Should we allow unofficial opinion "gallup" surveys ?

[Verto]

Yes, we are both tired. We are saying the same things over again, yet we cannot stop.

What I am saying is, Group 1 represents the opinion of 13 voters.

IF the poll was done correctly, Group 2 would represent the opinion of 6 voters, and Group 3 would represent 9.

Now, Group 2(the middle one) is not saying they should be forbidden, merely restricted. Allowed to exist, but under some guidelines. Therefore, they are voting that polls should still be allowed, which IMO is closer to Group 1 than to 3.

Am I still making sense? I don't convey thoughts very well at 1:12 am

[Spiffor]

Actually, I grouped the 2 latters because a victory of group 2 would mean we need an amendment, while a victory of Group 1 would mean no need of an amendment at all : we don't need an amendment to allow something, while we need an amendment to restrict / forbid something.

[Harovan]

My vote is, forbid them under all circumstances. They lead to no good than confusion for the less active citizens.

[Verto]

What I am reading from the poll is the first two both want polls to stay around, with the smaller part wanding some reform. The last choice is for abolition. I understand why you did it as you did, now.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
My vote is, forbid them under all circumstances. They lead to no good than confusion for the less active citizens.

Sir Ralph puts his finger right on it: gallup polls will discourage less active citizens from voting. If our strong personalities dominate the forums, then look as though they've amassed unsurmountable leads before official election polls close, people with different outlooks will be discouraged and drift away from the game. We need a diversity of views/political outlooks/playing styles. Debate is what makes this game worthwhile -- not popularity contests.

[Harovan]

Yes. One more bad is, that too many polls make citizens, that have not much time to spare, vote uncareful. If there are 3-5 actual polls, I can take the time to think about all circumstances, even if I have not much time. If there are 13-15 polls (and most of them, well, spam), I most likely just say "yes" to all and "leave me alone". I hope, this is not intended to press not well thought out polls through.

This empire has meanwhile more than 200 citizens. But how many of them are active? The third part? Fourth? Fifth? The rest probably does not have much time to devote for the game, and thus are probably "yes" sayers or don't even vote. Do we wish more citizens to participate actively? I think yes. So don't make it harder for them. Make it easier.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I tend to have strong opinions on most things here, and (quite probably to certain posters' despair ) post my views and reasons. However, there are one or two issues to date, eg the tech-whoring plan, where I have swayed my opinion/vote to join those of almost everyone else posting in the thread. I did so however NOT because of the number of votes for the plan as opposed to against, but due to the replies, all from experienced Civ3ers, giving their good reasons why they supported the plan.

Ideally this is what opinion posting is for, and this is how we want undecided voters to decide - to be convinced by a superior argument - it is superior by virtue of how easy it is to comprehend and that it has reasons in it's favour. But, not many have the time to read all the posts (alas, many of them are very, very good ), thus it is undoubted some resort to following the majority, thinking it won't matter too much anyway.

Your vote may not count for much in a general election, but in a game forum with about 40 or so regular voters, a few people following this line of reasoning means A LOT. Thus, if you are reading this, I hope you add this to the list of arguments AGAINST opinion polls. Then again, if you're reading this post still then you probably read all the others and are not one of the people I refer to here. Oh well.

And personally I am sick of trying to catch up to this forum after 12 hours with half a dozen "unofficial" and "opinion poll" threads (I haven't seen any opinion poll ones yet, but I'm sure I will ) - the less clutter the better.

[mtgillespie]

Can i just mention something else. Every example we've had here has been of person A beating person B. What about person C (or D or E etc...)? I think this is a bigger area where polls skew a result.

Take the minister for expansion election. Johnny, Timeline and GodIsKing. There was a thread about that where at least on person (there may have been more) was re-considering their vote because GodIsKing was so far behind. That was because they checked how the vote was going so far, and that will still be a problem, but Poll's make that problem worse, especially for independant candidates.

I get the impression that with one or 2 exceptions, the most active members of this democracy are party members of the 2 big parties, who generally vote in most polls, official or otherwise, and soon after they are posted. Latecomers or people who pop in more rarely will see from a poll that a candidate is behind, and may change who they vote for.

[mtgillespie]

My other objection is to the argument about Gallup (and other) polls in real life. Yes, they are allowed, but there are STRICT rules about who can commision them, who produces them, and the questions which can be asked. Again, in our case i'm ONLY making this comparison in the case of election polls, in all other cases ask what you like how you like.

[JSeeds]

I believe we should ban such polls before elections (perhaps a week before). If memory serves me right, I believe there is a similar ban on polls near to an election in Canada, so we wouldn't be doing anything un-democratic here (unless you consider Canada to currently be a dictatorship ). There is no need for prepolls. They simply clutter and confuse an already overloaded forum.

[Captain]

In addition to all the other harmful effects people have elaborated on, let me give you all a real example (names changed) right here on Apolyton that will show how harmful such polls can be (and for that matter, the ability to view poll results before voting).

Candidate X, Y, Z are running.

I think Z is the best candidate. I want to vote for Z. But scrolling through the posts, I notice very few others are supporting Z in a vocal manner. I check the current poll results. I discover X and Y are neck and neck, but Z is way way behind. I don't like Y so I vote for X, just to prevent Y from winning.

Chances are, I'm not the only one doing this. So... once the first few votes are up, people start thinking... no one is voting for Z and even though I support Z, I better vote for someone who will win. Therefore, as more votes pile up, they marginalize candidate Z, who may have actually had the widest support... just not the earliest support.

The unofficial pre-election opinion polls do the same thing except worse.

While ideally I should just not look at it and have the personal discipline to do so, the reality is that as long as others have the ability to do so, I will use it also. This is one of those cases where either everyone agrees to vote "blindly" (without knowing the current status of the polls), or no one does.

It's like the car pool lanes. As soon as a few unqualified persons do it, more and more jump on since the apparent benefits of doing so outweigh the negatives, even though overall abusing the car pool lanes like that is more harmful to society.

Previewing results may help you avoid getting a candidate you disliked elected, but it doesn't help democracy because it marginalizes those who don't have early votes. People may have several candidates they like, and vote not for their favourite, but which one will likely win. Why "throw away" your vote?

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


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.

It can happen but I think that everyone here in Apolyton is smart enough to think independently and vote the way they want.

However Captain brings up a good point. Although eveyone does have one vote and if thats the way someone wants to use it, then alright.

[Verto]

Is it right to be making arguments against surveys because they clutter the forum? Shouldn't the decision be made more on how it affects Apolytonia, not the forum?

And if these "Gallup" polls intimidate or keep less active members from participating, wouldn't DIA/UFC do the same, to an extent? They might feel that they aren't welcome/not important because they don't belong to a party.

And I believe polls can be moderated/restricted without having them banned. Disclaimers, warnings and reminders will tell everyone that the polls are UNOFFICIAL, not necessarily representative of the people, etc.

I think this needs to be ended so we can stop debating it. We need an official poll.

I believe there is a similar ban on polls near to an election in Canada, so we wouldn't be doing anything un-democratic here (unless you consider Canada to currently be a dictatorship ).

No, not a dictatorship. Just a confused nation plunging into socialism...

[LordImpact]

Almost all countries are mildly socialist now. Social Security is a socialist-like concept... although it was implimented by the Democrats.

As for the general intelligence of the public. I don't think anyone can put faith in that anymore. I've been here for about a week, and in the very beginning I tended to agree with the people who have been here for a while, rather than form my own opinions. I find it hard to beleive all the non-posters and newbies aren't doing just that. It's human nature to want to be part of the majority. Thus these pre election polls sway the public from voting with their heads.

--Impact

[Verto]

OT, but worth mentioning:

Social Security and many other New Deal programs were meant to help in the Depression, and end. Roosevelt said(paraphrased) "This policy of welfare shall and must end..."

Then, sometime later he wanted to add on to the Bill of Rights and guarantee everyone the right to have a bunch of "wants"...

Democrats...what we need is another Ronald Reagon!

Well, enough OT discussion for one post.

As for the people wanting to be part of the majority, etc and having their votes/opinions/beliefs altered,biased and what not: If you get rid of pre-poll-polls because people see the results, decide will win, then what about official polls? They can do the same.

A possible solution is taking away the opportunity for people to see the results before they vote.

[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.