More on self-selected polls

[Erik]

I've been thinking about this ever since the thread about Gamespot reader reviews and the unreliability of self-selected polls:

Since democratically elected officials are in office as the result of what is effectively a self-selected poll on the topic of "Who should lead us?", "Who should be our county coroner?",etc., that system appears to be flawed as well. Would a process that relied on a small but statistically sound random sampling of the electorate produce elected officials more likely to represent the actual will of the most number of people?

[Chris Nahr]

Would a process that relied on a small but statistically sound random sampling of the electorate produce elected officials more likely to represent the actual will of the most number of people?

Hardly, because there's no obvious connection between anyone's will and a given candidate. Randomly selected people might not even know what all the candidates stand for, and of course the candidates are usually lying in various ways (well-informed voters factor that into their decision).

You would have to go all the way and make political decisions directly by referendum. Random samples might correlate pretty well with a referendum with mandatory participation by the entire adult population.

[Anonymous]

Another development in the Age of Jackson was that the idea of political service as a sort of noblesse oblige—which was the way people like Washington and Jefferson tended to look at it—was gone. Politics for many men became if not a career, than certainly something they pursued because they wanted to, not because they thought they ought to. What rewards they sought are no easier to establish then than they are today—recognition, a sense of power, perhaps financial gain and other factors were no doubt present in those who sought office of government related jobs, but in any case it became possible to think in terms of the profession of politics. John Quincy Adams was probably the man who personified that transition, having served in a variety of public offices for most of his life during a career that went back to his father's time, but in the election of 1828 he was criticized for that fact: the notion of a professional politician still did not sit well with many.


http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part3/AgeofJackson.htm

[Matthew Gallant]

Everyone has to pay taxes, why shouldn't everyone have to vote?

[Anonymous]

About 10 years ago I lived in Los Angeles and the mayoral campaign was just getting rolling. I think it was the (first, not sure if there were more) one Riordan won. But at this early stage, there were more than 20 candidates.

I got randomly selected for a telephone poll on behalf of the LA Times. The key question asked me 'if the election were held today, which candidate would I be most likely to vote for'. The guy reading the script of questions was absolutely horrible all around, but in listing the candidates' names, he got stuck on one and finally gave up with "I can't pronounce this one".

I stifled my reaction and when he finished his list I said "I'm going to vote for the one you couldn't pronounce" and he recorded my answer and moved on without flinching.

Back on topic, I think we're better off with self selecting voting in government elections. The results are probably scientifically invalid, but I'm afraid ensuring that the voice of the average moron (and as George Carlin said, half of them are even stupider than that) is heard would make things even worse.

[Kevin Perry]

Everyone has to pay taxes, why shouldn't everyone have to vote?

Because choice is an essential element of freedom.

Also, if you don't want to vote, I don't want you voting.

Do the countries with required voting have more intelligent elections? Sean Tudor? Other Aussies? Although Australia does use an alternate voting system. . .

[Rob de los Reyes]

I don't know. I might be able to rally around compulsory voting as long as all ballots were required to have a "none of the above" option. :wink:

[Dave Long]

Regarding Guest's post, the idea of civic virtue upon which this country was founded is mostly lost among the rank and file. People used to believe they had a stake in their local governing and by association, a stake all the way to a national level. Part of that was upholding the laws of the small corner of the nation they lived in and then helping others do the same.

While most still follow laws (mostly), they're also more likely to look the other way when they're broken. The founders were pretty clear in their supposition that part of making the country work involved the want of the people to make it so. Unfortunately, so many are so lost in their own day to day affairs, they have completely forgotten their very small duty to their country which includes simple things like voting.

I had a great class on the Constitution in high school that lasted half a year. That's probably one of the few classes that's really stuck with me for the last fifteen years.

--Dave

[Erik]

Randomly selected people might not even know what all the candidates stand for

But isn't that the whole problem with self-selected polls - that they tend to draw extremist respondents with a strongly held opinion?

[Jason McCullough]

I've been thinking about this ever since the thread about Gamespot reader reviews and the unreliability of self-selected polls:

Since democratically elected officials are in office as the result of what is effectively a self-selected poll on the topic of "Who should lead us?", "Who should be our county coroner?",etc., that system appears to be flawed as well. Would a process that relied on a small but statistically sound random sampling of the electorate produce elected officials more likely to represent the actual will of the most number of people?

Assuming the sampling was accurate, yes. An easier way is just to mandate voting, though.

[Alan Au]

Great. Mandatory voting. A co-worker of mine is originally from China, and he has amusing stories about the mandatory "voting" they have there. They call a town hall meeting and round everyone up into a room. Then they ask people to raise their hands in favor of the party candidate. Then they all get to go home.

- Alan

[Jason McCullough]

Right, mandatory voting in a communist system is the same as in a democratic system.

[Ben Sones]

You can mandate that people cast votes, but you can't mandate that they care what the results are. Mandatory voting won't get people more interested in the electoral process--it will merely add more randomness to the results. I doubt it would make things any better, and could very well make them considerably worse.

[asspennies]

I don't think the goal of voting in an election is to get the statistically sound opinion, but rather the extreme, loony opinion.

It sounds like a weird concept, but think about it. One of the reasons this country is a republic and not a direct democracy is because of the concept of "tyranny of the majority" - that a majority rule would be detrimental to society and lead, eventually, to totalitarianism.

When it comes to the rule of law, letting hundreds upon hundreds of districs rule with their crazy people and come to a consensus that way makes things, on the whole, a bit more balanced.

Or I could be talking out of my ass.

[wumpus]

But isn't that the whole problem with self-selected polls - that they tend to draw extremist respondents with a strongly held opinion?
Right, and that's part of the culture of dissent. Two foaming-at-the-mouth minorities, and a vast majority that really doesn't care much, if at all.

As my history teacher used to say "if you want people to care, you have to hit 'em in the pocketbook". Historically accurate, if not somewhat obvious. If you want people to stop doing something, make them pay to do it. How much spam email would we get if it cost 5 cents to send one?

[Kyle Wilson]

Right, mandatory voting in a communist system is the same as in a democratic system.

Well, no, because there's no such thing as mandatory voting in a democratic system. You'd never get the majority of the voters to vote for it. And if you did, all of the people who got dragged to the polls would just vote to get rid of it again. Viva democracy!

[Jason McCullough]

Right, mandatory voting in a communist system is the same as in a democratic system.

Well, no, because there's no such thing as mandatory voting in a democratic system. You'd never get the majority of the voters to vote for it. And if you did, all of the people who got dragged to the polls would just vote to get rid of it again. Viva democracy!

Well, Australia's a democracy, and they have it.

[Chris Nahr]

But isn't that the whole problem with self-selected polls - that they tend to draw extremist respondents with a strongly held opinion?

That's true, but randomly selected polls (or polls with mandatory participation) suffer from another problem: whichever gang of thugs manages to grab power and fortify itself there is practically impossible to remove because you'd have to convince a majority of the population, which is typically made up of greedy morons, that change is desirable.

By default the majority will always vote for whoever brings on the biggest pork barrel, and that's usually the incumbent (unless he's stupid). Or rather "would" vote since their participation is restrained by their inborn stupidity and disinterest in public affairs, and that's the only good thing about them. Extremists may have wacky ideas but they are also the only ones who care about things like decency and moral behaviour.

By the way, I believe that Belgium, well known for its extremely corrupt politicians, has manadatory voting...

[Jason McCullough]

But isn't that the whole problem with self-selected polls - that they tend to draw extremist respondents with a strongly held opinion?

That's true, but randomly selected polls (or polls with mandatory participation) suffer from another problem: whichever gang of thugs manages to grab power and fortify itself there is practically impossible to remove because you'd have to convince a majority of the population, which is typically made up of greedy morons, that change is desirable.

By default the majority will always vote for whoever brings on the biggest pork barrel, and that's usually the incumbent (unless he's stupid). Or rather "would" vote since their participation is restrained by their inborn stupidity and disinterest in public affairs, and that's the only good thing about them. Extremists may have wacky ideas but they are also the only ones who care about things like decency and moral behaviour.

By the way, I believe that Belgium, well known for its extremely corrupt politicians, has manadatory voting...

We can't trust the underpeople with the vote. :(

[Chris Nahr]

We can't trust the underpeople with the vote. :(

Well, that's true! Even Plato knew it. That's why enlightened absolutism is the best form of government.

[Peter Frazier]

We Australians have compulsory voting. It isn't a first past the post system though- it is based on preferences. It is possible for someone to garner fewer votes and still end up on top because of cunning deals.
I would say that compulsory voting creates greater apathy and more potential for manipulation than voluntary voting. Most people think of voting as a chore and most decisions are made with a very basic understanding of what the major parties are about. i.e Labor= working class/government welfare, Liberal= big business/no refugees.
Bring back the monarchy, I say. You knew where you stood then.

[Bub, Andrew]

I have a cousin-in-law who is one of those "Get Out The Vote!" fanatics. She spends weeks trying to convince people to vote... not who to vote for, but just to y'know, go over there and vote. I once seriously incurred her wrath when I humbly suggested:

"Y'know, maybe people who haven't been paying attention to the debates, speeches, articles, issues, etc.,... maybe people who aren't engaged... well, maybe they shouldn't vote."

Then again, I also think that local news and local papers should have to devote more space to objective reporting on local candidates and issues. The information is out there, but it isn't as easy to find as it should be. But I do think we're better off, generally, when people who aren't paying attention stay home and, I dunno, watch TV or something.

[Chris Nahr]

Then again, I also think that local news and local papers should have to devote more space to objective reporting on local candidates and issues. The information is out there, but it isn't as easy to find as it should be. But I do think we're better off, generally, when people who aren't paying attention stay home and, I dunno, watch TV or something.

Exactly. Reporting in the mass media (TV and most newspapers) is a huge obstacle to being well-informed about political choices, even if you're one of the few who do mean to be well-informed.

There is a bizarre self-imposed conformity in the media of any Western democracy I'm aware of -- journalists align themselves with either one of the (typically) two big parties, and that's it. You'll only get the party line from then, and the party or its personnel are criticised only when they cross the party line. But the other big party is criticised for practically everything they do, and small parties or single candidates are either completely ignored, ridiculed, or vilified.

That's about the opposite of what a "free" press is supposed to do in a democracy but that's how it works in practice. You really have to go to some lengths to get any solid information on anything or anyone that isn't currently championed by one of the two big parties.

[Bub, Andrew]

I disagree.
I think it's fairly plain that the major newsmedia has a liberal slant but I don't buy that it is necessarily a "Democratic" slant. Or vice-versa (re: Fox). What I object to, especially on the local level, is that all political reporting starts amounting to ... wait for it... regurgitated press releases.

[Jason McCullough]

Chris, have you been reading Atlas Shrugged again?

The "liberal media" bias thing is sort of correct, sort of not:


http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020318&s=chait031802&c=1

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060629

There's definitely no liberal analogue on television to Fox. No, CNN isn't comparable, I don't care what you say about them and Israel.


Then again, I also think that local news and local papers should have to devote more space to objective reporting on local candidates and issues.

A lot of this is due to Gannet buying up every small and medium-sized newspaper in the United States and turning them into highly profitable society columns. It's a free market, so they'll fail eventually, but it's still icky.

[Sean Tudor]

I would say that compulsory voting creates greater apathy and more potential for manipulation than voluntary voting. Most people think of voting as a chore and most decisions are made with a very basic understanding of what the major parties are about. i.e Labor= working class/government welfare, Liberal= big business/no refugees.
Bring back the monarchy, I say. You knew where you stood then.

The only reason I vote in this country (Australia) is to avoid the fine for not voting. If I had the choice I would not vote. I envy my wife as she does not have to vote as she is not on the electoral list.

Also the Labor/Liberal distinction is pointless these days. Both parties pander to the greatest common denominator of the voting public - middle class comfortable mostly own their own home families with two kids.

The last couple of elections all I have done is had my name marked off and put blank election papers into the ballot boxes. I see no point in voting for a politicians right to suck money out of our taxes, pay for his luxuries, and his lifetime pension/superannuation.

[Kevin Perry]

I envy my wife as she does not have to vote as she is not on the electoral list.

How'd that happen? Is it mandatory, or not?

[Anonymous]

If the Crocodile Hunter accidentally kills your pet platypus, you get exempted from the voting rolls.