Hacker News Reader

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.

> 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.

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.