3 ms·

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 -

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.