That allows vote buying/coercion.
You show me your receipt, I verify that you voted the way I wanted, and you get money. Or, if the receipt shows you didn't vote like I told you to, I punch you in the face.
You show me your receipt, I verify that you voted the way I wanted, and you get money. Or, if the receipt shows you didn't vote like I told you to, I punch you in the face.
I was thinking that the verification would show you a list (with per vote random letters)
Jones : D
Vivek : J
McAlan : C
LaRousse : Q
and you'd remember the letter next to your candidate. You could just lie to a coercer, "I voted Q" and actually have voted D, say.
Not sure how you get from there to a confirmed vote though. It seems to require someone at some point to hold a key that can de-anonymise one's vote.
That said de-anonymising votes in UK elections seems pretty easy, ballot papers have codes on; name and address is checked prior to vote.
It has some criticism, but IMO this is a very simple and effective method. And there are better ideas out there too.
I think we can even build a mechanical machine (like out of buttons connected to stamps/ink) that can create valid threeballots. That way you don't have to explain the instructions.
This would really hurt Trump, since he seems to have an unusually high percentage of “shy” voters.
That's why we have things like the 5% margin for parties to get seats in parliament. During the Weimar republic, one of the reasons why it was close to impossible to form stable coalitions was the high number of parties with seats. And the list goes on.
...and if whomever is coercing you to vote a certain way can also prohibit you from voting in person, you have bigger problems that border on kidnapping and illegal captivity.
Nonsense. You have whatever problems made your vote susceptible to coercion in the first place, no more and no less. It's not necessary for the other party to physically prevent you from voting in person. All they need to do is observe whether you do, and punish you accordingly.
Yes, but this doesn't scale, and again, it's bordering on illegal captivity. One person can maybe prohibit a couple of others into not going to vote in person, by living with them.
Whereas if you have paper receipts that show what you voted for, one person can easily validate thousands of those, and punch everyone in the face who voted "wrong".
Another example is unions. Perhaps the union and many colleagues prefer one candidate - if you sneak off to the voting booth you risk ostracization.