4 ms·
I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
by DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
- ajmurmann 10y agoI frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
- refurb 10y agoI really don't get it. Really? In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
- ajmurmann 10y agoWell, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago"You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win." That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?