Should we allow unofficial opinion "gallup" surveys ?

[LordImpact]

But they'll still see the results afterward, and may change their vote in the real election...

OT: You're right, we need another Ronnie. VIVA REAGANOMICS!

--Impact

[Aggie]

I agree with all that oppose these polls. Yes there is always freedom of speech, but in ALL societies there are acknowledged limits. Limiting opinion polls would help this game in many ways.
1) prevent confusion
a)We all know that it is very possible that somebody will vote in the opinion poll and not the main election
b) with all these polls we will get voter fatigue
2) Polls can affect outcomes of elections, thus they should not be done, but if they are done, I think not allowing them within a week would be a good idea.
3) They serve no useful purpose.
I think we who are opposed to this should try to get as many people as possible to vote for our cause so we can end this threat to democracy.
Best Regards
Aggie

[JSeeds]

(about Canada)

a confused nation plunging into socialism...

I don't think you know what you're talking about here - This is very far from reality. Don't be deceived by the name of the governing party.

I agree with you in that the polls should not be banned - simply limited in some way.

[Verto]

I don't think you know what you're talking about here - This is very far from reality. Don't be deceived by the name of the governing party.

I was referring more towards the actions of the government.

[Captain]

Yes, if there was some way of also preventing voters from seeing the current poll standings before they voted... that would be best.

As it is, people can still see the poll standings before the election time is up, and thus swing their votes from what they would have originally had they not known.

Is there any way of doing this? Mods?

[civman2000]

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! The people have the right to make unofficial opinion polls, there's no reason to abolish tehm (and this would be a constitutional amendment anyways so a no option would need 67% to pass ).

[kring]

I may check out a poll before I vote, but it rarely changes me to either not vote or to vote for the ahead candidate. While I am a party member (I think), I vote for the person, not the party. A two party system is more of a threat to our group than gallup polls.

If a person is dumb enough to vote based on a poll, then they get when they deserve.

Locally, back in the mid 90's exit polls showed the incumbent ahead in the polls by several %age points, I still voted for his opponent. Guess what? That's right, his opponent won by several %age points.

While I am not a fan of gallup polls for many of the reasons stated by others, I do think:

1) people here are intelligent to vote not based on poll outcomes;

2) those disclaimers mentioned several pages back make sense to me;

3) a one week pre poll limit (or several days) also is acceptable to me, since by that time, most people have forgotten the results anyway, and it will be so far down the list, most people won't go looking for it.

4) freedom of speech issue. While I know there are limits to such, I don't consider this one of them.

If we limit gallup polls, then we need to limit campaigns for the EXACT same reason.

On a side note, how about requiring candidates to honor their campaign issues if elected.

[civman2000]

If they're unofficial and clearly not spam, what could be wrong with them? ANd maybe if the results are different from the election results that'll be something to put in the history

[Puupertti Ruma]

When they are so called "official" gallup polls ie. the poll's maker point out that they are gallup polls, they are OK.