3 ms·

I don't think to any appreciable extent unless you go nuts restricting people to a particular polling place and limit their size severely. In the most recent f

I don't think to any appreciable extent unless you go nuts restricting people to a particular polling place and limit their size severely. In the most recent federal byelection in Australia, 114,000 voters were able to cast their votes at any one of the 86 different polling places, where the votes were counted locally. The smallest polling place had 110 people vote at it, I'm not even sure you could reasonably deanonymise the votes in that. How would you do it? https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-25820-117.htm https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-25820-117.htm

notahacker 6y ago
tbf with an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other, it might not be too difficult for some to guess who cast the Fringe Party vote. But yes, you're not likely to deanonymise them all.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  You can guess, but you can guess before you know how they voted - you can narrow your error bars, but it seems very unlikely you can out someone that you couldn't already out. Say you see all the votes, one is for an extreme party, there's going to be plenty of people whose politics you don't know in depth - people (IME) will either keep secret their allegiances or be very vocal. Those who are vocal won't care that you "know", those who're secretive ... did it help?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Knowing that somebody in your village definitely voted for the Fringe Party is a piece of information you wouldn't otherwise have. There's a big difference between having your suspicion about someone's voting intent supported by data and not having your suspicion supported by data. This matters if said community is liable to alienate people based on their assumed view; the fact it isn't 100% accurate doesn't make things better...
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      I don't think there's a big difference between: 'there was one person out of 20,000 [smallest electoral ward in UK] who voted this way' and 'I think this person will vote this way'. If you were going to beat them up you'd do it either way, I'd expect?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you've changed the subject from "an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other" in the Australian local example I addressed in my OP to UK electoral wards which are 200-1000x the size, and obviously far beyond the scope of people being acquainted with everyone eligible to vote. I believe that's the reason the Electoral Commission doesn't collect results at polling station level and distribute that data despite the theoretical capability to do so. And no, I don't think witch hunts are as likely to take place if people aren't informed of the presence of a witch.
        jackvalentine 6y ago
        Point of order: the electorate is 114,000 people who can vote at any one of the 86 booths. Or by mail. Or absentee somewhere else. The booth itself had 110 people vote there. I’ve since found another with only 98! I personally think your fears are misplaced. If a small community is going to go after people for their votes they know each other well enough to go after each other with proxies for their vote instead. This isn’t really an electoral problem at this point, it’s a regular small town rumour and innuendo problem.
        notahacker 6y ago
        Sure, if there are other voting options available to voters in that locality that don't involve using that station and the records of which station eligible voters voted at aren't widely accessible, that eliminates the ballot secrecy issue - thanks for the clarification. The problem with people going after each other based on perceived ethnic/religious/education/wealth divides or things they've actually said may exist in politically fractious small towns regardless of electoral design, but very small voter pools means your identifiable fringe minority's chance of being on the end of a reprisal is linked to how/if you actually vote. And that really is a ballot secrecy issue.
- bluGill 6y ago
  The one person voting for the fringe candidate isn't the real worry. In a close election the 10 who you will shoot if they don't vote for you is the real worry. Those 10 can turn the election, the fringe voting guy doesn't, and you probably want him because it shows the election isn't rigged in some minds.

notahacker 6y ago

tbf with an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other, it might not be too difficult for some to guess who cast the Fringe Party vote. But yes, you're not likely to deanonymise them all.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
You can guess, but you can guess before you know how they voted - you can narrow your error bars, but it seems very unlikely you can out someone that you couldn't already out. Say you see all the votes, one is for an extreme party, there's going to be plenty of people whose politics you don't know in depth - people (IME) will either keep secret their allegiances or be very vocal. Those who are vocal won't care that you "know", those who're secretive ... did it help?
- notahacker 6y ago
  Knowing that somebody in your village definitely voted for the Fringe Party is a piece of information you wouldn't otherwise have. There's a big difference between having your suspicion about someone's voting intent supported by data and not having your suspicion supported by data. This matters if said community is liable to alienate people based on their assumed view; the fact it isn't 100% accurate doesn't make things better...
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    I don't think there's a big difference between: 'there was one person out of 20,000 [smallest electoral ward in UK] who voted this way' and 'I think this person will vote this way'. If you were going to beat them up you'd do it either way, I'd expect?
    - notahacker 6y ago
      I'm not sure why you've changed the subject from "an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other" in the Australian local example I addressed in my OP to UK electoral wards which are 200-1000x the size, and obviously far beyond the scope of people being acquainted with everyone eligible to vote. I believe that's the reason the Electoral Commission doesn't collect results at polling station level and distribute that data despite the theoretical capability to do so. And no, I don't think witch hunts are as likely to take place if people aren't informed of the presence of a witch.
      - jackvalentine 6y ago
        Point of order: the electorate is 114,000 people who can vote at any one of the 86 booths. Or by mail. Or absentee somewhere else. The booth itself had 110 people vote there. I’ve since found another with only 98! I personally think your fears are misplaced. If a small community is going to go after people for their votes they know each other well enough to go after each other with proxies for their vote instead. This isn’t really an electoral problem at this point, it’s a regular small town rumour and innuendo problem.
        notahacker 6y ago
        Sure, if there are other voting options available to voters in that locality that don't involve using that station and the records of which station eligible voters voted at aren't widely accessible, that eliminates the ballot secrecy issue - thanks for the clarification. The problem with people going after each other based on perceived ethnic/religious/education/wealth divides or things they've actually said may exist in politically fractious small towns regardless of electoral design, but very small voter pools means your identifiable fringe minority's chance of being on the end of a reprisal is linked to how/if you actually vote. And that really is a ballot secrecy issue.
bluGill 6y ago
The one person voting for the fringe candidate isn't the real worry. In a close election the 10 who you will shoot if they don't vote for you is the real worry. Those 10 can turn the election, the fringe voting guy doesn't, and you probably want him because it shows the election isn't rigged in some minds.