According to this article, second-tier candidates are affected adversely by polls. I for one think that the constant polls have too much of an effect on the outcomes of elections.

What would happen? (http://www.slate.com/id/2181838?wpisrc=newsletter)

We learned two things from Tuesday's Democratic primary in New Hampshire: First, the Hillary Clinton campaign is very much alive; second, the pre-election polls were virtually useless. According to the numbers, Barack Obama was on pace to win by a margin of five to 13 percentage points; instead, he lost by three.

But opinion polling might be much worse than inaccurate. It's easy to imagine that the polls themselves affect the outcome of the elections they're supposed to predict. Voters may be inclined to jump on the bandwagon of a candidate who appears to be cruising to victory. Or they may stay home if they think their favorite is either out of the running or coasting to an easy win. Many believe that ubiquitous horse-race coverage pushes second-tier candidates out of the picture—and that Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Ron Paul are all suffering at the hands of meddlesome pollsters.

Is it true that we'd be better off without polls? What would happen if pre-election polls were banned altogether? Let's conduct a thought experiment to find out.

you should have made this a poll:banana:

you should have made this a poll:banana:
Very funny. :p

Two words: First Amendment.

i think you can close the thread now:(

Two words: First Amendment.
Yes, Borg. I realize that it's unconstitutional and therefore we can't do it. The article is theoretical. It's about what would happen if we did.

Yes, Borg. I realize that it's unconstitutional and therefore we can't do it. The article is theoretical. It's about what would happen if we did.
then we'd all be Canadian, where they restrict the press.

then we'd all be Canadian, where they restrict the press.
I don't think you even read the article. It was actually very interesting.

I don't think you even read the article. It was actually very interesting.
the same argument is made every election cycle.

the same argument is made every election cycle.
Actually, the article wasn't saying that we should ban polls. Now I really know that you didn't read it.

Actually, the article wasn't saying that we should ban polls. Now I really know that you didn't read it.
i started to, but it nearly put me to sleep.

i started to, but it nearly put me to sleep.
Hah. I liked it. I was surprised by the actual effects of polls - mainly, that a predicted "shut out" type race is less likely to attract voters than a close race. Who the front runner is affects voter turnout less that that, apparently.

Two words: First Amendment.

Say Bub.How h'old are you.?
You don't seem to have a grasp of humor vs important
vs. what is needed,wanted,liked,cujoled-over,guffawed-under,
Grafted,mandated,voted-on,voted-fer-against-and-fur-another day.
You seem rigid,unflexibly TOWARD,and that's NOT gOOt.
You need perspective.
You need ... Fools for Dummies...quickie cram course on Spam
Politics and the beefsteak chippendales revue.

beefsteak chippendales revue.
What about a Rhythm and Blues Revue instead?
http://www.bluesbrotherscentral.com/images/captures/bb1.jpg

Two words: First Amendment.

If that were fully enforced, then why are only the republican and democrat candidate allowed to participate in the prime time debates? I realize that if an independent gets enough percentage he can partake, but that is near impossible. Everyone running should get their equal time to lay down their platform to the masses.

If that were fully enforced, then why are only the republican and democrat candidate allowed to participate in the prime time debates?
Perhaps you should reread the amendment in question. Pay particular attention to the bit about a free press.

What about a Rhythm and Blues Revue instead?
http://www.bluesbrotherscentral.com/images/captures/bb1.jpg

Politics isn't for the faint of farts !

polling is mostly slanted one way or another, and is based on randomly who is polled... even though percentages are supposed to equal out.. polls are lifted so high that people actually make their decisions based on poll results.. which is retarded.