Should we allow unofficial opinion "gallup" surveys ?

[Panag]

Originally posted by UberKruX
forbid them at any time. same goes for "public opinion polls" two i can recall being nothing but slander fodder.

hi ,

there should be a way to control them , ....

otherwise its going to get a bit to confusing , ...just imaginge ten ne poll's every day , ....

have a nice day

[Verto]

The accuracy of the polls dont matter. Whether or not it is nothing but "slander fodder" is also irrelevant. If I want to post a thread "Why UberKruX deserves to be launched from a catapult", shouldn't I be allowed to?

Or if I want to start a thread called "Why UberKruX is my god", I should not be kept from doing so.

If I keep the posts clean and up to the standards of Apolyton, who are you to tell me what I cannot post? You cannot prohibit all public opinion polls because two of them were nothing but slander fodder.

That's like not allowing any more presidents, because the one we had was a bad one, or no more cities because they fell into disorder.

True, some limits must be placed to prevent libel(slander is a spoken falsehood), but some of you are demanding actions that are too far.

[Kloreep]

Verto, this poll is about election polls specifically; it does not touch other polls or threads.

While I would agree with your slippery slope argument in RL, this is a small group of people all dedicated to making this a fun experience for citizens and ministers alike. Anyone attempting to limit the freedoms and abilities of Apolytonia's citizens will face an uphill battle (As the vehement opinions in this discussion proves ); and the more radical the amendment, the steeper the hill.

Anyway, I think I've successfully flogged a metaphor or two to death. In short: while precedents are something you have to worry about when you have courts and legislators making and breaking laws, I think we can trust ourselves to use our votes to keep our freedom of speech.

[Sheik]

My concern is it may not stop with just election polls.


Verto I agree with almost everything you said except that there should be limits. I don't think we should have any limits.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sheik
My concern is it may not stop with just election polls.


Verto I agree with almost everything you said except that there should be limits. I don't think we should have any limits.

OH NO! A DIA GUY AGREEING WITH A UFC GUY!

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Sheik
My concern is it may not stop with just election polls.

Like I said, that would be a different kind of amendment, and we could vote it down. This current poll is solely about whether an amendment on gallup polls should be brought forward for a vote, and what tone it should take.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Verto
UFP GUY

United Federation of Planets......

Anyway, gallup polls (as many have already said) skew the results. I am not in favor of them.

[Verto]

Sorry, Tass. If I was perfect, I'd be on the right hand of God.

OH NO! MY MENTIONING OF GOD MAY HAVE INFRINGED UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS!!

The only way I see such polls ever possibly "skewing results" is if someone views the results first. And what does that tell you about the person? He looks at what the majority of the people say, then acts. He will do the same for "official" election polls.

And while you may not like them, right now the people seem to be in favor, unless you count the last two together...anyways. If you remove "gallup" polls for the reasons previously stated, you would have to take away the choice to view results before voting on official polls.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Verto
Sorry, Tass. If I was perfect, I'd be on the right hand of God.

OH NO! MY MENTIONING OF GOD MAY HAVE INFRINGED UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS!!

Yeah. You really should be more considerate of others.

The only way I see such polls ever possibly "skewing results" is if someone views the results first. And what does that tell you about the person? He looks at what the majority of the people say, then acts. He will do the same for "official" election polls.

And while you may not like them, right now the people seem to be in favor, unless you count the last two together...anyways. If you remove "gallup" polls for the reasons previously stated, you would have to take away the choice to view results before voting on official polls.

In a gallup poll, they vote, they see the result. Well, person A is winning so person B must not have a chance. They decide to vote for person A.

Not everyone just checks the results at first, but once you vote you do (usually) get a chance to see the results. That could affect their vote whether they inteded it or not.

[Verto]

Yeah, thats the problem with a government FOR the people, BY the people, OF the people...democracies inherit all those terrible human traits...how inconsiderate...

And, if Person A is already winning, what does it matter if people who voted for B switch sides? Even if nobody switched, wouldn't A be the winner?

MY INCONSIDERATE REMARKS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Verto
And, if Person A is already winning, what does it matter if people who voted for B switch sides? Even if nobody switched, wouldn't A be the winner?

Person A is winning the gallup poll. and that may only be by one. Well, the guy who voted for person B notices person A winning the gallup poll, and that either discourages him from voting, or he votes for person A.

It can happen.

[Verto]

So you are telling me that, because candidate A is winning by a single vote, that people will vote from A instead of B, their original candidate?

They would be making the assumption that no one else is voting for B, because of that single vote, so there is no point in wasting their vote.

I really hope this is farfetched, although I know it is, unfortunately, a possible situation...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Verto
So you are telling me that, because candidate A is winning by a single vote, that people will vote from A instead of B, their original candidate?

Yes I am. Human beahvior does show that most people tend to go with the majority, if thye have a choice.

They would be making the assumption that no one else is voting for B, because of that single vote, so there is no point in wasting their vote.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand you there. Could you please rephrase?

I really hope this is farfetched, although I know it is, unfortunately, a possible situation...

This specific situation is, however humans capacity to go with the majority is not very farfetched....

[Verto]

I will gladly rephrase:

In this scenario, Candidate A is beating Candidate B by one vote.

Billy Bob opens the thread, and sees the poll. He plans on voting for B. However, first he views results. Now, according to your above statements, he will see that A is winning by one vote. Now, also according to your above statements, he will either (1) not vote, which would keep the poll at its current state where A is winning, or (2) switch his vote.

Now, for his vote to not matter because Candidate A is winning by one vote, he would have to believe that he is the only person who hasn't voted, or the only person who would ever vote for B.

If it is only a one vote difference, then I believe that they would vote for their favored candidate, thus bringing it to a tie. Then later on, someone else will come on, and vote for A or B. Thus it continues until we come into the predicament of A winning in the poll, or vice versa.

The only way I see someone not voting, or switching sides, is if A is beating B in a Ronald Reagon landslide. But, by this point, does it matter if he switches sides or doesn't vote?

I might have wasted all this time and still not be understood...

Oh well.

[LordImpact]

I think Tassadar means "billy bob" will vote for the majority as seen in a pre election poll when he votes in the actual election. I'm not sure, but can you view the results of a pole without voting?

--Impact