnoxious to them. Tabular or tickets were chieily used by the Romans. If the vote concerned a change in the law, the tickets were marked V. k, the initial let ters of the words " Uti Rogas," expressing Consent to the proposer's proposition: and A. for " Antiquo," expressing adherence to the old law. If the vote concerned the election of candidates to a public office, then the tickets bore the names of the candi dates. The system of secret voting in Rome was fixed by various laws, of which the Gabiniana Lex most closely resembles the modern project of vote by ballot.
The system of vote by B. is much in use, among moderns in private or social clubs, and in the election of officers and other acts of public or joint-stock companies. The propriety of employing it in private clubs has never been questioned, for to the harmony of thee it is essential that the votes of a few should suffice to exclude an obnoxious per. son; and looking to the personal and invidious nature of the vote, it is equally essential to their harmony that the voting should be secret. A candidate for admission, who suc ceeds in the face of a few, though not a sufficient number of voters, could not but regard thoSe who voted against him as enemies. But if the voting be by B. all he can know, if the voters keep their own counsel, is that some persons are unfriendly. It is thus left open for him to associate on friendly terms with all the members—a condition of the success and continuance of such associations. But whether the system was suited to political and municipal voting, used to be in this country the subject of keen debate, at a time when It was in use in France, in several of the United States, and In the Australian colonies.
We have said that the system prevailed in Greece, and on its fruit there—especially in the exercise of the ostracism—there have been various opinions. While some have considered that the Athenians, for Instance, acted under cover of secrecy, frequently without a just sense of responsibility, there is the authority of Mr. Grote, in his history of Greece, on the other side, to the effect that they exercised the right most beneficially. But if we have in 3Ir. Grote an advocate of the B., in Gibbon we have an opponent of it. In his Decline and Fall 01 the Roman Empire, that philosopher dates the decline of the republic from the introduction of secret voting, which, he says, destroyed public confi dence—in effect, broke up the ancient relations of patron and client, and caused a gen eral demoralization of the people. To come to modern times, we find the B. in use in the Venetian senate; and that in Britain it was first demanded, not for the purpose of elections, but of votes in parliament. In Scotland, during the revulsions against the court in the reign of Charles II.. the system was actually adopted in the legislature: but it does not appear to have afforded voters in all cases the desired protection. No one would now dream of demanding its introduction in parliament, whose proceedings, according to popular opinion, cannot be too open and above-board. On this point it may be mentioned that secret voting was the rule, for over five years (from 184) to 1845), in the chamber of deputies in France, when it was abolished, as being productive of abuse. This, however, as we have said, bears on a use of the system that has now no advocates. Two illustrations remain of its use in elections. In the colonies of Melbourne and Sydney, the B. is said to have worked well, though it has been doubted whether its efficacy has been properly tested in these countries, in which there is so much individual independence, peculiar to new countries, that those who vote care little for concealment. In the United States, on the other hand, it is said to be the general opinion that the sys tem has proved inefficacious. In the state of New York, where the B. was adopted sev eral years ago, there is now a party demanding open voting, as a cure for the evils introduced by the secret system. They say it has among the Americans opposed no effectual obstacle to coercion and intimidation from the majority, while those to whom the arrangements for secrecy are intrusted, flagrantly betray then• trust, and the voters on either side are, as a rule, well known to the public.