|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 28, 2017 13:05:14 GMT
A motion was passed yesterday in the House of Lords to set up a select committee to review political polling. I suspect they may want to recommend restrictions on the publication of polls close to polling day. Political Polling and Digital Media That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the effects of political polling and digital media on politics, and to make recommendations, and that the Committee do report by 31 March 2018. They are also looking at how to deal with our new robot overlords  Artificial Intelligence That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the economic, ethical and social implications of advances in artificial intelligence, and to make recommendations, and that the Committee do report by 31 March 2018. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Jun 28, 2017 13:46:11 GMT
This is George Ffoulkes hobby horse.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 3, 2017 16:16:48 GMT
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Jul 3, 2017 16:28:35 GMT
I assume the argument for restricting polling is that it "distorts" the outcome by giving voters an indication (possibly false) of what the result might be?
This seems rather condescending to me. I think voters have a right to information that might be relevant to the way they vote.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 3, 2017 17:08:21 GMT
I assume the argument for restricting polling is that it "distorts" the outcome by giving voters an indication (possibly false) of what the result might be? This seems rather condescending to me. I think voters have a right to information that might be relevant to the way they vote. And, if the polls suggest the result is a foregone conclusion (as it was in 2001) turnout plunges |
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Jul 3, 2017 17:27:34 GMT
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/30/opinion-polls-pollingThe first paragraph sums up to me the problem with opinion polling - the reporting of opinion polls. They're supposed to be snapshots, not predictions!The pollsters were, generally, inaccurate in 2015, but that appears to be down to herding. That Survation poll that was published after the election that showed the correct result suggests that there was actually a very late swing; Survation didn't publish said poll as they believed that it was inaccurate. It's possible that other pollsters had similar polls that they hid, or would've done without herding. Most of the polls were conducted over the final few days and if a late swing did occur, then they would've been able to pick it up. For the EU membership referendum. A couple of pollsters did show a leave lead in their final polls, while other pollsters (such as YouGov) showed the race as too close to call and their results ended up being correct within the 3% margin of error. It's possible that the pollsters that didn't report a 'don't know' figure in their final polls did have respondents saying they didn't know how they'd vote - these people may have been more inclined to vote leave. It's worth noting that the Arron Banks private poll (don't know who conducted it) showed an accurate result of 52-48 to leave. On top of this, all of the poll of polls that included undecided voters showed that remain was only a maximum of 2% ahead of leave, with between 6-10% of people yet to make up their mind. This year, there was a large range in results as pollsters attempted to find the correct formula following 2015. A number of pollsters, notably Survation, were very accurate, while others weren't. YouGov's seat regression model was also very accurate. I think be biggest issue is the reporting. Newspapers, in particular, saying that a single poll shows this, therefore the result is going to be that. Opinion polls are, unfortunately, getting used more as a propaganda tool by newspapers than they're getting used to inform people about public attitudes to certain issues. Opinion polls have never been overly accurate, but they've always got the outcome broadly right - it's just that the last few elections there's been more variables (smaller parties) that can make a minor error a difference between a poll showing a majority for a party, or a hung parliament.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Jul 4, 2017 9:35:38 GMT
I assume the argument for restricting polling is that it "distorts" the outcome by giving voters an indication (possibly false) of what the result might be? This seems rather condescending to me. I think voters have a right to information that might be relevant to the way they vote. And, if the polls suggest the result is a foregone conclusion (as it was in 2001) turnout plunges In a democracy, voting is a mechanism for putting pressure on politicians to take your concerns into account. However voters have a right not to vote in our current system. If they deem it too much hassle to bother voting, they will be ignored - but that is their decision.
If turnout is your primary concern then I suggest you campaign for compulsory voting. As I understand it, Australia has made voting pretty much compulsory, so there is precedent. Personally, I would only support such a move if there was a "reopen nominations" option or similar on the ballot.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 4, 2017 17:35:43 GMT
And, if the polls suggest the result is a foregone conclusion (as it was in 2001) turnout plunges In a democracy, voting is a mechanism for putting pressure on politicians to take your concerns into account. However voters have a right not to vote in our current system. If they deem it too much hassle to bother voting, they will be ignored - but that is their decision.
If turnout is your primary concern then I suggest you campaign for compulsory voting. As I understand it, Australia has made voting pretty much compulsory, so there is precedent. Personally, I would only support such a move if there was a "reopen nominations" option or similar on the ballot.
The Welsh Assembly is going to leglisate for compulsory voting for the next elections. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 4, 2017 17:58:02 GMT
In a democracy, voting is a mechanism for putting pressure on politicians to take your concerns into account. However voters have a right not to vote in our current system. If they deem it too much hassle to bother voting, they will be ignored - but that is their decision.
If turnout is your primary concern then I suggest you campaign for compulsory voting. As I understand it, Australia has made voting pretty much compulsory, so there is precedent. Personally, I would only support such a move if there was a "reopen nominations" option or similar on the ballot.
The Welsh Assembly is going to leglisate for compulsory voting for the next elections. The Welsh Assembly should have more important things to address. Lots of them. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,830
|
Post by mboy on Jul 4, 2017 18:13:56 GMT
The Welsh Assembly is going to leglisate for compulsory voting for the next elections. You cannot be serious?? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 4, 2017 18:26:41 GMT
In a democracy, voting is a mechanism for putting pressure on politicians to take your concerns into account. However voters have a right not to vote in our current system. If they deem it too much hassle to bother voting, they will be ignored - but that is their decision.
If turnout is your primary concern then I suggest you campaign for compulsory voting. As I understand it, Australia has made voting pretty much compulsory, so there is precedent. Personally, I would only support such a move if there was a "reopen nominations" option or similar on the ballot.
The Welsh Assembly is going to leglisate for compulsory voting for the next elections. Wrong as normal. One AM suggested it as an idea, but the First Minister specifically ruled it out. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40372381It is likely they will reduce the voting age to 16 before the next Assembly elections though. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 5, 2017 0:18:42 GMT
The Welsh Assembly is going to leglisate for compulsory voting for the next elections. Wrong as normal. One AM suggested it as an idea, but the First Minister specifically ruled it out. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40372381It is likely they will reduce the voting age to 16 before the next Assembly elections though. If they're going to give the vote to children, what's the supportable justification to stop at 16? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 6, 2017 11:26:15 GMT
Areas that will be covered include:
Polling methods and accuracy
To what extent are political opinion polls an accurate reflection of public sentiment? How do polling methods, sampling and weighting impact on accuracy? Should minimum standards be set in relation to political opinion polls? What measures could the Government take to improve the accuracy of political opinion polling?
Regulation of political opinion polling
Is the industry’s self-regulation fit for purpose? Does the industry need regulation, for example to ensure that leading questions are not asked and reported? What standards should be expected of polling companies in relation to the wording of polling questions? Should the publication of political opinion polls be restricted in the run-up to elections and referendums?
Social/digital media coverage of polling–quality and impact
How accurate is online media coverage of opinion polls? To what extent do political opinion polls shape public discourse and understanding of politics, particularly in the lead-up to elections and referendums? What steps could be taken to improve the reporting of political opinion polls online?
The influence of social/digital media on political debate
To what extent do Government (both national and local), Parliament and public bodies utilise social/digital media to inform the public and to encourage political debate?
How might ‘official’ online platforms be further developed and advertised to the public as an ‘authoritative’ source of information for online political debate, particularly in advance of elections and referendums?
To what extent does political opinion on social media reflect the opinion of the general public more widely?
What importance is placed by politicians on online campaigns and polls, compared to other forms of opinion polls? Have they got the balance right?
Should there be any form of regulation or moderation of websites which run online polls or petitions, particularly in the run-up to elections and referendums?
To what extent has social/digital media enabled people to come together in support of a common cause, and to what extent has it fostered divisions within society?
Should there be any oversight or regulation of crowdfunding sites raising money for political purposes, particularly in the run-up to elections and referendums?
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,144
|
Post by cogload on Jul 7, 2017 2:39:38 GMT
The Polls themselves became *news* in our 24hr obsessed news cycle.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 7, 2017 10:06:26 GMT
Though they are still covered less than they were previous to the 1992 debacle (they were often the lead story in news bulletins then)
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,452
|
Post by iain on Jul 15, 2017 13:26:50 GMT
if we're going to give the votes to adults what's the justification to start at 18? Because that is the age at which you become an adult. Fairly obvious really. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,452
|
Post by iain on Jul 15, 2017 13:59:19 GMT
Because that is the age at which you become an adult. Fairly obvious really. yes I know, it's an absurd statement. That's the point I was making! Well that doesn't answer the point of 'if we are giving the vote to children then why stop at 16?' Obviously it would be 18 for adults because that is the lower bound of adulthood. The lower bound of childhood is not 16, it is 0. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2017 18:16:02 GMT
If they're going to give the vote to children, what's the supportable justification to stop at 16? if we're going to give the votes to adults what's the justification to start at 18? Repeatedly practicing reductio ad absurdum on this argument every time the topic is brought up isn't very convincing mate. Because 18 is when you are legally an adult. Before 1969 only those adults over the age of 21 had the vote. There was no supportable justification to grant the adult right to vote to only a subset of adults outside of a court sentence. So, if you are going to give the adult right to vote to children, what supportable justification is there to only give it to a subset of children? You either give the vote to all adults or none, or - if you are giving the vote to children - to all children or none. If you *DO* want to give the ADULT vote to 16-year-olds, you do it by making 16-year-olds into ADULTS, with all the liabilities and responsibilities of being adults, such as being held to adult contracts, being tried in adult courts, being chucked in adult prisons, serving adult sentences, and losing ALL and EVERY protection of being a child. But if you must know imo 16 is the age where most people become politically aware (...) It is also the age where a good chunk of young people leave school all together to start an apprenticeship or even get a job and start paying tax in a couple of cases I know of. Basing the right to vote on being rich enough to pay taxes is a very dodgy slope to start down. Daniel Radcliffe was paying income tax at the age of 12, so by your very argument, the vote should be granted to 12-year-old children. I was paying VAT when I was six, go on, justify giving 6-year-olds the vote. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 16, 2017 1:23:28 GMT
1. why not give non adults the vote, for all the reasons I set out and the fact that it would increase political education which is pretty dire atm Because as a society we have decided that the right to vote is an adult right, so it is a right held by all adults. Fine, yes, grant the right to vote to non-adults as well as adults, but it can only be justifiably granted to *ALL* non-adults, not an arbitary subset of non-adults Once you start down the slippery slope of "just *these* sorts of non-adults" (or *these* sorts of adults) you are moving from voting being a right to voting being a gift allocated by some person's arbirtary selection procedure. How about "everybody who doesn't support Labour". Or, as the current lefty outrage currently calls for "everybody who supports remaining in the EU". Over the years, decades, centuries, there have been many many philosophical discussions on how to best decide who should have the vote, and the only allocation that does not sprial into being subject to somebody's whim is universal adult sufferage. All adults, full stop, no exceptions. If you want to change how you legally declare that somebody is an adult, that is another issue. Again, the simplest, least corruptable method is by a person having been alive for a certain time. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 16, 2017 17:06:13 GMT
Why are people on this thread treating adulthood/childhood as a binary distinction? When I woke up on the morning of my 18th birthday, I had not changed in any noticeable way from what I was the day before. Becoming an adult is a process that takes a number of years, and it's entirely appropriate that we recognise those changes at different points (even though those points are entirely arbitrary). There is a legitimate debate about what arbitrary age we decide to mark as the point where the "average" or "normal" person is capable of choosing a candidate or party to support in an election, and characterising votes-at-16 as being about allowing "children" to vote is both simplistic and disingenuous. If you have a legitimate reason to argue that 16 year olds don't have the capacity, then please make that point. If the only argument you have is a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument about allowing "children" to vote, then you don't really have an argument.
|
|
