Should political polling be outlawed?

[IHaveaDream]

Is the typical person persuaded enough by polls to vote for a candidate simply because they believe that's who everyone else will be voting for?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Probably. Its called the sheeple effect.

 

[amonasro]

Or the bandwagon effect.

 

[Kasira]

I think the average voter doesn't pay as much attention to polls as they do the talking heads. More pessimistically, I also think that things like the "beer buddy" factor play in - the "he looks like a guy I could have a beer with" thing. Then there's also the cute factor (JFK, Bill Clinton (he looked alright in '92 )).

Aside from all of that, though, I don't see how banning polling could be justified. It's a free press, they can do what they want.

 

[brianbb98]

Although it can effect us negetively I would hate for the government to be involoved in something else..

 

[2young2vote]

No. Although it does affect our campaign. Wouldn't this violate the constitution?

 

[blakjak]

dup post

 

[blakjak]

This would not consistent with Paul's views at all. The government telling people they cannot poll other people? Absolutely not! Government intervention such as this is everything Paul fights to prevent!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, there is this whole sticky-wicket called 'the first amendment' that guarantees 'freedom of the press' that would cause problems with this idea. I say the less gov't and laws the better. If there were NO gov't involved and NO laws involved, news would be more subject to the demands of a free market.

And besides, it's not the polls that hurt RP as much as it is the talking head spinsters spinning the polls, and commissioning the bent polls (F-U Frank!) that cause the problems.

 

[thoughtbombing]

Outlawing... uh, HELLO... CONSTITUTION?

 

[Tidewise]

That's the stupidest question I have seen on these boards.

 

[forsmant]

We need to repeal laws, not make new ones.

 

[warrenchristie]

What?

This must be a joke. How could any libertarian entertain the idea, for any reason, that political polls should be outlawed? What would we outlaw next - political stories we don't happen to like because they are having a negative impact on OUR candidate? "Live Free or Die" folks.

 

[user]

No.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Apparently 33% of members here think that crapping on the constitution for what they perceive a benefit to them is okay. Is it any wonder why Ron Paul is having so much trouble getting people to support his message?

 

[ChristopherBearkat]

Polling is a tool used by political scientists. We use polling to collect information and establish trends and relationships.

For instance, there is a very high relationship between people who vote and people who are educated. We've polled enough people enough times to determine with utmost certainly that the more you are educated the more likely you are to vote.

Now, the poll is only as good as the survey. (and even then, they are never perfect) The polls were never meant to be treated as gospel like they are in today's media. It's just a snapshot.

Polling isn't perfect, but it's the only way to guess who is winning...even though the process of getting those poll results is hell. They have a telephone center in my town and those guys have a terrible time even getting people to agree to participate in the polls.

All in all, this thread is silly

 

[Bradley in DC]

Article I Sec. 8.

 

[Paulitician]

For instance, there is a very high relationship between people who vote and people who are educated. We've polled enough people enough times to determine with utmost certainly that the more you are educated the more likely you are to vote.

Educated perhaps but obviously not informed.

 

[TwiLeXia]

Is the typical person persuaded enough by polls to vote for a candidate simply because they believe that's who everyone else will be voting for?

Unfortunately. So many people I talk to say "Oh I agree w/ Dr. Paul's positions but he doesn't have a chance of winning so I'm not gonna vote." And where do they get that idea... the polls =(

 

[RoamZero]

No. However, the whole campaign fund matching system needs to be scrapped and replaced with air time on national TV. The airwaves are a public trust and I think candidates that meet a certain criteria should be guaranteed a voice. I wouldn't even mind state sponsored, mandatory debates as long as the rules are clearly laid out and polling is not a factor.