Quite, Nigel. Your use of quotes round "secret" makes my point ~~ i.e. that it isn't really quite as 'secret' as those who govern us would like to boast of. Must say I think your point about fingerprints a trifle frivolous ~~ not everyone's fingerprints are on file; but everyone's electoral role number can be checked in any public library.
"But the system you suggest only omits the step of numbering the ballots," you write. Indeed ~~ but that is a pretty considerable 'only', isn't it?
I am not attacking our system. I will accept that maybe some such safeguards are in the public interest. It's just the self-righteous bragging of the much-vaunted 'secrecy' of our process, when it only so, not absolutely, but merely up to a precisely definable point, that somewhat sticks in my craw.