In your home, someone could force themselves in, force you to vote for someone and verify you did so.
With anonymous voting at a polling place, sure someone could force you to go there, but since the vote itself is anonymous (and there’s people around to check it is), they would never be able to verify that you indeed voted X or Y way. It’s also why most countries ban taking pictures of your vote; no proving to anyone how you voted!
Your examples are still the same. Polling places which require you to fill out your ballot by hand verify that you voted for someone because you can be watched or recorded as you were filling it out.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I literally just don’t see the difference.
because you can be watched or recorded as you were filling it out
You expressly can’t do this. This is why there’s a voting booth and observers who make sure you’re alone in the booth. And after you fill out the ballot, it gets folded inward and placed in a box that is closed off until election day is over. There’s no way to verify who you voted for, as your name isn’t on the ballot.
worth noting here that this is verification that your vote was submitted as you want it. from here, the system protects the integrity of the vote. interested parties (usually the major political parties) can organise scrutineers to follow the boxes from polling places to counting centres to ensure the boxes aren’t tampered with (along with seals and other physical security features). from there, people - multiple per vote - read and tally the big pile of votes… scrutineers here validate that the count is being conducted correctly (again, these are usually from any major party so anyone with something to gain or loose all agree on every single ballot that is counted). generally, if scrutineers disagree about a ballot it gets held for further processing of some kind
in these systems, it ensures integrity because the individual can ensure their vote is for sure cast how they want, and then anyone is able to validate the integrity of the count and process itself. there’s no place where this system can be measurably subverted (small scale fraud is pretty rare because it’s really not worth doing. large scale fraud is basically impossible to achieve without completely subverting an entire step in the process across the entire country, which is absolutely going to be noticed)
In your home, someone could force themselves in, force you to vote for someone and verify you did so.
With anonymous voting at a polling place, sure someone could force you to go there, but since the vote itself is anonymous (and there’s people around to check it is), they would never be able to verify that you indeed voted X or Y way. It’s also why most countries ban taking pictures of your vote; no proving to anyone how you voted!
Your examples are still the same. Polling places which require you to fill out your ballot by hand verify that you voted for someone because you can be watched or recorded as you were filling it out.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I literally just don’t see the difference.
You expressly can’t do this. This is why there’s a voting booth and observers who make sure you’re alone in the booth. And after you fill out the ballot, it gets folded inward and placed in a box that is closed off until election day is over. There’s no way to verify who you voted for, as your name isn’t on the ballot.
worth noting here that this is verification that your vote was submitted as you want it. from here, the system protects the integrity of the vote. interested parties (usually the major political parties) can organise scrutineers to follow the boxes from polling places to counting centres to ensure the boxes aren’t tampered with (along with seals and other physical security features). from there, people - multiple per vote - read and tally the big pile of votes… scrutineers here validate that the count is being conducted correctly (again, these are usually from any major party so anyone with something to gain or loose all agree on every single ballot that is counted). generally, if scrutineers disagree about a ballot it gets held for further processing of some kind
in these systems, it ensures integrity because the individual can ensure their vote is for sure cast how they want, and then anyone is able to validate the integrity of the count and process itself. there’s no place where this system can be measurably subverted (small scale fraud is pretty rare because it’s really not worth doing. large scale fraud is basically impossible to achieve without completely subverting an entire step in the process across the entire country, which is absolutely going to be noticed)