I asked G:M: Carnes about open discussion in the lodge prior to the vote. He was pretty short with me. His statement was this would ruin the peace and harmony of the lodge. If the candidate's friend is in the lodge and a discussion turns towards why the candidate should not be given a white ball, the friend could get upset. The peace and harmony of the lodge would take quite awhile to recover. This is what changed my mind on the subject.
Being aware of that potential fact, I honestly don't think it deters me at all. In other jurisdictions, if you black ball someone, you have to state why you blackballed them. How is it any different?
My biggest problem now is that, if I'm not on the investigation committee and I don't know the man personally, I don't *really* know who we're bringing into the lodge. With our lodge, which is small and struggling a bit because of the older age of all the Masons (I bring down the average a LOT), I worry that the IC won't always guard the West Gate as well as they should, for fear of paying the bills and keeping the doors open.
So, my problem really isn't with the balloting process, but the investigation process. Our investigation form that the committee fills out, frankly, doesn't tell me hardly anything about the man. It tells me that he knows how to answer our questions with the answers we want to hear. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. A deceitful person could easily fly under the radar if he wanted to.
I understand the GM's point. But going back to the one ball system will, in some lodges, also disrupt the harmony. How is that disruption any better than another?
I don't think there is a good solution here, but I do think there are less bad solutions, and I do think we can find one less bad than going back to the one ball system.