"Poll Day" (during Election Campaigns)

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

I'd be interested to know what you think of "Poll Day" as a concept:

Poll Day - Video Blog

Essentially, it's about cutting off polls one week or at least a few days before Election Day so everybody gets a break and gets to think on their own.

Note: Where possible, I post the videos both on my video blog and YouTube because not everybody has the right codec to view the video within the blog. However, the video "transcript" (if you don't want to watch the video) is only on the blog page, not YouTube. Note also that this video's 14 minutes long, too long for YouTube (max 10 minutes unless I paid extra).

[benny]

Essentially, it's about cutting off polls one week or at least a few days before Election Day so everybody gets a break and gets to think on their own.

The more I think about polls, the more I'm tempted to suggest that we go a lot further: to get people to think on the basis of relevant information, I propose that we try to convince people to refuse to reveal their party choice and, if they are unable to convince the interviewers to hang up the phones and quit their jobs, to give random answers to their questions.

Edited July 25, 2009 by benny

[segnosaur]

I'd be interested to know what you think of "Poll Day" as a concept:

Poll Day - Video Blog

Essentially, it's about cutting off polls one week or at least a few days before Election Day so everybody gets a break and gets to think on their own.

Soooo.... what you're saying is that you want to curtail the concept of 'freedom of speech'. And that's just what you're suggesting... regardless of why you want to limit polling prior to an election, you would be cutting off any media organizations, political parties, and private groups who wanted to release polling results but could not.

Frankly, I'd much rather not limit our freedom of speech any more than it has been, even if you might thing there are valid reasons for it.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

Soooo.... what you're saying is that you want to curtail the concept of 'freedom of speech'. And that's just what you're suggesting... regardless of why you want to limit polling prior to an election, you would be cutting off any media organizations, political parties, and private groups who wanted to release polling results but could not.

Frankly, I'd much rather not limit our freedom of speech any more than it has been, even if you might thing there are valid reasons for it.

Well, as I outline in the video, restrictions such as I'm suggesting are already in place. Polls aren't held now in the day or so before the vote. So I'm not inventing the idea. I'm just suggesting moving it "back" a few days, which in a longer campaign won't make much difference to pollsters -- who say they don't influence voters intentions anyway.

The pollsters will still have their way with us for 95+ percent of the campaign, not much different than it is now.

But this would give some breathing space so politicians would have to deal directly with voters.

Maybe I just resent the way the media outlets lean on "polls" too much as news. Just reporting the "horse race" results is just so simple!

I'm thinking that media outlets might be too terrified to report serious things like "platform costs", "unreasonable promises", "unreported scams or election expenses", "campaign dirty tricks", all of which we hear about afterwards -- when it doesn't matter any more. The voting's done!

We know the party activists will turn out to vote. I'm worried about even one voter not voting because they "think it's been decided, because all the polls says so".

There are already so many reasons for voters to just "not bother". "Poll Day" and its consequences (ie. poll-free final lap) will be one very exciting time! One big "poll day" followed by a final push where it's just between the voter and campaigner. Imagine how hard the politicians will work to try to please voters, and the firm commitments they'll be willing to make that they might not otherwise -- because they won't have Ekos or Strategic Counsel or anybody else pumping voters' heads full of "97 times out of 100 plus or minus 4 percent".

As I say in the video, Parties can have their internal polls going strong and so can the professionals, but I'm suggesting they "give us a break" regarding publication, and it's only a "stretch" of the current rules already in place that limit publication.

Elsewhere on this board we're trying to come up with answers as to how to improve the election campaign situation and to reverse the trend of lower and lower participation.

Some suggest mandatory voting. Others say lets count the ballots differently, eg. electoral reform. Still more talk about electronic or on-line voting.

We have to try to make the campaign process about the "voter", rather than all those powerful interests out there who'd be perfectly happy if no one other than their own voted at all!

[benny]

Frankly, I'd much rather not limit our freedom of speech any more than it has been, even if you might thing there are valid reasons for it.

You open the door to hate.

[segnosaur]

Soooo.... what you're saying is that you want to curtail the concept of 'freedom of speech'. And that's just what you're suggesting... regardless of why you want to limit polling prior to an election, you would be cutting off any media organizations, political parties, and private groups who wanted to release polling results but could not.

Frankly, I'd much rather not limit our freedom of speech any more than it has been, even if you might thing there are valid reasons for it.

Well, as I outline in the video, restrictions such as I'm suggesting are already in place. Polls aren't held now in the day or so before the vote. So I'm not inventing the idea. I'm just suggesting moving it "back" a few days, which in a longer campaign won't make much difference to pollsters -- who say they don't influence voters intentions anyway.

Yes, I know that there are already limits on poll results. What you're doing is suggeting taking an abuse of freedom of speech, and making it worse.

Makes me think, if your party thinks curtailing one of our basic freedoms is a good thing, where exactly is it going to draw the line?

Maybe I just resent the way the media outlets lean on "polls" too much as news. Just reporting the "horse race" results is just so simple!

Strange, during the last election results, I had no problem hearing lots of information about various party platforms and campaign happenings, even if poll results occasionally made headline news.

We know the party activists will turn out to vote. I'm worried about even one voter not voting because they "think it's been decided, because all the polls says so".

Ever think that if a person is REALLY that stupid, then maybe they shouldn't actually BE voting?

(Ok, that's not a serious response)

There are already so many reasons for voters to just "not bother". "Poll Day" and its consequences (ie. poll-free final lap) will be one very exciting time!

So, you think its valid to curtail freedom of speech (more so than it is now), for the 'excitement'.

[segnosaur]

Frankly, I'd much rather not limit our freedom of speech any more than it has been, even if you might thing there are valid reasons for it.

You open the door to hate.

So?

As distasteful as I find 'hate speech' to be, it is still the price to pay for having the right to free speech.

If you are willing to justify curtailing free speech to prevent hate, what will you do when others demand similar curtailment?

I'm a believer in the 'vampire doctrine'. The best way to destroy 'hate' is to publicize it, hold it up to the light, show how rediculous it is and get people to see it for the ignorance that it is.

[ToadBrother]

The more I think about polls, the more I'm tempted to suggest that we go a lot further: to get people to think on the basis of relevant information, I propose that we try to convince people to refuse to reveal their party choice and, if they are unable to convince the interviewers to hang up the phones and quit their jobs, to give random answers to their questions.

Underlying this seems to be the notion that we're all a pack of simpering morons who can simply be swayed by the reporting of a poll. If we're that dumb, maybe we shouldn't even have elections at all.

Thanks, I like liberty better than I like your authoritarian proclamations.

[benny]

Underlying this seems to be the notion that we're all a pack of simpering morons who can simply be swayed by the reporting of a poll. If we're that dumb, maybe we shouldn't even have elections at all.

Thanks, I like liberty better than I like your authoritarian proclamations.

Democracy means dividing (demos) the pack.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

Makes me think, if your party thinks curtailing one of our basic freedoms is a good thing, where exactly is it going to draw the line?

The party won't draw any lines -- these are proposals. The people will draw the line.

[Dave_ON]

The party won't draw any lines -- these are proposals. The people will draw the line.

But the people aren't drawing the lines, you're suggesting the lines be drawn for them.

[segnosaur]

The party won't draw any lines -- these are proposals. The people will draw the line.

Which is not necessarily a good thing.

In our western democracies, the rights of the minority should be respected. By suggesting 'the people' should draw the line risks a situation where the rights of the minority get trampled by the majority (i.e. mob rules).

[benny]

In our western democracies, the rights of the minority should be respected. By suggesting 'the people' should draw the line risks a situation where the rights of the minority get trampled by the majority (i.e. mob rules).

Democracy is essentially a mob-buster process.