How many votes do poll receive from unregistered voters?

@Tsarstepan​ 

 The vote doesn't stick unless you're signed into an IMDb account.

Perhaps, my post wasn't clear enough, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. A lot of unregistered users "vote" and their votes aren't counted by IMDb. If the votes of the "unregistered voters" were counted, I think we could make idk 5x or 10x more votes. Basically, my post is asking: "How many votes do we lose because of the registration process."

Yeah. If creating bots to cheat a given poll is relatively easy via the account creation process? The deluge of bots would become unmanageable if that gateway was open to allow everyone vote.

And remember that Amazon is a for-profit entity. They make money from the data mining and selling of the data they gather from registered accounts and their activities like other online for-profit entities.

And most if not all online polls take at least the voter's email before allowing the individual to vote. Why would Amazon break that trend?

Hi, TheOldJalapenoman. You seem to have a habit of utilizing the concept of analogy to shoehorn your social, civic or political concerns onto the forum. Thankfully most participants of the forum aren't willing to do this, so there is no mess to be made of it. I do sort of wonder why you do this, though. I mean, we could possibly be easily drawn off topic by discussing these problems. Regardless, I would recommend you visit a fact-checking website, from time to time, in an attempt to unravel any available truth of the events to which your sentiments pertain. So, the crimes being alleged are plausible, yet there is no publicly-available evidence of the them having been committed whatsoever, not even of circumstantial nature: no witnesses, no informants, no investigations, no indictments, no warrants, no arrests, no reports, no trials, no testimonies, nothing! All the public got was shallow documentary that proved absolutely nothing:

Okay, so the Republican Party has retaken the House of Representatives of the United States. I'm willing to bet that the House, even after the 3rd of January, 2023, won't open any hearings on the matter, just like the Senate of the United States didn't and won't before the 3rd of January, 2023. Granted, it could be argued that civil servants aligned with the Republican Party, on account of the capitol building riot of the 6th of January, 2021, are too embarrassed even attempt to open up an investigation. Just as well, the plausible claim could be made that the riot happened in the first place because of undercover federal law enforcement undertook schemes to entrap and bust people who would otherwise not commit any felonies. (e.g. COINTELPRO, the original Black Panthers, the Ruby Ridge Idaho siege, Jesse Snodgrass, et al.) I get it, and as near as I can tell, nobody of capability is brave enough to truly shine any light on the manner. So, in a way, there is nothing to discuss. The Democratic Party will continue to advocate for voting policies that make it easier for fraud to occur, and the Republican Party will continue to advocate for voting policies that make it harder for active duty military personnel and disabled citizens, of the United States, to vote. Almost as if both parties are full of pre-programmed non-player characters (NPCs). Hm. Sounds like an even deeper conspiracy theory unfortunately. Just food for thought, in the end.

Lol, I have the impression that we have reached Godwin's law without truly reaching Godwin's law. 

We went from unregistered IMDb users "voting". It is a fact that their vote aren't compiled, not a secret, the notice says so: "Only votes from registered or logged in users count towards the total."

I should point out that the ways in which the phrase "rigged election" is used leaves a lot of room for the ambiguity of the meaning. Every election has always "rigged" in some way, but usually not via literal manipulation, desecration, fabrication, stuffing or suppression of millions of individual ballots. As a figure of speech, critics have often referred to the fact that only candidates running on the ticket of one of the two major political parties can ever win not only the United States presidential election but usually also United States Senate elections, United States House elections, gubernatorial elections, State legislature elections, so on and so forth as "rigging". The fact that most of the time it is hopeless to run against an incumbent chosen at the district-wide level has been referred to as "rigging". Strategies of Gerrymandering have been referred to as "rigging". Strategies of swaying public opinion (like buying up much advertisement space on social media networks) have been referred to as "rigging". Now, people cannot even say this kind of stuff in certain ways without it being taken literally as baseless accusations of criminal-level rigging (fraud).

What is interesting is nobody even raises concerns about census rigging. In the United States, the distribution of the 435 legislator Seats in the House of Representatives of the United States is based upon census data. All kinds of diabolical schemes could be going on (as many have had gone on in the past), but people only start to cry or investigate when their preferred candidate loses an election, and unsurprisingly they're unprepared to explain the outcome with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without any omissions of factual data, without any omissions of important questions. I'm just disappointed that nobody who has access to the bully pulpit can articulate any actual new ideas to mitigate the problems that do or may exist. The politicians and journalists just keep defaulting to advocating for the same old ideas that failed to be ratified over the course of multiple decades.

"The thing, however, is that there is no proof of a concerted effort to rig the elections." Not even a memo revealing intent has surfaced. If anything, all the evidence (biased though it may be) that did wind up being uncovered pointed to intent on part of the "MAGA" side to do whatever was necessary to keep Donald Trump in office.

Not as if to make things even more intriguing, I've often wondered about the origins of many conspiracy theory ideas, and all too often there is an uncomfortable difficulty in explaining the origin in such a way as not to be a conspiracy theory. Every new lie, superstition, urban legend, false rumor, fallacious conjecture or self-contradicting hypothesis that is exposed winds up being blamed on somebody or anybody who has a reputation for this kind of stuff, hence why the names/titles of certain agencies of certain governments (even ones that have long collapsed) repeatedly pop up in discussions of the matter. Anyway, the point was that a lot of things in the world don't quite work the way conspiracy theory true-believers (as opposed to conniving obfuscationists) think that they work. Some of this stuff is really complex and cannot be reduced down to bumper sticker scholarship.

I wasn't aware of a group of truckers that disputed the accuracy of the vote leading to Justin Trudeau's re-election. Rather I had only been able to become aware of various protests undertaken by truckers who were or claimed to be disenfranchised by the pandemic quarantine policies enacted by the Canadian federal government. The mainstream media coverage of these protests way very spotty, and I observed some small quantity of folks in the United States complaining about the lack of coverage.

By the way, gaslighting is Merriam-Webster dictionary's word of the year, in 2022. I do wonder in conceivable way something like that could wind up "memory-holed" in the future. Haha.