Even anomalies in an election or poll pattern may have explanations that aren't rooted in anything beyond lobbying cliques getting their act together to try to sway the vote as they wish. Think of it sort of like when different groups run around herding bus loads of the elderly from select assisted living/nursing home facilities and dump them all at once at polling stations to vote against a public school funding bill -- that too sort of in hopes that exit poll data being disseminated widely publicly will sway further votes as they wish. People who voted early against this change probably did much the same, just not with as much (if any) lobbying effort beyond this thread. That said, people who voted in favor of a Facebook-like change seem to have latched onto different ideas of what this feature will be like even when there has been limited clarity about what version of this feature will be delivered -- a great vehicle for gathering votes is when the "change" marketed is rather amorphous in nature and subject to change/re-definition by administrative sort of fiat even post-voting/polling.

In plenty of places, who cast a vote in elections is public info -- even the means of voting and when the person voted is public info. That info being out there in public does have some substantial history of reducing voting fraud/irregularities.

Speaking of voting, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring all members with voting rights to exercise their voting right as a condition of participation in society, even if the exercise is to cast a ballot that selects no candidate/proposal. FT/IB can't do that sort of thing, annoying as it may be?