Poll Stuffing - a bit or irony.

[angelatc]

Before I decided to endorse Ron Paul, I was a member of a board endorsing another candidate. An incident that was relatively minor made me question his integrity and look closer at Paul. As a result, I haven't been to that board much.

Today I popped over to see if there was any Ron Paul discussion on that board, and found a message in my inbox urging me to "stuff" some on-line poll. The emails even identified that the poll were open to mulriple votes, and encouraged me to vote " a lot." I almost fell over.

I have never received any messages like that from the Ron Paul site. So either you guys don't like me, or we're a pretty honest bunch.

(I suppose it could be both.)

[mdh]

I haven't either, and I'm also on IRC which is where the more sinister among us hang out. I've never seen a discussion amongst Ron Paul supporters to stuff any polls. The closest I've ever seen are attempts to artificially inflate a digg, but that happens everywhere and you pretty much have to to compete. :p
Seriously, part of the problem with polls is that they tend to get more exposure in a given community of supporters or a group of communities. I've seen polls where Ron Paul has massive leads, and others with under 1%. I've seen polls where Mike Gravel rules the world. I've seen polls where Duncan Hunter ties McCain and Romney for the lead, and Giuliani doesn't even place. It's nearly impossible to say which if any are accurate, and I'm of the firm belief that I've yet to see one that accurately represents the entirety of likely voters for the given demographic (ie likely R voters for R candidate polls, all likely voters for polls including all candidates, etc.)