I believe the Liechtensteinian constitution only guarantees a secret ballot in parliamentary elections. It’s not guaranteed that this vote also had a secret ballot (although it probably did).
I mean of course it doesn’t need to be a constitutional law, that was just the most basic of Liechtensteinian law I could quickly find (and many countries have it there, e.g. France). But it’s unwise to assume that the secret ballot is such a given in a voting process. Nigeria has open ballots iirc, and even the US does not technically have a system that guarantees a proper secret ballot (as mail-in votes technically don’t meet the criteria).
Now that’s a valid point.
But how bold to assume, the vote was lost because men forced their women to use mail-in. In reality, reasons are much more complex.
Secret ballot is not a prerequisite for a democratic process. The UK has numbered ballots allowing courts to, in exceptional circumstances, order the reveal of what someone has voted (violating the secret ballot). But we don’t claim their voting process is undemocratic.
But how bold to assume, the vote was lost because men forced their women to use mail-in.
I never assumed this. I’m merely pointing out that the secret ballot is not an automatic given in a democratic election.
I believe the Liechtensteinian constitution only guarantees a secret ballot in parliamentary elections. It’s not guaranteed that this vote also had a secret ballot (although it probably did).
It doesn’t need to be constitutional, a simple law is enough.
Sure, if this was some kind of joke poll ignoring the most basic rules of democratic voting, I’ll stand corrected.
I mean of course it doesn’t need to be a constitutional law, that was just the most basic of Liechtensteinian law I could quickly find (and many countries have it there, e.g. France). But it’s unwise to assume that the secret ballot is such a given in a voting process. Nigeria has open ballots iirc, and even the US does not technically have a system that guarantees a proper secret ballot (as mail-in votes technically don’t meet the criteria).
It’s not a democratic process then by definition.
Now that’s a valid point. But how bold to assume, the vote was lost because men forced their women to use mail-in. In reality, reasons are much more complex.
Secret ballot is not a prerequisite for a democratic process. The UK has numbered ballots allowing courts to, in exceptional circumstances, order the reveal of what someone has voted (violating the secret ballot). But we don’t claim their voting process is undemocratic.
I never assumed this. I’m merely pointing out that the secret ballot is not an automatic given in a democratic election.
What? Of course it is. Hence: “The secret ballot became commonplace for individual citizens in liberal democracies worldwide by the late 20th century.”.
secret != anonymous … OPs argument mainly dismissed confidentiality.
we certainly would if no one checked the number of people simultaniously using a voting booth.
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that. I meant OPs argument.