There are ways of doing this using encryption so that the person will know what their own vote is in a way that others don't.
If someone is scared that his position will be known and still do it only because there is some fakely advertised security in place, you may ruin that person's life againt their will.
I prefer a system where people know how things work, take risks and are responsible. For what do we need a democracy if people are so scared of their family, neighbours and coworkers political views. The way we do democracy should me more mature after all this time. Probably the only place in the world trying to do it right is Switzerland, per example they have frequent local votations accomplished by raising one's hand.
I don't know any big change in the past, anywhere, like a big social progress, a regime change, a revolution or a coup that was enabled by a mass or anonymous voters. I think that if you look into it, you will find that it's always with a large consent or when a group of people takes action openly to push for it.
What? There are people in America who live under this threat today, and yes voting can actually change important parts of their lives.
Women under threat of their spouse beating them to death for voting "incorrectly"? Can you link to some examples of this? Like testimony of women who came forward fearing their spouses, not just in general terms but on this specific issue of voting?
What parts of the country have you lived in?
I suspect you can't answer that question directly because the answer is self-evident and destructive to your case.
Anyway, here are a few anecdotes: https://restlessnetwork.com/domestic-abuse-is-a-voter-suppre...
Inb4 "those are anecdotes!" And then subsequent refusal to answer the point blank question of whether you believe it happens or not, for aforementioned reasons.
I would not make an assertion either for or against it in the absence of data. I would not put forth such a hypothesis without at least anecdotal indicators of a problem. I appreciate you linking to something; even anecdotes help to paint a picture for potentially additional research/analysis, so thanks for that. Now, in response to the linked anecdotes:
The author mentions emotional gaslighting in 2009 and in 2017. There's no indication that she or the other woman was at risk of physical abuse (which is what you suggested was the issue) in either case.
So I would agree with and endorse the statement "Some men use emotional abuse and gaslighting to control how their spouses vote" but still disagree with the extreme position of "women are at risk of being beaten to death for their voting positions" as that remains unsupported hysteria.
This is the most charitable take I can make from your link. There's some real nuggets sprinkled in her writing which lead me to paint her as a completely unreliable narrator and discount/disregard anything she says. If she's foolish enough to stay in a relationship with a delinquent, drug-abusing, alcoholic emotional abuser....hey, that was her choice, and her competency as a responsible adult is questionable at best. If one of my junior male Marines walked came to me with the same sob story (and I've had Marines with bizarre relationship problems before), he'd get a pretty stern talking-to, some life advice...and we'd probably be questioning his decision-making and level of responsibility he can handle moving forward.
"Life is hard....it's even harder when you're stupid."
The quote is about her in a war setting with a rifle of her own.
Maybe 'Battle Royale' or 'Hunger Games' as an execution but that is kinda far fetched.
Since when do people facing firing squads get issued a rifle of their own? How do you explain this language he is using?
To me it's clear he meant "put her in combat facing a squad of adversaries" (US Army squads are 9 men, USMC are 13), essentially calling her a coward/chickenhawk.
About the best I can come up with is a QR code displayed on the screen and on a printout that you can compare with a third party phone app. Machine results are tabulated, and the QR code sheet is put in a lock box separately. This at least provides some way to compare what the computer says you voted versus the QR backup ballot for audits. I'm sure there are holes in my idea.
That's definitely not secret. If you can audit it on your phone, baddies can force you to show your phone to verify that you voted "correctly".
And what happens if baddies come to your house before the election, and say that after election day they'll check up on you, and if you don't they'll beat you up?