[Closed] Big data, 1984 and voter manipulation

And it opens up the prospect of people buying or bullying votes,

In a secret ballot that doesn't work. In industrial disputes there were bullies in show-of-hands votes but that ended with a secret ballot.

So long as you've signed the voting register the authorities have no idea what you put in the envelope and nor does anyone else. I'm against electronic voting for this reason.

Thing is it a fundamental level how is it different from getting to know your locals electorate and persuading them you are the person / party for the job?

Because, as the article points out, it's not just the fact that this is going on, but the fact that the people doing it are trying not to reveal (or trying to obfuscate the fact) that it is going on. In an open democracy persuading voters one way or t'other is fair game. But when groups of people get together to try to influence things outside of the rules then there should rightly be questions asked.

ninfan opined -I am assuming that data mining and analytics is something that left wing parties are legally banned from doing?

Classic whataboutery, it doesn't matter who does it it is a subversion of the democratic process when carried out in a clandestine manner.

A 'win all costs' mentality eventually leads to unrest. The politicians need to take all the electorate with them not just their supporters the system exists by consent, break that and we are no better than any Junta led tin-pot dictatorship.

Edukator - So long as you've signed the voting register the authorities have no idea what you put in the envelope and nor does anyone else. I'm against electronic voting for this reason.

In the UK at least this is not strictly correct. All GE and local election votes can be traced back to the person who cast them. It is illegal to do so but it is possible.

I'd certainly support mandatory voting.

Problem there is that there are a lot of people who simply don't give a crap. So they aren't likely to make good decisions.

Thing is it a fundamental level how is it different from getting to know your locals electorate and persuading them you are the person / party for the job?

It's also the scale of it. If you do some local campaigning all you can really do is create a rough "profile" of a particular street in your area or something. Targeting individuals would just be too costly and time consuming, but not anymore, it can be done for the entire country if you've got enough money. The fact this it is so secret and based on fake news is even more worrying.

I swing between making voting compulsory and making people do a IQ test!!

I've no idea what the answer is TBH, but the advent of strong data analytics and immediate access to thousands (millions) of voters in an instant online; means our voting regulations probably need updating sooner rather than later

Other than it being through facebookit'sI fail to see how this is something either new or surprising, i been going on for as long as people have had the vote, is just a bit more sophisticated and targeted than before.

Ultimately they can't sell you what you actively don't want, the thing here is it saves wasting time and money trying to sell higher taxes and increased social support (or vice versa) to people who actually disagree with it rather than simply not selling it to rich people who on the balance of probability don't.

If it were that effective at actually changing minds rather than simply reinforcing opinions we'd be seeing McDonald's selling a lot of beef burgers in India*

*Obviously a far fetched example.

The fact this it is so secret

Is it really though? Anyone with a passing interest in data has known that analysing big data by marketeers has been going on since the 90's at least, with things like the invention of the Tesco ClubCard or Sky wanting you to attach the box to the net. So hardly a surprise that political parties have also started, if anything its surprising its taken so long.

If you give out your personal details like confetti, then you can hardly complain when people pick them up and use them.

If you give out your personal details like confetti, then you can hardly complain when people pick them up and use them.

I think your missing the point a little.

The end game is to manipulate your voting choice & possibly influence an election - not whether you buy white or brown bread for your sarnies next week..

It is using the datasets to target large scale false information that is so dangerous.

It isn't just presenting different ideologies it is propaganda on a mass scale going unchecked and actually drowning out the normal discussions. If someone is borderline on immigration, bombard them with bullshit stories of winterville festivals destroying traditional values and muslim ray guns streaming across our borders. Tell them about the blood sacrifice made by our brave British troops to stop the Nazis, but ignore the fact that 10 times as many Poles were killed in WWII because they are now the enemy.

The only thing new about this is really the big data aspect.

Politicians have always targeted the demographics or marginal seats that they believe they need to swing to win and they use the message most likely to appeal. Internet ads are targeted based on your browsing preferences (including political ones).

This simply takes the tailoring of messages to a new level.

Then throw in some "fake news" and "alternative facts"

The biggest problem we have with our democracy is that it's winner takes all. It's a license for one faction to say **** you to the rest. (And is becoming more so like that.)

The biggest problem we have with our democracy is that it's winner takes all. It's a license for one faction to say **** you to the rest

molgrips - Member
I'd certainly support mandatory voting.
Problem there is that there are a lot of people who simply don't give a crap. So they aren't likely to make good decisions.

Google Natalie Bennets take on Australian do key voting, it aint a pretty picture

In my view this is why fewer intelligent people vote. They are are aware of the manipulation and the truth is hard to find. Why go to all the effort to undermine the influence when the truth is so well manipulated?

The less intelligent / far more emotionally driven amongst us fall right into the trap and rock up with a fist full of ballot paper - see Trumps winning over of nationalists via his blatant portrayal of world terrorism vs the USA.

Im doing exactly this - local elections are so lacking in outcomes i do t know who to vote for. The general election is so full of spin i dont know whot vote for. Oh hold on, perhaps thats what they want me to believe.... :/

Compulsory voting is not the answer - you force people who can't be bothered to walk 200m to the poling booth to express their opinion to turn up and put an X in a box. There is nothing to suggest that person will actually do so with any consideration or thought and so first or last on the paper, guy with funny name, or the party your family always voted for becomes the choice.

High turnouts don't necessarily produce results more people are happy with!

I've never had any political propaganda in my news feed on Facebook. I feel I am missing out! It would be intriguing to see how they think I would vote and what would influence me. Perhaps they know I usually vote the least worst option... because the system is rigged to stop anyone but the big two succeeding. Interestingly I think there is an opening for a new opposition party in Scotland - if you can do it and win in France perhaps now is the time...

None of the above on ballots would be a good start.

molgrips - Member
None of the above on ballots would be a good start

You could do that by putting your own name on it you know.

None of the above on ballots would be a good start.

I'm all for this, I'd also like to see the none of the aboves counted and published with the election results.

I think that most of us here, regardless of our political leanings agree that modern politics is broken. Our media is far from unbiased and balanced. I think that at the very least we should explore ways to ensure that our media's coverage of politics is unbiased and that opinion pieces are clearly described as such, with appropriate disclaimers.

I often gripe about a certain newspaper that sounds a lot like 'Heil', but to see a national newspaper openly endorsing the far right candidate in the French presidential election came as a hugely unpleasant shock.

There's one example in one of the articles that sights the main objective of a particular campaign was to reduce the turnout for the other party voters.

If they can target who they are and then direct articles towards them reaffirming their own choice, making it seem like everyone around them will go and vote on their behalf, it instils complacency.

It's more subtle than shopping for headphones on Amazon one day and seeing adverts for headphones on Singletrack the next. It's not just targeted advertising but targeted information, news, opinions. That's what makes it so terrifying, I know when I'm looking at an advert, but if I'm being subtly manipulated through the stream of information I digest over a few months, I don't think I'd be able to tell.

Despite the claimed effectiveness of the techniques being in question, we have to assume that as this is a thing that can happen, it almost certainly is. Why did I share the article in the first place? Somebody probably wanted me to.

I'm all for this, I'd also like to see the none of the aboves counted and published with the election results.

Without wishing to sound like a child, what exactly would this achieve other than pacifying the electorate, and validating your hand winging and personal opinion? Even a 99% none of the above vote would achieve nothing as someone no one really wanted would still win and so long as your actual attempts to change it amounted to putting a cross in the NotA box one every 4/5 years nothing will happen, you may as well just not waste your time going to the polling station.

If you think the choice is poor, find a good one and get them to stand, or do it your self, anything else is just the political equivalent of being an arm chair England manager when the world cup comes around.

Without wishing to sound like a child, what exactly would this achieve other than pacifying the electorate, and validating your hand winging and personal opinion?

It's a fact that many recent elections have been won in marginal seats, chasing swing voters campaigning on a relatively narrow band of policies. A none of the above option, once counted would be some sort of barometer as to the legitimacy of the winning candidate's mandate - and yes, I also support proportional representation, too.

It's no wonder that swathes of people either don't bother to vote because they're disaffected and that policies seem to no longer address the big issues of today - low value jobs, lack of affordable housing, mounting debt piled on the younger generation to name but three.

You might rightly accuse people like myself of hang-wringing, for the record, I am a member of a political party and I do feed back to my local party groups and my local MP on issues.

You must agree surely with my assertion that politics is failing most people. How would you go about fixing it?

Compusory voting is very likely to make more peple pay attention rather than just stroll along and make a random choice.
And even if they did just make a random choice it would likely have an overall self cancelling effect.

Abstaining, voting for none of the Above or choosing the "least worst option"of the 2 that allegedly are the only ones capable or with a chance of being elected is the worst possible thing to do and will guarantee no change.

vote for an outsider that will at least show some support for more choice. Maybe other people will decide to stand as candidates or continue to campaign because people actually show an interest 😉

vote to support the chance of having a real choice if nothing else

I'm all for this, I'd also like to see the none of the aboves counted and published with the election results.

Compusory voting is very likely to make more peple pay attention

What makes you say that?

If it is compulsory some may decide to think about it differently.

If paying taxes was optional do you suppose people would seek tax advice or educate themselves?

What reason is there to not encourage people to participate and take interest in local and national affairs that affect them?

If it is compulsory some may decide to think about it differently.

Society shows us that when things considered onerous are made compulsory, it creates resentment and therefore even more desire to avoid doing whatever the compulsion is meant to achieve.

Compulsory voting would require NOTA on the ballot. People who don't care would either put that down or make a flippant decision without any research.

It won't turn them into conscientious democratic citizens.

What we need is to encourage those who do want to vote to make rational decisions. This requires compulsory political and perhaps philosophical education. That would be easy to implement and pretty low cost if it's integrated into whatever it is they do for social or personal education these days.

This section on the wikipedia page on compulsory voting is interesting:

Research[edit]
A study of a Swiss canton where compulsory voting was enforced found that compulsory voting significantly increased electoral support for leftist policy positions in referendums by up to 20 percentage points.[29] Another study found that the effects of universal turnout in the United States would likely be small in national elections, but that universal turnout could matter in close elections, such as the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.[30] In the United States, Democrats would most likely fare better under universal voting (as nonvoters are generally more Democratic) but due to the dearth of close races in the United States, universal voting would change "very few election outcomes."[31] Research on compulsory voting in Australia found that it increased the vote shares and seat shares of the Australian Labor Party by 7 to 10 percentage points and led to greater pension spending at the national level.[32] While [weakly enforced] compulsory voting in Austria increased overall turnout by roughly 10 percentage points, there is "no evidence that this change in turnout affected government spending patterns (in levels or composition) or electoral outcomes."[33] A 2016 study finds that compulsory voting reduces the gender gap in electoral engagement in several ways.[34] A 2016 study of the Netherlands found that the abolition of compulsory voting increased the vote share of Dutch social democratic parties while reducing the vote share of "minor and extreme parties".[35]
Research suggests that higher rates of voter turnout lead to higher top tax rates.[36]

What we need is to encourage those who do want to vote to make rational decisions. This requires [b]compulsory political and perhaps philosophical education.[/b] That would be easy to implement and pretty low cost if it's integrated into whatever it is they do for social or personal education these days.

That sounds reasonable.. 😕

Who would set the agenda for this compulsory "education" ? 😉

Compulsory voting...It won't turn them into conscientious democratic citizens.

maybe not everyone, but why not?

Funnily enough my girlfriend is a teacher and she has started teaching politics in morning tutor time (it was her suggestion - she studied politics).

A lot of teenagers are completely out of touch with politics, most of them have absolutely no idea what right wing and left wing mean for instance, or what parties views are on the NHS, school funding or any of that stuff.

Teachers are supposed to be neutral on issues like politics though I guess most of them are probably left wing.

What we need is to encourage those who do want to vote to make rational decisions. [b]This requires compulsory political and perhaps philosophical education.[/b] That would be easy to implement and pretty low cost if it's integrated into whatever it is they do for social or personal education these days.

Society shows us that when things considered onerous are made compulsory, it creates resentment and therefore even more desire to avoid doing whatever the compulsion is meant to achieve.

Compulsory voting would require NOTA on the ballot. People who don't care would either put that down or make a flippant decision without any research.