Should polls be banned 60 days before an election?

[CMT]

I've heard some people advocate this. That polls are counter-productive to turnout. So, they are advocating that polls should be banned sixty-days before an election. As everyone here knows it always seems to come down in election coverage to the "horse race" and how they are doing in the polls rather than issues.

On the other hand others argue that banning poll taking is an infringement on freedom of speech or freedom of the press--since news organizations (those lazy bastards) use polls so much in their reporting rather than go door to door and speak to actual people to get a sence of where the minds of the people are.

What do you think? I'm getting of the opinion that it would actually help bring people out to vote if there were not polls published in the days before an election telling us who will win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. But Then Only The Insiders Would Know The Real Story...

I'm reluctant to allow any group of people to have more access to information than me...

[FlashHarry]

2. No way!

We're already on our way to touchscreen voting. They've gotten rid of exit polling. If they get rid of pre-election polls, how will anyone know if something's rotten in Denmark?

(I still think that Chambliss' 'amazing' election victory over Cleland is a prime example of this.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Clarification for an non-American

What do you mean by "they've gotten rid of exit polling"? Has it been banned, or has someone (TV, I guess) said they don't want to pay for it next election?

[FlashHarry]

10. I think the explanation was the latter.

I seem to remember that the company that does most of the exit polling we're used to has 'quietly' decided not to continue.

[rock]

3. No. They're propoganda now, they're propoganda just before

the election. You may prefer the word 'political statements' or 'lies'.

[arwalden]

4. There's No Accounting For Human Stupidity or Laziness

There was a sub-thread a few days ago that talked about this... but not to the extent of actually BANNING polls.

I firmly believe, however, that there is a measurable percentage of our population who allow their OWN opinions to be shaped, formed, and influenced by poll results.

These weak-minded individuals (lazy?) want to be on the "winning side" and want to support what's most popular. Sad.

So, in that regard... for the percentage of oatmeal-brained folks who allow polls to determine their votes... I think polls are dangerous.

BUT THEN AGAIN... maybe it's just those PEOPLE who are dangerous. Becaaaause, those are the same people who might choose to vote for OUR cause if the polls just happen to be going our way.

But then again... since the "liberal" media is probably already aware of the oatmeal-brained individuals, they might try to influence the undecided voters with skewed interpretations and analysis of faulty poll results.

WOW... you ask tough questions. I don't know if there's an answer to this one.

-- Allen

[bowens43]

5. No

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. No, but we should adopt Ross Perot's idea

Keep the polls open Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, so working people have a reasonable opportunity to vote.

[Kahuna]

8. No way! Polls should test the integrity of election outcomes..

Of course that didn't happen the way it should have in 2000. The media whores discounted Florida's exit polls that showed Gore winning because they didn't care for the results. But the exit polls were accurate.

The only way we can possibly keep bush from stealing the next election is to have him down by at least 15 pts. in the polls. He will have to explain how he won with him down 15 pts in several state polls. Overcoming one or two of those polls could happen. But ALL of them?!?!.

[WoodrowFan]

9. NO

Let's use them to keep an eye on electronic voting.