3 ms·

How does the "shy conservative" come into play in telephone polls, for example? I guess it may well, but it seems a little strange. Is there something where on

by aidos 12y ago

How does the "shy conservative" come into play in telephone polls, for example? I guess it may well, but it seems a little strange. Is there something where on the day people swing more towards the safety of the incumbent? This study seems to suggest the opposite should true [0], at least when it comes to undecided voters. It's definitely an interesting question. How were the polls so wrong? Maybe in the closely contested seats the minor parties split labour? But why didn't the polls show that? I'd love to paw through the data. Really need to look at it on an electorate by electorate basis to see the variation between the parties (opinion vs actual). [0] http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

ZeroGravitas 12y ago
The basic theory is that people are embarrassed to vote in their own selfish self-interest. There are some who claim you get more conservative voters with online polls, because there's no human being there to judge them. I'd always heard that the undecided break towards the incumbent. I believe all the polls took that into account already though, and still got it wrong.
- vixen99 12y ago
  Oddly enough I would rather not have someone patronizingly voting for what they believe is in my best interests. How do they know what that might be? I would hope that people would always vote in their own 'selfish' self-interest.
  - aidos 12y ago
    I might vote for something that's not directly in my self-interest, believing it's more in the collective interest. I'm part of the collective and I feel a more even society is in my interests, even if that means I personally might not be as well off as I could be. That's really not patronizing. Though you could argue that I've done it for my own self-interests in the long term (who knows when you or your kids might rely on essential services) :) EDIT Also, it's pretty obvious that there are choices that are better for some groups of people (that aren't me). I don't know who "you" are, but there are voting choices that I can make that will help those classes of people, you may or may not be among them. I resent the idea that I'm being patronizing by making that choice (though in the strictest sense of the word "patron" maybe you're right).
    - vixen99 12y ago
      'Collective' suggests to me we're not going to agree. Patronizing in this context only means making assumptions (likely to be unwarranted I’d argue) about what someone else wants. But who is the 'someone' affected by a vote in a general election? How many people? To what extent? What about unknown/known effects on other people who you do not have in mind? You cannot know and the assumptions pile up. So much easier to vote on what you really do know to the extent that you can know or rationalize. As you say, we can surely agree that it isn’t always our immediate concerns that best serve our interests as in the simple example of imagining ourselves out of work or needing medical attention. As you say, this benefits everyone – point being that we also are ‘everyone’.

by aidos 12y ago

ZeroGravitas 12y ago

The basic theory is that people are embarrassed to vote in their own selfish self-interest. There are some who claim you get more conservative voters with online polls, because there's no human being there to judge them. I'd always heard that the undecided break towards the incumbent. I believe all the polls took that into account already though, and still got it wrong.

vixen99 12y ago
Oddly enough I would rather not have someone patronizingly voting for what they believe is in my best interests. How do they know what that might be? I would hope that people would always vote in their own 'selfish' self-interest.
- aidos 12y ago
  I might vote for something that's not directly in my self-interest, believing it's more in the collective interest. I'm part of the collective and I feel a more even society is in my interests, even if that means I personally might not be as well off as I could be. That's really not patronizing. Though you could argue that I've done it for my own self-interests in the long term (who knows when you or your kids might rely on essential services) :) EDIT Also, it's pretty obvious that there are choices that are better for some groups of people (that aren't me). I don't know who "you" are, but there are voting choices that I can make that will help those classes of people, you may or may not be among them. I resent the idea that I'm being patronizing by making that choice (though in the strictest sense of the word "patron" maybe you're right).
  - vixen99 12y ago
    'Collective' suggests to me we're not going to agree. Patronizing in this context only means making assumptions (likely to be unwarranted I’d argue) about what someone else wants. But who is the 'someone' affected by a vote in a general election? How many people? To what extent? What about unknown/known effects on other people who you do not have in mind? You cannot know and the assumptions pile up. So much easier to vote on what you really do know to the extent that you can know or rationalize. As you say, we can surely agree that it isn’t always our immediate concerns that best serve our interests as in the simple example of imagining ourselves out of work or needing medical attention. As you say, this benefits everyone – point being that we also are ‘everyone’.