4 ms·

I actually think we should ban polling, too. Make the election about getting the message out and convincing people, not about a horse race between two numbers.

CobrastanJorji 2y ago
Could be a good idea, but I suspect asking people what they think about political candidates enjoys such core first amendment protection that banning it would require amending the Constitution. And practically, nobody in power will want to ban them because they're a tool for staying in power. Same reason that we'll probably always have a two party system.
11101010001100 2y ago
[flagged]
Krssst 2y ago
In a one-turn voting system, polls are very useful as a kind of "turn zero". The important point is that one should always tell the poller who they actually want to vote for (a possible third candidate) so that if this candidate actually stands a chance it can be seen in the poll and be voted for. In the actual election, if you see your third candidate has no chance you can vote for someone that can actually win. Changing the voting system seems much more important than trying to mess with the polls. However, regulating polls to enforce their trustworthiness is probably a good idea since they may have so much power. In France the presidential election is two-turns and even then I think we need polls since there are so many candidates in the first turn diluting votes.
- jfengel 2y ago
  The US is really a two-turn voting system. The first turn is the primaries. It's quite different from the French presidential election, but the first round is open to all candidates. A non-aligned candidate would have to formally join a party to run for the nomination, but that's a matter of paperwork, not ideology. If they win office, they owe the party no obligations at all. The French system may well be preferable, but the American system really does have more opportunities for non-aligned candidates than people realize. They tend to dismiss the primaries as unimportant, but they really are a first round of voting -- that's why they're called "primary". Anybody who wants influence can start there, rather than jumping straight into the general election.
  - yespocolypse 2y ago
    [dead]
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Why not ranked choice?
  - Krssst 2y ago
    I would love to have ranked choices as a voting system in France. It tends to promote moderate candidates but because it would change the outcome of elections so significantly it's probably almost impossible to set up (all parties that would lose from it would go all-in in opposing such a change).
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Make the election about getting the message out and convincing people, not about a horse race between two numbers Polling helps elites and voters alike allocate resources. Biden was replaced in part due to polls. Similarly, if a race in my state becomes unexpectedly competitive, I’ll at attention more than I would have absent that signal.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Is that a good thing? The more you complicate the election process, particularly the more meta-information you add - such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it drives people to play silly meta-games, trying to "vote strategically", instead of just expressing their preferences. I feel this violates some fundamental assumptions about the democratic process - when most people play the metagame, the result is no longer expressing real, object-level preferences of the people. At the very least, it encourages "us vs. them" thinking instead of focusing on improving lives.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > more you complicate the election process, particularly the more meta-information you add - such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it drives people to play silly meta-games Agree with the former. Not the latter. Our elections are complicated because the process is complicated. To the degree I most appreciate polling, it's around things like ballot measures. > when most people play the metagame, the result is no longer expressing real, object-level preferences of the people In a democracy, yes. (One of the many reasons pure democracies don't work.) In a republic, consensus forming is fine.
thfuran 2y ago
If we only get to pick one thing, I'd much rather see us harmonize voting times between states so we don't have the election results rolling in before some people have voted.

CobrastanJorji 2y ago

Could be a good idea, but I suspect asking people what they think about political candidates enjoys such core first amendment protection that banning it would require amending the Constitution. And practically, nobody in power will want to ban them because they're a tool for staying in power. Same reason that we'll probably always have a two party system.

11101010001100 2y ago

[flagged]

Krssst 2y ago

In a one-turn voting system, polls are very useful as a kind of "turn zero". The important point is that one should always tell the poller who they actually want to vote for (a possible third candidate) so that if this candidate actually stands a chance it can be seen in the poll and be voted for. In the actual election, if you see your third candidate has no chance you can vote for someone that can actually win. Changing the voting system seems much more important than trying to mess with the polls. However, regulating polls to enforce their trustworthiness is probably a good idea since they may have so much power. In France the presidential election is two-turns and even then I think we need polls since there are so many candidates in the first turn diluting votes.

jfengel 2y ago
The US is really a two-turn voting system. The first turn is the primaries. It's quite different from the French presidential election, but the first round is open to all candidates. A non-aligned candidate would have to formally join a party to run for the nomination, but that's a matter of paperwork, not ideology. If they win office, they owe the party no obligations at all. The French system may well be preferable, but the American system really does have more opportunities for non-aligned candidates than people realize. They tend to dismiss the primaries as unimportant, but they really are a first round of voting -- that's why they're called "primary". Anybody who wants influence can start there, rather than jumping straight into the general election.
- yespocolypse 2y ago
  [dead]
paulryanrogers 2y ago
Why not ranked choice?
- Krssst 2y ago
  I would love to have ranked choices as a voting system in France. It tends to promote moderate candidates but because it would change the outcome of elections so significantly it's probably almost impossible to set up (all parties that would lose from it would go all-in in opposing such a change).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Make the election about getting the message out and convincing people, not about a horse race between two numbers Polling helps elites and voters alike allocate resources. Biden was replaced in part due to polls. Similarly, if a race in my state becomes unexpectedly competitive, I’ll at attention more than I would have absent that signal.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Is that a good thing? The more you complicate the election process, particularly the more meta-information you add - such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it drives people to play silly meta-games, trying to "vote strategically", instead of just expressing their preferences. I feel this violates some fundamental assumptions about the democratic process - when most people play the metagame, the result is no longer expressing real, object-level preferences of the people. At the very least, it encourages "us vs. them" thinking instead of focusing on improving lives.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > more you complicate the election process, particularly the more meta-information you add - such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it drives people to play silly meta-games Agree with the former. Not the latter. Our elections are complicated because the process is complicated. To the degree I most appreciate polling, it's around things like ballot measures. > when most people play the metagame, the result is no longer expressing real, object-level preferences of the people In a democracy, yes. (One of the many reasons pure democracies don't work.) In a republic, consensus forming is fine.

thfuran 2y ago

If we only get to pick one thing, I'd much rather see us harmonize voting times between states so we don't have the election results rolling in before some people have voted.