What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
35 Comments
- mescad, on 09/01/2009, -1/+14If a candidate is ahead by 20%, some people who had planned to vote for an opposing candidate may just give up and stay home. If enough people do that, the exit poll becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, if your guy is ahead by a lot, you might stay home and not vote, and later learn that it was your vote that lost him the election.
The point is, everyone should have the same information (none) about how many votes each candidate has prior to voting. - Ophie, on 09/01/2009, -2/+13What's up with these Twitter related news? Seems like they are coming in every 5 seconds.
- Chairboy, on 09/01/2009, -0/+9And why are the news stories always less than 140 characters?
- inactive, on 09/01/2009, -0/+7Because a lot of people think elections are popularity polls so they vote for whoever everyone else is voting for. It's a sheeple mentality. So exit poll data BEFORE the voting ends affects the election results.
A lot of people are too lazy to learn about the candidates or too ignorant to intelligently select a candidate so they just follow the 'crowd'. They'd rather be on the winning side of the election instead of the winning side of life. - trejrco, on 09/01/2009, -0/+5Or not let potentially inaccurate/misleading information sway you and act as you had planned in the first place. Unfortunately, human nature / laziness is a pain sometimes!
- blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -2/+7Why should having exit poll data affect the election? Unless you're stealing the election, and changing the data during the election, there's no reason to hide it. I'd rather have a rough idea 2 hours into polling, before I've gone, than not know anything until after a winner is announced. I would know who I'm voting for before the day of the election, too. Who makes up their mind on election day?
- 4AntiStupid, on 09/01/2009, -0/+4Not really a problem in the US where we get hourly updates to exit polls on the news.
- Dalhectar, on 09/01/2009, -0/+3Since when do exit polls count as election results?
If an individual uses exit polls to determine if and how they vote... personally I say the idiot deserves what he gets. And the candidate needs to get smarter supporters or a better campaign to help assist the intellectually challenged.
Also relying on a "leaked" exit report is pretty stupid, since no one can verify the legitimacy or accuracy of the exit poll to begin with. I might as well start a election day rumor saying Candidate X is ahead by __%. - mescad, on 09/01/2009, -0/+2One of the tenets of democracy is that everyone's opinion is worth listening to. The majority can choose to ignore that opinion, but everyone should be heard.
Deciding on election day is better than always voting party line IMO, which is what far too many people do. - inactive, on 09/01/2009, -2/+4turn that frown upside down germany, it's almost october - you have more urgent things at hand.
http://images.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2006/08/ ... - norman619, on 09/01/2009, -1/+3Sorry but that's a poor excuse. If people vote based on exit polls these people are idiots and shouldn't be voting. We all know exit polls are inaccurate. People can vote one way and say they voted another.
- dazparkour, on 09/01/2009, -1/+3I dislike that people have chosen to bury you rather than to answer what appears to be an honest question.
I wanted to know the same thing - so what?
Are people who would give up their vote because they don't think they will win the type of people who's opinion is worth listening to? - wolfing, on 09/01/2009, -0/+2Many people consider their vote 'lost' or 'wasted' if they vote for the loosing party. I know, it doesn't make sense, but that's how many many people think.
- blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -1/+2This isn't even about vote counts. This is about exit polls, which are a sampling (aka 1/10th or something) of people who just voted. It's much less reliable than the actual vote total. In the US, I don't think there is counting done until after the polls close. Our 'announced winners' for given races on the news tend to be based on exit polls and not the actual count.
- VigRoco, on 09/01/2009, -0/+1Because everything on Twitter is highly reliable...
- erkokite, on 09/01/2009, -1/+2UND BECKS!
- blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -0/+1To the last line that I think you added:
Unfortunately, there's alot of those sheeple though. It really shouldn't matter, but the fact that it even might is pretty disturbing. The kinds that wouldn't vote don't realize that the exit poll would be some time behind, maybe an hour or so, and that that hour can change everything in terms of number of votes cast, and the candidate's viability.
The only reason elections work is because a large number participate regardless of polling before and during. If everyone just left because it was 'hopeless', we'd have a government completely in control of itself, which is so dangerous it's astounding. - droversoul, on 09/01/2009, -0/+1That's like a jillion USD!
- ayeroxor, on 09/01/2009, -0/+1"Illegal Election Updates Strike Aga"
Dear Submitter: What the *****. Really. What. The *****. - norman619, on 09/01/2009, -0/+1I don't care about exit polls. I chose a candidate and will vote for them regardless. That's the whole purpose of voting. You vote for who YOU want not what thw mob wants.
- blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -1/+1Knowing who you're voting for for 2 months beforehand contingent on positions they put out at town halls and debates isn't voting party line. It's being informed more than voting based on your gut on election day. IMO, that's not any better than voting party line, as it's completely random as opposed to based on what your parents said (which in itself is pretty random).
- dazparkour, on 09/01/2009, -1/+1Yes, but should we protect these people by extending a blanket of ignorance?
Should we punish people who would do nothing but report on facts? - wrek, on 09/01/2009, -1/+1haha took me a second to figure out what you'd done subby.. ;)
- blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -0/+0Side note on internet/digg syndrome:
I got 13 diggs on all (7) of my comments for a number of words probably equivalent to nearly all the rest of the comments on the entire story while commenting on social issues, as the dude that went first with a comment about how alot of stories on digg are related to twitter lately got 11 digs for his 15-word comment that doesn't contribute anything to intellectual discourse. Whatever happened to the internet existing as a place to exchange and discuss ideas? - rudolph1234, on 09/01/2009, -2/+2Last time I leaked something, my wife got mad at me and made me clean the couch myself. But there was never a 50,000 euro fine attached to it.
- blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -0/+0Not at all. We shouldn't have a situation that requires we hide information. Since we do, it's up to everyone to change the way people think. It's not government, or corporate responsibility for something like this, as those entities are made up by us, for us. We need to push them to instigate widespread change about people's attitudes towards voting, as they are everyone's tool, not just the tool of the powerful. The powerful don't want this to change; they want only their side to vote. That's not the way it should work. We have the power to force the gargantuan entities to bring enormous amounts of change to people's ignorance, but we do nothing, partly because the sheeple won't help, and partly because once you're on the horse, you're not gonna be nearly as willing to help other people think since you can benefit so much by them being ignorant. It's an ironic situation when the people in a position to help don't want to, the people who are smart but not powerful can't, and the sheeple don't know any better.
- dazparkour, on 09/01/2009, -4/+4Why should everyone have no information - because some people give up as soon as they see an obstacle to success - because some people will give up on democracy before the polls are even shut?
Ignorance should never be a choice. - blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -2/+1Digg syndrome. The moment anyone tries to start something intelligent, it's either buried or too long for the 3-comment tree limit, which discourages most from bothering. It's kinda like /. with karma for funny, a much larger troll ratio, and an artificial comment limit of 3 replies.
- lazyrussian, on 09/01/2009, -2/+1I was thinking the same exact thing blackraven1425.
- norman619, on 09/01/2009, -2/+1But he way things are going now we will only get them is the madia's pony appears to be winning the race.
- dazparkour, on 09/01/2009, -2/+1@mescad - if they chose to censor themselves, that's not the majority refusing to hear their opinion.
Let's face it - all the law does is make sure the people who are heavily influenced by marketing turn up - we should desire to vote because society requires it, your candidate win or lose, whether it is going good or bad.
Ignoring the fact the media could lie about the results, separate discussion:
We are talking about censoring information because it might make some people who are easily influenced apathetic. - blackraven1425, on 09/01/2009, -2/+0And they takes steps to have the election not herded into one direction, but they take no steps in getting people to think a bit? That's even more sickening. That means that they want to do the herding themselves, rather than let the people do it.
- dazparkour, on 09/01/2009, -5/+3What gives?
What influence might it have anyway? - jgardner100, on 09/01/2009, -4/+0This isn't difficult, if you don't want the the voting counts to leak before the polls close, then don't start counting until they are closed. Democracy isn't going to collapse just because the results are delayed a few hours. I thought the Germans were smart enough to see this.
- Royish, on 09/01/2009, -7/+1Jeez what are they Nazis?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 