21 ms·
This is common thinking. But there is a problem; outside a national vote you tend to get a massive skew on "voter opinion" because only a minority are involved
by ErrantX 16y ago
This is common thinking.
But there is a problem; outside a national vote you tend to get a massive skew on "voter opinion" because only a minority are involved.
This has been observed many times over the years; where the electorate were supposed to think one way but in actual fact voted differently. A recent example is how badly the liberals did in the recent UK elections.
Over a large enough population people are generally apathetic - so there is no guarantee that what seems obvious reflects the majority.
It's an unfortunate side effect of democracy :-)
- chaostheory 16y agoI'm not very familiar with UK elections, but I am aware of some voting irregularities in the US in recent years. It doesn't help when our electronic voting machines are subject to less scrutiny and transparency than the electronic slots in Las Vegas. From my limited and inexperienced viewpoint, I just feel that less transparency tends to encourage corruption and other unpleasant things. Hence my support for organizations such as wikileaks. "Who watches the watchers?"
- ErrantX 16y agoOh, well that's another issue - voting irregularities due to errors or corruption are a big problem in some areas. But I'm more talking about... here in the UK just before the general elections all of the main commentators and polls were predicting a lot of huge wins for our third party, the liberals. As it turned out, they had a terrible election - and are only "kingmakers" because the public was divided over the lead two parties. The outcome of the election was radically different to what was predicted - because it was only a vocal minority that was making their voice heard before the election. The vast majority of people are either apathetic or prefer to raise their voice via the ballot. Which is why it is always dangerous to quote "public opinion" :)