Why do we, as a nation, allow for early poll numbers to be released?

[Frankie Lee]

If we wanted our country to be truly democratic, wouldn't we wait until the election so people could vote for who they agreed with more - rather than who's polling better? It seems early polling is just easy manipulating our government can play on us before an election making our system not truly democratic, giving them complete control over us.

[Kregener]

It is to manipulate the outcome.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/Government/PoliticsinAmerica.jpg

[hocaltar]

No, it's because of freedom.

[Hope]

Screw phone polls, why the hell aren't our primaries aren't all held on the same day? This "super voter" business is ridonkulous.

[ARealConservative]

I can't believe someone from our own cause would ask this question.

[Energy]

Quoting what someone wrote:

"The 'scientific' polls are the final illusion standing between the American people and the new reality."

[Frankie Lee]

well i'm not saying companies should not be able to call individuals and poll them, then release it to whoever wants the information. But why do we all WANT this information? Why is there are market for this information? It is holding back real democracy. How many people say "I would vote for this person if they actually had a chance". We should all vote for who we believe in, and early poll results restrict this form of democracy. It's a tool for the government to elect who they want not who we want.

[Luther]

Because this is not a functioning democratic system.

[Kregener]

I disagree.

America has BECOME a democracy.

We are supposed to function as a Constitutional Republic.

[greves]

In Switzerland - Ron's favorite country - they mail everyone an information packet and a ballot. You can read what the candidates say about each of the issues, fill out your ballot, and mail it back. Nice, eh?

[Hope]

In Switzerland - Ron's favorite country - they mail everyone an information packet and a ballot. You can read what the candidates say about each of the issues, fill out your ballot, and mail it back. Nice, eh?

Yikes, I don't like that idea. It makes it far too easy for the uneducated, apathetic people to vote.

[Original_Intent]

Screw phone polls, why the hell aren't our primaries aren't all held on the same day? This "super voter" business is ridonkulous.

Umm because a national primary means that only the guys who can raise a bajillion dollars have even a prayer.

By having early primaries, candidates with less money can focus on a small state and if they do well get more attention.

I am with you I do not like that Iowa and New Hampshire get all the love, there should be some kind of rotation or something, but I definitely prefer having some early primaries to give a non-establishment backed person a chance.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

OK Stalin, let's censor data to prevent fair-weather voting for people's "own good" because they are too stupid to make up their own mind.

[DrZ]

Big Media polls are inherently evil and are designed to justify or influence government courses of action, and marginalize or exclude political candidates... the tail wagging the dog. Two examples:

1. Before the Iraq war vote, the mainstream media presented only one side of the issue, the official government stance. Then lo & behold the big polling organizations found 85% of Americans were in favor of going to war in Iraq. The polls swayed a spineless Congress to vote for the war, even those who didn't really want to.

2. NAFTA. Most Americans were against this agreement despite months of positive spin in the media. The opposition had enough votes lined up in the House to defeat it. But Clinton was going around the House & Senate twisting arms and cutting deals, especially with Democrats. A few days before the vote, came the great NAFTA debate, or the great farce, as it should be called, pitting the fake NAFTA opposition (Ross Perot) against the pro-NAFTA fake environmentalist (Al Gore). I've never seen someone flop the way Ross Perot did; he couldn't produce a coherent sentence the entire debate, and I was convinced he had deliberately thrown the debate. Immediately, polls showed NAFTA opposition decline after the debate. Enough Representatives felt they could now vote for it, despite grassroots opposition. NAFTA passed. Many Democrats in Congress who voted for NAFTA were then voted out of office (more like their supporters were so disillusioned that they didn't bother showing up and voting) in the 1994 Gingrich/Republican takeover.

Polls are a way the media measures its influence.

[JMann]

I think a good system would be to let Iowa and New Hampshire do their thing because they won't give it up. Then have a series of 6 primaries two weeks apart with 8 states in each primary. The 8 states would be rotated every four years so that everyone in the country has a chance to be first and last. Each primary would have a mix of states but you could also try and make sure you get about 2 southern, northern, midwestern and western states in each round to limit regional candidates but also help the campaigns focus on two states in each region to help with limiting expenses.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I think a good system would be to let Iowa and New Hampshire do their thing because they won't give it up. Then have a series of 6 primaries two weeks apart with 8 states in each primary. The 8 states would be rotated every four years so that everyone in the country has a chance to be first and last. Each primary would have a mix of states but you could also try and make sure you get about 2 southern, northern, midwestern and western states in each round to limit regional candidates but also help the campaigns focus on two states in each region to help with limiting expenses.

I like the idea, although I think it should be harder for the big states to get first in line. Maybe some sort of bidding system involving delegates, with the small states defaulting to being first?

Then again, I don't like primaries at all and would much prefer voting reform that was a better measure of popular sentiment and weakened the party/primary system, like adopting approval voting to replace the plurality voting system we currently use.

Anyway, while I too hate that popular opinion is shaped more by the polls than the polls reflect popular opinion, there's nothing we can or should do to forcibly change that. Education is key, people. But yes, I lament the situation greatly.

[dircha]

If we wanted our country to be truly democratic, wouldn't we wait until the election so people could vote for who they agreed with more - rather than who's polling better? It seems early polling is just easy manipulating our government can play on us before an election making our system not truly democratic, giving them complete control over us.

The polls aren't the problem. That's confusing cause and effect. The disproportionate and biased media coverage is the reason why candidates like Giuliani were polling so high nationally in the first place.

Yes, excluding names of lesser known candidates from polls contributes to the problem, but again, that problem too originates with the disproportionate and biased media coverage.

We shouldn't be afraid of scientific polling and reporting on the opinion of the nation.

What we should be afraid of is media outlets serving as propaganda arms for candidates that earn their stamp of approval.