Should we allow unofficial opinion "gallup" surveys ?

[Spiffor]

jdd2007 started an unofficial poll, to know who'd get elected, between Trip and Ninot, if elections were hold today.
This unofficial poll raised a debate, if such polls should be allowed or not.


Question is :
"Should we allow unofficial opinion surveys about elections ?"
Group 1 : We should allow them in all circumstances
Group 2 : We should forbid them in specific circumstances / periods (please explain)
Group 2 : We should forbid them in all circumstances."

If Group2 wins, I'll prepare an amendment to restrict / forbid opinion surveys (according to the wishes of the majority in group 2). If Group1 wins, I will not prepare an amendment : there is no need to make a law to explicitely allow smeone to do something.

This question is not about unofficial polls as a whole, because unofficial polls such as the one you're reading now are necessary to orient our policies.

This poll will last 5 days

[jdd2007]

a 'gallup' poll is essentially an unofficial opinion poll. it does no harm.

[Spiffor]

My view is that it does harm. If the candidates know likely results of the election beforehand, they'll try to change their behaviour to something unnatural, to get the odds in their favor.

It can also influence voters, in the bad way. Some people, thinking the lection has already been played, won't bother to vote. After all, why vote in an already won (or lost) election ?
This is a well-known phenomenon in politics, it happens pretty often.

IRL, gallup polls can be useful, so that established politicians know if the people are satisfied. However, in Apolytonia, these polls serve no purpose : those who are unhappy can voice it, and they will be listened by the ones in charge. Plus, elections are held every month, which is a very short while compared to RL, and they can be seen as permanent popularity contests.

To summarize, these gallup polls are useless, and rig the one poll which counts, the election. You'd guess my position

[Epistax]

I'll state my view again:

A pre-poll-poll can either hurt, or do nothing, that is it will either sway votes, or not effect votes at all. In fact, results of a vote should not be published at all until the vote is closed (the US is working towards this but timezones present problems).

A pre-poll-poll cannot help however, in any way because it does not provide any qualitative information about the candidates, just how people decided to vote on a whim.

In short- they may hurt, they can't help, don't have them.

[LordImpact]

Presidential candidates do PRIVATE INDEPENDANT polling all the time. They call people up at home and ask who they are planning to vote for and why. Public ones such as the gallup polls posted recently cause more harm than good. If there was some way for the candidates to poll and have the results only for their own reference then i would agree with it. It is a good thing that a candidate can get feedback from the public on why they are not getting voted for. But posting the results publicly will only hurt their campaign.

--Impact

[jdd2007]

it helps candidates and parties plan elections...

[Epistax]

Originally posted by LordImpact
Presidential candidates do PRIVATE INDEPENDANT polling all the time. They call people up at home and ask who they are planning to vote for and why. Public ones such as the gallup polls posted recently cause more harm than good. If there was some way for the candidates to poll and have the results only for their own reference then i would agree with it. It is a good thing that a candidate can get feedback from the public on why they are not getting voted for. But posting the results publicly will only hurt their campaign.

--Impact

I agree entirely. If a campaign wants to do a close ballet, that could be great. It satisfies the want to predict the election and is much less likely to scew results.

[Sheik]

And I will state my view again:

what ever happened to free speech and democracy. We must allow opinion polls. You just cant silence people because you don't like what they are saying. This is part of the process. Maybe we should just get rid of campaign threads because they might influence the election. This is ridiculous. Of course we should allow UNOFFICIAL polls this is a democracy game and the poeple must be heard.

And so what if they may effect elections. I dont think they will but if they do who cares. If I post a thread saying NINOT RULES that may influence elections. Should I not be able to say NINOT RULES because someones vote may be influenced?

any citizen should be able to post a poll or thread on anything he wants whenever he wants. The official polls will say OFFICIAL. Everyone has a right to be heard. This is like saying television stations cant poll citizens before real presidential elections because it may influence the way people vote. Campaigning and polling are both parts of any elections.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Epistax

A pre-poll-poll cannot help however, in any way because it does not provide any qualitative information about the candidates, just how people decided to vote on a whim.

In short- they may hurt, they can't help, don't have them.

Just because something isn't helpful doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. By eliminating unofficial opinion polls you are setting a precedent against freedom of speech. We must allow unofficial opinion polls. jdd2007 has a right to say anything he wants just like everyone else. And he is also right that it will help canadates plan elections. If it doesn't help then why do politicians in the United States and other countries do it? Its not so they can waste time and money.

[LordImpact]

I agree that anyone has a right to poll. But I think these gallop polls will end up hurting one, if not both of the candidates. They need to be private, a research tool only for the candidates. If the candidates want to make it public then they can, but they should both agree on it and the poll should be started by a candidate. The presidential poll that we have now was not.

--Impact

[Epistax]

I will try to explain this-- freedom of speech does not give the right to say whatever you want.

Examples:
*Giving trade secrets to anyone.
*Giving governmental secrets to anyone.
*Insider trading (combination of being told something you aren't allowed to know, then acting on it)
*Disturbing the peace (after someone requests you do not communicate something to them, doing so anyway is against the law)
*Slander/Libel

Now this is not directly related to the pre-poll-polls, but this is to show you the freedom of speech is not universal. You do not have the right to communicate anything you want, and that's a good thing. If you think otherwise, you don't have the right to complain about email spam, banners, pop ups, etc online (just a tag on fact).

Simply doing something like a pre-poll-poll because you WANT to may not be directly against any law, but it's irresponsible. If something is wrong for any minor reason, and you do it anyway, it's also immoral.

I would hope the people in power of the forums would eliminate such polls, but I don't think it is necessary. I hope people will think about their actions in the future instead of doing them simply because they have the right to; that's not a reason.

peace

[LordImpact]

especially if you start a pre election poll without the consent of the candidates...

--Impact

[jdd2007]

i asked trip if it was ok with him and constitutional. he said yes. im sorry for not consulting ninot, but i didnt think it was neccessary at the time.

[Verto]

If what some of you have said is true, then that will mean that I cannot create a thread to discuss why I think ---- should be president or whatever, because it may or may not influence someone. If there are four pages of posts about how glorious the candidate is, that would be the same as a pre-poll-poll in which one candidate won in a landslide.

So if you get rid of those polls, then you can't allow threads titled "Who are you going to vote for and why," or "Why I will pledge my life to serving Trip".

Pre-poll-polls are supposed to show who the voters support. Certainly some people will look at the results and decide not to vote for their candidate, or not to vote at all. The same can hold true for a lot of other threads and posts. If you ban these polls because of the reasons you have mentioned, then it won't end there.

Polls may or may not show the true opinion of the people, but they should be allowed - you will have to put up with them just like I have to put up with democrats and haters of america.

[Epistax]

Originally posted by Verto
If what some of you have said is true, then that will mean that I cannot create a thread to discuss why I think ---- should be president or whatever, because it may or may not influence someone. If there are four pages of posts about how glorious the candidate is, that would be the same as a pre-poll-poll in which one candidate won in a landslide.

This will be my last post on the subject (and they rejoiced) but yes. this is a problem too. The only way to get an honest choice between two people, is only to hear the facts about each. If someone posts something in favor or someone, they are bound to use bias that others may not pick up on and treat as the complete truth. I don't expect us to get such a good democracy, but anything better than the real-life media driven one we have in the US would be wonderful. It's all about morals and ethics.

If you like a candidate, vote for them. Don't try to impress your views on others. Don't tell your views to others either, let everyone decide for themselves. By impressing yourself on others, your undermining the basics of a democracy- freedom of thought. Let them reach the same conclusions you did. If they reach a different one, don't try to change their mind, else you oppress their train of reason.

I know many people believe that whoever can campaign the most should win, but I believe in the natural thought progression. After the agendas are laid down and I think my way through, I will not change my decision with any information except straight out of the candidate's mouth. This also allows for an evolution of my thought as I see if I made good choices.

If you demand to campaign with brut strength, and have these polls, I'll just have to do my part of ignoring them, or falsifying data to add to the unreliability of the polls for purposes of their eventual demise.

I will now shut up.