4 ms·

this is an interesting take. why do you say that?

orev 4y ago
It’s pretty easy: if someone is projected to win, voters who were planning to vote for that person might stay home to avoid “wasting their time” since they’re going to win anyway. Then that person doesn’t win because the voters didn’t show up.
- LgWoodenBadger 4y ago
  Or conversely, people don’t go out and vote for their candidate because their candidate is projected to lose.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- SllX 4y ago
  People are going to make their own electoral decisions on their own terms, whether you, or I or anyone else agrees with them or how they came about their decisions. That’s about as democratic as it gets. Forecasts can inform those decisions, but they don’t decide them. EDIT: I have no love for iOS’s tendency to capitalize “democratic” or “republican” against my wishes.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Which is remarkably stupid considering election day is voting for dozens or more positions.
hattmall 4y ago
It's really not there's a lot of places where publishing polls is illegal. Public opinion is easily influenced by perception of public opinion. That's basically all of style, design and fashion, and polls can always be crafted to get the results you want or outright lie. Also what actual benefit does it serve to poll before elections if not to influence the outcome. I think maybe internal polling could be ok. But is it? Should politicians have their positions and push them, why should they change or hide their views in response to polling. We should be able to vote on unfiltered versions of politicians not people who are malleable to whatever will let them win.
- kelipso 4y ago
  I thought the whole idea of a democracy is to carry out the will of the people through the politicians they vote into power. In that case, politicians following polls is the most ideal way. It's not like the people a large number of politicians they can vote into specific offices; almost always it's a choice between a small number of politicians.

orev 4y ago

It’s pretty easy: if someone is projected to win, voters who were planning to vote for that person might stay home to avoid “wasting their time” since they’re going to win anyway. Then that person doesn’t win because the voters didn’t show up.

LgWoodenBadger 4y ago
Or conversely, people don’t go out and vote for their candidate because their candidate is projected to lose.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SllX 4y ago
People are going to make their own electoral decisions on their own terms, whether you, or I or anyone else agrees with them or how they came about their decisions. That’s about as democratic as it gets. Forecasts can inform those decisions, but they don’t decide them. EDIT: I have no love for iOS’s tendency to capitalize “democratic” or “republican” against my wishes.
peteradio 4y ago
Which is remarkably stupid considering election day is voting for dozens or more positions.

hattmall 4y ago

It's really not there's a lot of places where publishing polls is illegal. Public opinion is easily influenced by perception of public opinion. That's basically all of style, design and fashion, and polls can always be crafted to get the results you want or outright lie. Also what actual benefit does it serve to poll before elections if not to influence the outcome. I think maybe internal polling could be ok. But is it? Should politicians have their positions and push them, why should they change or hide their views in response to polling. We should be able to vote on unfiltered versions of politicians not people who are malleable to whatever will let them win.

kelipso 4y ago
I thought the whole idea of a democracy is to carry out the will of the people through the politicians they vote into power. In that case, politicians following polls is the most ideal way. It's not like the people a large number of politicians they can vote into specific offices; almost always it's a choice between a small number of politicians.