4 ms·

It allows vote coercion, I can threaten you to vote a certain way and watch you drop off the ballot, and there's no way for you to change your vote later. Havi

It allows vote coercion, I can threaten you to vote a certain way and watch you drop off the ballot, and there's no way for you to change your vote later. Having monitored physical polling stations where people vote in secret removes this opportunity, because I can only see that you voted, but not what you voted for.

forrestthewoods 8y ago
That's a theoretical problem. And one that doesn't scale. You wouldn't be able to realistically intimidate 10,000 people and watch each one drop their ballot into a box. In practice I don't think there are even fringe accusations of it being a problem. > Having monitored physical polling stations where people vote in secret removes this opportunity It reduces, but does not remove, the opportunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_...
- genericid 8y ago
  > That's a theoretical problem. Currently. > You wouldn't be able to realistically intimidate 10,000 people and watch each one drop their ballot into a box. Your fanatical followers and/or henchman can do that. You can also use photos/videos to watch "your" voters more scalably. Another option is to pay them rather than intimidating.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Bribery and coercion have been reduced to practice many times throughout human history. Voting by mail also facilitates misdirecting or tampering with ballots. People have used all four approaches to sway elections with absentee ballots. Often they've been caught because the mailed ballots showed unusual trends or there were unusually many of them. The risks should be weighed against the benefits of greater turnout, but countries and even US states have found ways to improve turnout while keeping the safeguards of the secret ballot.
- ufo 8y ago
  It isn't a theoretical threat. Before 1932, the vote in Brazil was not secret. It resulted in widespread voter coercion and bribery, a system we used to call "halter voting". The "colonel" (powerful landowner or authority figure) would use the threat of violence to force those in his electoral "corral" to vote as he pleased.

forrestthewoods 8y ago

That's a theoretical problem. And one that doesn't scale. You wouldn't be able to realistically intimidate 10,000 people and watch each one drop their ballot into a box. In practice I don't think there are even fringe accusations of it being a problem. > Having monitored physical polling stations where people vote in secret removes this opportunity It reduces, but does not remove, the opportunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_...

genericid 8y ago
> That's a theoretical problem. Currently. > You wouldn't be able to realistically intimidate 10,000 people and watch each one drop their ballot into a box. Your fanatical followers and/or henchman can do that. You can also use photos/videos to watch "your" voters more scalably. Another option is to pay them rather than intimidating.
pseudalopex 8y ago
Bribery and coercion have been reduced to practice many times throughout human history. Voting by mail also facilitates misdirecting or tampering with ballots. People have used all four approaches to sway elections with absentee ballots. Often they've been caught because the mailed ballots showed unusual trends or there were unusually many of them. The risks should be weighed against the benefits of greater turnout, but countries and even US states have found ways to improve turnout while keeping the safeguards of the secret ballot.
ufo 8y ago
It isn't a theoretical threat. Before 1932, the vote in Brazil was not secret. It resulted in widespread voter coercion and bribery, a system we used to call "halter voting". The "colonel" (powerful landowner or authority figure) would use the threat of violence to force those in his electoral "corral" to vote as he pleased.