[temp-dude-87844]

A totally anonymous vote is not possible, because at some point they must reveal the aggregate result, and this will allow the voters to reason about the way others must have voted. The minimum number of voters who must have taken a position is known. If the total pool of voters is small, they can talk among themselves, and this will reveal either impassioned people being publicly outspoken about their position, or people being deferential about their position. Irrespective of whether anyone is lying about how they voted, the deferential people will be under suspicion of having voted the way they're less likely to admit in public. This incentivizes people to seem more publicly impassioned about the position that's least likely to result in their condemnation.

[meowface]

This is true, but if they're convincing enough when acting publicly impassioned, it might be hard to identify all of the dissenters, at least. Voting would still be a major risk, but slightly less so than a non-anonymous vote.