Indeed the French proxy vote is worrisome to me, and it would be wise to study how often it is used, and what potential for coercion there is. I believe that the proxy vote reduces ballot secrecy significantly.

To your earlier point: I would argue that the situation described in the article, where a union member is asking you to endorse the union in person, is quite analogous to the remote voting scenario, where a spouse or other family member may coerce you. Of course it would be worse if the New York Times published your name and vote for all to see, but that’s not the point here.

The point is that subtle coercion is *really* bad, and it can significantly affect the result of an election. Most people don’t understand that “the secret ballot” means the “incoercible ballot,” nor do they understand how important that concept is. The words “waive anonymity” in your statement are relevant here: the secret ballot is not about the voter’s *choice* to vote anonymously, it’s about the voter being *forced* to vote anonymously.

On the continuum between perfect incoercibility and fully public ballots, I suspect most people think remote voting is not quite as good as perfect incoercibility, but it’s definitely closer to it than to fully public ballots. I believe remote voting is much, much closer to fully public ballots, and thus that it presents a real danger.

Indeed the French proxy vote is worrisome to me, and it would be wise to study how often it is used, and what potential for coercion there is. I believe that the proxy vote reduces ballot secrecy significantly.

To your earlier point: I would argue that the situation described in the article, where a union member is asking you to endorse the union in person, is quite analogous to the remote voting scenario, where a spouse or other family member may coerce you. Of course it would be worse if the New York Times published your name and vote for all to see, but that’s not the point here.

The point is that subtle coercion is *really* bad, and it can significantly affect the result of an election. Most people don’t understand that “the secret ballot” means the “incoercible ballot,” nor do they understand how important that concept is. The words “waive anonymity” in your statement are relevant here: the secret ballot is not about the voter’s *choice* to vote anonymously, it’s about the voter being *forced* to vote anonymously.

On the continuum between perfect incoercibility and fully public ballots, I suspect most people think remote voting is not quite as good as perfect incoercibility, but it’s definitely closer to it than to fully public ballots. I believe remote voting is much, much closer to fully public ballots, and thus that it presents a real danger.

Since you brought up union elections and that “Things are Not Always What They Seem,” in the world of union elections there is often significant pressure on voters (read coercion) at the polls. Remote voting can actually be used as a tool to reduce this.

Since you brought up union elections and that “Things are Not Always What They Seem,” in the world of union elections there is often significant pressure on voters (read coercion) at the polls. Remote voting can actually be used as a tool to reduce this.