JoshRoss said:Blue Ink said:*snip*
The coercion angle is the best reason that I have seen against this idea, for third-world nations. I wonder how much of this kind of thing happens in industrial nations? You would need both very low voter turn-out and highly organized corruption. It is easier to market a bad politician to the electorate than it is to organize a mass fraud without marketing.
Yes, probably nobody could ever bribe or strongarm enough people in any general election to make a difference. Local elections are a different story, even in industrial countries... but that's probably not the worst concern.
There are other kinds of pressure that must be faced, including peers, friends, family in general and spouses in particular. This might seem outlandish, but it's a fact that people do lie about their voting habit... 5-10% is not unheard of in exit polls, go figure where the rate goes when the veil of anonimity is lifted.
I'm not a sociologist, so I don't know if people would rather cast a vote they can stand up to in public (thus skewing the election results) or keep voting following their conscience (possibly making divorce lawyers happy in the process).
Either way I don't think that verifiability would justify the consequences.