[dragonsngoblins]

There are multiple issues with open balots:

Firstly people will be afraid to support their opinion via voting in many cases because they will be concerned not so much with their friends, but with their employers and colleagues. In Rome only citizens could vote, and sure not all citizens were rich but they were generally speaking not the bottom rungs of society and would be less concerned about their job than many of the poorest citizens in today's society.

It isn't just intimidation it is also a method by which buying votes directly is disincentivized.

Sure technically I can claim to sell my vote now, but the person buying it is taking it on faith I am actually selling it, which means nobody tries to actually buy votes directly. They will attempt to buy votes by say, bribing people in certain positions to endorse them, but they won't try and do so directly.

[chr1]

Being able to sell and buy votes is a good thing, it allows people to compromise. Now it doesn't work because a vote is a rare resource which cannot be priced, but when there are frequent votes on individual issues, you can think of a monetary price for it, or support one law in exchange for someone else supporting a law you care about. Today when politician promises to raise some taxes and reduce others, it is also a method of buying votes, but indirect and prone to fraud.

In Rome there was a clear hierarchy of patrons that was much more influential than what we have in today's society. Secret ballot broke it, and the result was a disaster.

Take a look at https://voteflux.org which explains the idea better than i do. To pass a law you need a large majority to support it, and the rest to accept it enough to not go to constitutional court. And if you are able to bribe such a large number of people continously, it means that they get more profit from the law than from repealing it, so your law is good for society.