3 ms·
Improbable. Sharing a pre-determined result with Joe Random Votecounters * number of voting stations = near certainty of someone leaking that, and a field day f
by Piskvorrr 10y ago
Improbable. Sharing a pre-determined result with Joe Random Votecounters * number of voting stations = near certainty of someone leaking that, and a field day for the media.
So, while theoretically possible, realistically summed up by "three men can hold a secret, if one of them is dead."
(And specifically here, if I were a conspirator going for a predetermined result, I would want a somewhat close result, yes - but not an almost-tie as seen here. Something like 55:45 or somesuch, not a "every single vote matters" scenario, where a few thousand votes could swing the outcome)
- rcthompson 10y agoI think it would be more of an "open secret" pattern: e.g. no one explicitly orders people to make sure the ruling party always wins, but everyone knows someone who knows someone who was punished for reporting the actual count instead of a rigged count.
- Piskvorrr 10y agoWhat you are describing is not an "open secret," that's a "conspiracy theory."