There was one option on the ballot, I think that was more the problem. Having choice and not having someone with a gun escort you to the ballot box are bigger requirements. If there were no repercussions, voting could totally be open, don't you think?

Do you really want the thug in power to know you didn't vote for him?

That's exactly my point, it's a problem because there is a "thug in power". That's the problem, not open voting.

Even the nicest people become thugs when in power. Power corrupts.

Most, perhaps yes! But not always. You seem to often have so binary thoughts xD

Do you work with programming or something?

I don't know, in my experience most governments aren't run by "thugs" but YMMV.

The only reason for open ballots is to hold individuals "accountable" for their votes.

There will always be repercussions. Sweden have been doing public voting for decades by forcing you to pick the ballot out in the open, before going into a booth and putting the public ballot into an envelope. Your family, friends and the whole neighborhood will know whomever voted for the wrong party and will treat you thereafter.

EU and election authorities have demanded change to make it private but the previously ruling party didn't want to. Now we got a new government a few months ago and this was one of their first tasks, so it might be changed in time for the election in 2026.

> There will always be repercussions.

> Your family, friends and the whole neighborhood will know whomever voted for the wrong party and will treat you thereafter.

"Repercussions" from family or neighbours, sure, but not from whoever has the monopoly on violence. I haven't heard of the Swedish government going after people that "voted wrong".