Thread
:
US Presidential Candidate Poll
View Single Post
allnameswereout
2008-09-23 , 13:49
Posts: 3,397 | Thanked: 1,212 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Netherlands
#
79
Originally Posted by
Texrat
Push
polls, yes... but not all.
Polls suck. Push polls suck even more, but there are grey areas between the two.
Here are some reasons why polls suck:
They're used to sway opinions. They assume people are honest in their answer to polls. People aren't even able to vote sincerely in a Plurality system on D-Day e.g. due to strategic voting. Why would they vote sincerely in a poll which bears no legal consequences? Because they're Christian, and God taught them not to lie? And I'm a Jehova...
Instead of developing discussion or giving less popular candidates a chance they create a dogmatic 'us or them' attitude working zealotry, lazyness, polarisation, and argumentum ad populum in hand. They're easy, cheap, hyped news and food for pageviews, a waste of time, and distract from other, relevant issues. They're one of the factors supporting the very thing you are against:
a 2 (or 3) party system
.
They often lack options which contributes to swaying opinions. Take this very thread. A) Several candidates are excluded B) There is no blanc option C) There isn't an option to state one is not eligable to vote (e.g. minor, non-US citizen). Although it doesn't applt here they often implement the Plurality system which, arguably, doesn't allow the voter enough freedom to express their opinion.
Internet polls suck even more because there is no meaningful authentication, and they're not anonymous. Its child's play to manipulate them. See e.g. Slashdot's poll disclaimer.
Resumee, as far as I'm concerned anyone who takes polls seriously is a fool and knowingly or not serves their dreadful uses, or abuses if you will. Unfortunately, many do take them serious. Individuals who contribute to polls keep their myth alive thereby supporting their usage.
Instead of a poll, an analysis, discussion or interview is much more useful. It still has some of the mentioned problems (albeit usually in lesser extend) but go in depth of a specific issue, making the reader less lazy and more thought-provoked. They also allow freedom of expression to the writer(s), and the reader is able to verify the identity of the writer and/or his/her arguments and references.
Although I have to admit its possible to do faux interviewing and quoting as well. Faux News are seemingly proudly famous because of their ability.
__________________
Goosfraba!
All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
Quote & Reply
|
allnameswereout
View Public Profile
Send a private message to allnameswereout
Find all posts by allnameswereout