Should we allow unofficial opinion "gallup" surveys ? - Page 2

Panag · July 7, 2002, 17:56

Quote:

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 · July 7, 2002, 18:13

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 · July 7, 2002, 22:45

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 · July 7, 2002, 23:31

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 · July 7, 2002, 23:49

Quote:

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 · July 7, 2002, 23:50

Quote:

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 · July 7, 2002, 23:50

Quote:

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:04

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:08

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:13

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:17

Quote:

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:21

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:29

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:37

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 · July 8, 2002, 00:40

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

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

Yep, that is correct.

Verto · July 8, 2002, 00:43

Oh well, this is where German hardhead kicks in.

I'm right, you're wrong, and nothing will change this!

The superiority of stubborness....

If you can't win, withdraw into a false reality...

But, if candidate A has a majority in a pre-election poll, that means he will win, unless people switch sides to B or don't vote at all.

Is this where we begin anew about pre-poll-polls? Fun.

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Oh well, this is where German hardhead kicks in.

I'm right, you're wrong, and nothing will change this!

The superiority of stubborness....

If you can't win, withdraw into a false reality...

But, if candidate A has a majority in a pre-election poll, that means he will win, unless people switch sides to B or don't vote at all.

Is this where we begin anew about pre-poll-polls? Fun.

But not everyone will vote in a pre election poll. And possibly not everyone will vote truthfully. Or during the tail end of a preelection poll Candidate A screws up. There are just so many possibilities to consider that would alter votes that I think it's just better not dealing with them.

Down with the gallup polls!

LordImpact · July 8, 2002, 00:49

I second that Tassadar

Verto · July 8, 2002, 00:55

There are some "disclaimers" that are already in place, and more that can be implemented.

Example:

"This is an UNOFFICIAL pre-election poll."

"This poll does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all the people of Apolytonia."

"The results of this poll are not conclusive, and are subject to change. They do not necessarily reflect the results of the upcoming OFFICIAL election."

"This poll is not meant to change/alter/bias your views and opinions. It is meant as a place for you to express them, not hide them."

I CAN go on, if you'd like.

Some could say there are so many possibilities to consider and many tasks that must be performed when having to deal with electing officials, and making sure everything is constitutional etc, that maybe we should crown our president life-long ruler.

Spiffor · July 8, 2002, 01:02

Verto : two RL example (sorry, they're both French, but that's the country I know best)

1995 : candidate Balladur was considered an absolute winner in the polls. His rival from the same party, candidate Chirac, had tremendous problems, and epoeple asked his seriously to retire, so that Balladur has more than 50% by the first round.
Chirac progressed slowly in the polls. As soon as he was slightly ahead of Balladur, his popularity in polls increased bigtime. Why ? Because people felt having Balladur winning was not a fatality.

2002 : candidate Le Pen starts his campaign with 7% in polls. He stagnates until last week before the election. The, Le Pen is in fashion, he climbs in the polls dramatically. People have no shame to vote for him... And because many people say "Le pen is good" in the polls, many undecided people think he's a worthy choice (I know personaly some people who thought like that). But the polls gave Jospin and Chirac still ahead of Le Pen, that's why some Jospin's voters voted for "alternate" candidates (I think you call them Naders). Result : Le Pen did make it to the second round.

I agree surveys aren't the only ones to skew the results, but they participate to it, and importantly. Surveys hurt freedom of thought much worse than campaigns : surveys adress themselves to human gregarious instict rather than human intelligence.

Verto · July 8, 2002, 01:24

I'll give you another example.

Ronald Reagon. First 1980's election, he remained behind, all the polls and liberal media ppl said he would lose. He wins. Why? Because the pollsters didn't call everyone. The polls didn't represent everyone. I am not saying that these polls are concrete, "this is how the election is gonna go because the gallup poll said so".

They influence a persons vote just the same as a lot of threads. Now, we are arguing the same stuff, which isn't really getting us anywhere. The problem is, I can't stop.

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
He wins. Why? Because the pollsters didn't call everyone

Although you do have to consider that it is harder to contact over 100,000 people who use different mediums of entertainment and communication (Telephone, television, etc) than it is to contact 200 people (only about, maybe 100-150 are actually reading) who are all gathered in the same part of the same forum...

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Ronald Reagon. First 1980's election, he remained behind, all the polls and liberal media ppl said he would lose. He wins. Why? Because the pollsters didn't call everyone. The polls didn't represent everyone. I am not saying that these polls are concrete, "this is how the election is gonna go because the gallup poll said so".

The possible voters in the opinion poll will represent 50%, 67% or maybe even 75% of all people who will vote. The differences between an opinion poll with 75% of the actual election and the election are much slimmer.

Quote:

They influence a persons vote just the same as a lot of threads. Now, we are arguing the same stuff, which isn't really getting us anywhere. The problem is, I can't stop.

The threads are places where candidates say why they think they should be President. I will quote what Spiffor said to define this:

Quote:

surveys adress themselves to human gregarious instict rather than human intelligence.

When people change their minds due to factual information in a thread, they're making an intelligent decision. Whey they look at a poll, they're not being influenced by something that requires an intelligent decision. Ick it's getting late, I don't think that made much sense.

And I know what you mean bout not being able to stop.

Verto · July 8, 2002, 01:31

I didn't say WHY they weren't contacted - it's not important. What IS important is that the majority weren't contacted.

They are basing their predictions of the opinions of a couple thousand.

And people should be able to do that. Do you think you have the right or duty to protect everyone from everything that may or may not influence their views?

I think the problem is, I am an American,a Republican specifically, whose opinions about Big Brother(government).

As a citizen of Apolytonia, am I not allowed to have similar views? Can I need have opinions as such?

I am curious as to where all those in favor of getting rid of gallup polls are from.

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
I didn't say WHY they weren't contacted - it's not important. What IS important is that the majority weren't contacted.

But they weren't contacted. In Apolyton, it's very easy to contact people who are playing and following the Civ3 Demo Game because they're all right here. Most of them reading this very message.

Quote:

And people should be able to do that. Do you think you have the right or duty to protect everyone from everything that may or may not influence their views?

No, but so far the people are saying they don't like prepolls. I specifically don't, but when combined with the greater collective (the people), then if the majority says NO, then its NO.

Quote:

I think the problem is, I am an American,a Republican specifically, whose opinions about Big Brother(government).

Eh republican? I'm your friendly, local socialist.

Verto · July 8, 2002, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
No, but so far the people are saying they don't like prepolls. I specifically don't, but when combined with the greater collective (the people), then if the majority says NO, then its NO.

Eh republican? I'm your friendly, local socialist.

You really cannot say the people don't like pre-polls. Where have you come across this revelation? Did you count the posts and which had more in favor? The poll above, which as we have all said, is inconclusive, shows that people want polls, possibly with some restriction.

I like the word "collective"...like the people's collective farms? Some things really don't die...

I believe the root of this argument is not about overwhelming concern for Apolytonia, but a reflection of our RL opinions. I cannot say that my RL views are not influencing my opinions here, nor will I.

But that doesn't make my point invalid. Well, the solution is an OFFICIAL poll, whether or not the "gallup" polls should be allowed or not - I will accept the people's decisions, and that will be that.

And is it so easy to contact everyone? Have u ever tried contacting and getting a response from 200 people, many of whom do not actively participate in posts?

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 01:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto

You really cannot say the people don't like pre-polls. Where have you come across this revelation? Did you count the posts and which had more in favor?

I'm just going by the polls.

Quote:

The poll above, which as we have all said, is inconclusive, shows that people want polls, possibly with some restriction.

It shows that people dont want free polls, and out of those most dont want polls at all. However, again, group 2 is winning.

Quote:

And is it so easy to contact everyone? Have u ever tried contacting and getting a response from 200 people, many of whom do not actively participate in posts?

I may not get a response, and as I said only about 100-150 are actually doing anything (maybe even less) however, just post and you can ensure it gets read by quite a few people, the people who need to read it.

If you try polling the entire US with a gallup, thats a different story. Not all of the people who need to read it are linked up to a central message board.

Verto · July 8, 2002, 01:58

Well, first of all the poll should be fixed, because it has Group 1
Group 2
Group 2

So of course Group 2 is winning!

They should be three independent stances. The majority of the people who voted, according to the poll, want the polls, either left alone or with some restrictions.

What is a free poll?

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Well, first of all the poll should be fixed, because it has Group 1
Group 2
Group 2

So of course Group 2 is winning!

Your right, so maybe we hsould just have yes or no or other. However, it does clearly say group 2, which gives me personally the impression that it's in a group.

Quote:

. The majority of the people who voted, according to the poll, want the polls, either left alone or with some restrictions.

No, according to the poll itself the majority either want gallup polls left alone, or they dont want them at all. And if you count that it says GROUP 1/2, the majority don't want gallup polls at all or dont want a free poll (read below)

Quote:

What is a free poll?

Sorry, just me being tired....According to me, a free poll is one that is unrestricted, that can be posted at any time.