Original question:

I write you to ask about information on when the practice of secret ballots started in countries around the world. 

Furthermore, I would like to know if you have information on vote buying across different elections on different countries.

Many thanks and best regards.

Links to related resources:

• Wikinews preliminary report by Brazilian Vote Buying parliamentary commission on the accusation of illegal campaign finance activities (including vote buying) in 2005.
• Islamonline article on reports about vote buying and other frauds in presidential elections in Egypt 2005.
• Human Rights News article on vote buying in Cambodia during the parliamentary elections in 2003.
• Information about the history of the secret ballot can be found on Wikipedia.

Quote from the ACE Encyclopaedia on voting secrecy:

"A secret vote is an essential integrity safeguard because it allows voters to cast their ballot in full independence. If a vote is not secret or can be identified during vote counting, some people might be intimidated into not voting as they had intended. Secrecy makes intimidation or bribery less effective".

"Controls on voting secrecy go to the heart of principles of free choice in voting. Within the voting station, voting station officials must ensure that:

• Voters are alone in voting compartments (except when assisted voting is authorised);
• Ballots are appropriately folded or enveloped to conceal the voter's vote before they leave the voting compartment;
• No one attempts to ascertain from a voter within the voting station how they intend to vote or have voted".

ACE Network Facilitator's response:

Thank you for your request. Regarding your question on the practice of secret ballots: almost all elections are conducted with a secret ballot. Please see the IDEA Voter Turnout database for information about when those countries first held elections (starting 1945).

For more information please see Electoral Integrity topic area in the ACE Encyclopaedia (click "next" to read subsequent files). 

Until recently, voters in the Solomon Islands voted by placing an unmarked ballot in the ballot box corresponding to the candidate of their choice; something that was an exception to the generally accepted rule of the secrecy of the vote and increased the risk of vote buying.

Read about this in the contribution from Michael Maley in the consolidated reply on ballot paper format in Madagascar.

Vote buying is considered both an illegal practice as well as unethical in all countries, though it varies how different legal frameworks deal with it.

Vote buying includes providing a financial or material incentive to a voter in exchange for a vote, buying abstentions (negative vote buying) or paying voters to stay home. Borderline cases include the promise of jobs, loans, promotions etc. to get votes. In Mexico, parties have paid for the organization and transportation of voters to the polls; something that has been considered a severe abuse of campaign funds and is considered illegal. In the U.S., 30 states treat vote buying as an offence of bribery.

The main device used to restrict vote buying is the secret ballot. If votes are cast in secrecy, there is no guaranteed way for candidates and party organizers to be certain that the vote was cast according to the agreement between voter and briber. Despite this, in some communities, the secret ballot has not proved sufficient to eliminate vote buying altogether.

Vote buying is still common in some countries. Below is an extract from the ACE website on vote buying in the Philippines, written by Ding Tanjuactco:

Vote buying with or with out chained balloting

Some candidates will take the word of the bought voter. However, if he wants to be sure that he gets his money's worth, the candidate will employ chained balloting or "lansadera". At the start of the day, all the potential "buyees" are gathered in one place and, as soon as the polls are opened, one of them is sent to the polling place. After the usual identification process, he obtains a ballot from the poll clerk, which he takes with him to the polling booth.

At this point, everything is still fine and dandy. But what he does with the ballot becomes the heart of the illegal scheme. Instead of filling up the ballot, he puts it in his pocket and casts something that looks like a ballot into the ballot box. Thereafter, he presents the blank official ballot to the buyer who pays him an amount for his effort. The buyer then fills up the ballot himself and hands the same to the second voter. The second voter goes to the polling place and obtains a blank official ballot but does not drop this in the ballot box. Instead, he drops the ballot which was filled up by the buyer. He then turns over the blank official ballot to the buyer and the cycle is repeated.

Vote buying with or without identifying marks

Another way of ensuring that the bought voter will live up to his end of the bargain is to specify how that voter will fill up his ballot. The voter can be required to write the candidate's name in a peculiar way, e.g. first name last, with nickname, slightly misspelled etc.

Negative vote buying

This is the simplest way of buying votes. Where a candidate is certain that a voter will not vote for him, he can pay him not to vote. Efficiency can be achieved by herding the voters together and getting them on a bus that will take them away for the rest of the day. A lot of times, the voters will be compelled to have their index fingers smeared with indelible ink.

See also another extract from the ACE website regarding the penalties of vote buying in different countries:

• Britain: Bribery and the lesser offence of "treating" are punishable as corrupt practices. See Severity of offences A person found guilty of a corrupt practice is liable on conviction on indictment to up to one year in prison, a fine, or both.
• Japan: The Public Office Election Law (1996 revision) invalidates election results if campaign managers, campaign accountants, secretaries of the candidate, or the prospective candidate were convicted of vote buying and punished with a fine or heavier penalty. In addition, the candidate will be banned from becoming a candidate or holding public office in the same electoral district for five years. So far, two Diet members elected in 1996 lower house elections have lost their seats. One resigned before the court ordered a judgement (and is subject to the five year ban), and the other was found guilty. Campaigners who are caught and convicted of bribery in the campaign can be, and often are, given prison sentences. The new law has reduced corruption, but it also appears to have made candidates fearful of engaging even in some legal activities.
• Mauritius: A fine not exceeding 2,000 rupees (about U.S.$100) and imprisonment for up to a year. In addition, the convicted person is banned for 7 years from registering to vote, from voting, from being a candidate, or, if elected before his conviction, of retaining his seat.
• Mexico: A fine of 10 to 100 days of the minimum wage, plus imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years.

The opinions expressed by the ACE Network Facilitator do not necessarily reflect those of the ACE Partner organizations.

ACE PRACTITIONERS' NETWORK