voteronpaul08
06-08-2007, 06:28 PM
Hi everyone.
For sometime I have always felt in my heart that polls and labeling of presidential contenders would be considered as unconstitutional.
On the surface, polls are a snap shot of a few voices during a very short period of time. Because of that, many polls do not reflect the true outcome of the race. For instance, Kerry won many polls leading into the election of 2004. Further, Kerry won the Iowa exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/index.html), yet he lost Iowa. Could one reason to believe that maybe people took the polls on the face value and didn't show up to vote thinking he handily won the state? Or was it just a flawed polling system?
Here is my argument:
Polls are now being used as tools to shape the mindset of the country. They are mainly used to separate the presidential candidates into artificial "tiers". This artificial labeling allows the media to focus on some candidates and even deny candidates any press. I believe that the process should not be up to the media and debate venues to determine how the political system should play itself out. Removing all polling data would allow the candidates to run on an even platform, without artificial "tiers".
Also, since we are in the process of restoring the election credibility. I would like to also see if the courts would listen to the argument of the "who won" commentary as unconstitutional. It is not up to commentators to TELL the American people who won the debate. The time after the debate should be open to allow each candidate to speak for an equal amount of time. Maybe to clarify what the stances are. That’s where it should end!
I know this is a long shot. But our system has become unconstitutional. I am so tired of the media telling me who the winners will be! Clinton was down by 20 points in the polls in 1992, guess who won!
Here is a good article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004883/posts
Any thoughts?
For sometime I have always felt in my heart that polls and labeling of presidential contenders would be considered as unconstitutional.
On the surface, polls are a snap shot of a few voices during a very short period of time. Because of that, many polls do not reflect the true outcome of the race. For instance, Kerry won many polls leading into the election of 2004. Further, Kerry won the Iowa exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/index.html), yet he lost Iowa. Could one reason to believe that maybe people took the polls on the face value and didn't show up to vote thinking he handily won the state? Or was it just a flawed polling system?
Here is my argument:
Polls are now being used as tools to shape the mindset of the country. They are mainly used to separate the presidential candidates into artificial "tiers". This artificial labeling allows the media to focus on some candidates and even deny candidates any press. I believe that the process should not be up to the media and debate venues to determine how the political system should play itself out. Removing all polling data would allow the candidates to run on an even platform, without artificial "tiers".
Also, since we are in the process of restoring the election credibility. I would like to also see if the courts would listen to the argument of the "who won" commentary as unconstitutional. It is not up to commentators to TELL the American people who won the debate. The time after the debate should be open to allow each candidate to speak for an equal amount of time. Maybe to clarify what the stances are. That’s where it should end!
I know this is a long shot. But our system has become unconstitutional. I am so tired of the media telling me who the winners will be! Clinton was down by 20 points in the polls in 1992, guess who won!
Here is a good article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004883/posts
Any thoughts?