I would like to be pedantic and mention that instead of outright bribery as we know today, the sort of coercion (in the broadest sense of the word) that enabled

I would like to be pedantic and mention that instead of outright bribery as we know today, the sort of coercion (in the broadest sense of the word) that enabled the rotten boroughs involved some far more innovative and long-term thinking like ensuring that the demographics of boroughs in question, if anyone still lived there, to essentially to owe their ability to live and by extension, ply their trades and all that. You are effectively voting so you can have a place to live, in many cases. Old Sarum is the classical case and almost certainly the most egregious one in a prima facie manner but thanks to the manifold of coercive measures implemented it took until the implementation of secret ballots to truly ensure that the old rotten boroughs age was finally no longer a serious concern, and that took another... 40 years? (I realize that I'm focusing on the descriptor on pocket boroughs specifically, which is a subset of the broader rotten boroughs phenomenon, but the subset's primary differentiation comes from how they were attained and not how their existence determined the makeup of parliament, considering that large landowners were able to have "in their pocket" the votes of multiple constituencies that they could exert indirect coercion over quite readily). Yes, it's amazing looking back that one did not follow the other somehow, but baby steps man, baby steps. It beats no steps at all when there's not really a better alternative on the table, even if it's a long way from ideal.