Should Polls Be Banned In The Final Run-Up To Public Votes?

[naomi24]

Do they influence the outcome of the vote, as Baroness Boothroyd believes?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-ban-opinion-polls-in-the-runup-to-elections-says-baroness-boothroyd-9734315.html

[anotheoldgit]

Why 'POLES' in particular, that would be racist.

[steg]

Not really no, I think most people had made up their minds a long time ago.

[naomi24]

Apparently not, steg - according to the polls - so I hear.

[Sqad]

I cannot convince myself that polls have any major effect on the result of elections.....steg is correct in my opinion.

[woofgang]

She's assuming that a) people take any notice of poll results, b) the people who reply to pollsters tell the truth, and c) the people who do tell the truth to pollsters don't then change their minds.

[jim360]

It's very possible that it did have some influence. But I think it was an influence for the better. In particular I wonder if we would now be discussing the break-up of the union without that poll showing a lead for "yes". It didn't half serve to wake people up to the real possibility of an Independent Scotland! Perhaps that scared a few more of those who might have voted "no" anyway, but probably wouldn't have bothered to turn up, into doing so. The influence then was that it helped to engage people -- on both sides of the campaign, come to that, because a real chance of victory helped to provide a boost to "Yes" supporters too.

[Old_Geezer]

I can see the concern, but I think, "so what ?"

Folk are still entitled to vote how they wish and if some get more information before making the final decision then best of luck to them. I think it is probably a Big Brother intrusion too far, to prevent folk getting to information. At worst they may encourage folk to actually vote if they are really interested and the result seems close.

[Ellipsis]

I would say that polls could influence the outcome, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

For example, if you were to discover that your protest vote or spoiled paper could lead to an outcome that you really didn't want or expect, then a poll could help avoid that.

Likewise, if you were to discover that your vote really could make a difference then a poll could encourage you to vote rather than be your usual apathetic self.

[steg]

Well the polls had been quite consistent at between 52% and 55% since day one for the no vote, so as I said I think most people had made their minds up a while back

[mikey4444]

I'm with Sqad here ( Good Morning by the way ! ) and Steg

I am not convinced either, although the "don't knows" seem to have had a big influence on the final vote. But a NO vote was predicted 2 years ago, by Pollsters and others, so have things really changed in the last week ?

The YES campaign lost this vote, rather than the NO camp winning. When people are undecided, the status quo nearly always wins.

[ludwig]

// Likewise, if you were to discover that your vote really could make a difference then a poll could encourage you to vote rather than be your usual apathetic self. //

that's true but it works both ways. A poll could equally convince you that it's not worth bothering, or that you should do a tactical vote instead of voting for who you really want to, so it's swings and roundabouts. It would be interesting if they didn't exist and people just went and voted for what they wanted, but I can't see that happening.

[-Talbot-]

Likewise, if you were to discover that your vote really could make a difference then a poll could encourage you to vote rather than be your usual apathetic self.


To be honest I couldn't care less about the apathy of others, it's not my problem.

[jim360]

It could work both ways, but here appeared not to. Perhaps in previous elections it has, for example one wonders how much better the various minority parties would do if their polling wasn't consistently at total of less than 10% or so. But here the polls seem to have had the effect of boosting turnout significantly, perhaps even by 10% or so -- which is also the margin of victory, although perhaps the extra 10% weren't all "no" voters. It's reasonable to think that the high turnout was due to a lot of no voters finally making themselves noticed, though -- the only region with less than 80% turnout was Glasgow, at 75%, which voted "Yes".

Anything that helps to widen the political debate should be welcome. I think polls are a large part of that. It helps to know what other people are thinking -- especially if it's not the same as you think.

[ludwig]

I couldn't care less about apathy either.

[Ellipsis]

What about procrastination? What are your views on that, ludwig and Talbot?

[-Talbot-]

I'll let ludwig answer that one, Elippsis.

[Ellipsis]

Hmm, he's taking his time over it ...

[agchristie]

When listening to general public conversation it often makes me wonder when people explain the reason for who they are voting for use their misguided belief and/or illogical reasoning.

In a small percentage of cases, I imagine through apathy or laziness, some folk may not be bothered giving too much consideration and could be inclined to vote based on the latest opinion poll but not in sufficient numbers to distort the likely outcome.

[-Talbot-]

Elippsis
?
Sorry, I will have another go.

...

(hope I have got it right this time)


All I can say is knowing the result of a poll would not influence my vote.

[jomifl]

I think they may make the results a bit closer if people who wouldn't normally bother to vote get of their ***es because of them, but I don't think they affect the overall result.