[A Little Legalese] Public Elections Poll Analysis






Europeian Public Electoral Polls Analysis
Public Opinion on the Ongoing Senate Debate

Written by GrandfatherClock




Between April 7 and April 9, 2021, the Europeian Broadcasting Company conducted a poll asking citizens for their opinions on the proposed Public Runoff Results Amendment (2021), which was being debated in the Senate. After a first poll was rescinded due to questions about the clarity of the poll's prompts, a second poll was more thoroughly prepared and put out to the public, which garnered 25 responses.

Do you support the currently proposed amendment?
A majority of respondents do not support the amendment, with a combined 56% expressing opposition. Of those, 48% stated that they strongly opposed it, while only 32% of respondents stated that they were in support of the amendment, giving a it net support rating of -24%. Two comments on this question supported the amendment, with one supposing that it would make elections "less exciting" and would be a detriment to the system.

Not reflected in the comments, though, are opinions raised in a Grand Hall thread, where several citizens have remarked that public polls bring about the possibility of a 'troll vote' to throw off or tie an election, and/or that refreshing polls all day for an election isn't healthy. Conversely, some think that it is healthier instead to be able to see the results as they come in and not have to wait until the end.

Similarly to the first, now-rescinded poll, there was some confusion raised later in the regional Discord server regarding whether the proposed amendment would make runoff results visible before or after voting, an ambiguity that some have said exists in the current Elections Act (2021).

support1.png

comments1.png

Which election poll method do you prefer?
Respondents were then asked whether, if the Elections Act (2021) were to be changed, which method of structuring the polls they preferred, between being able to see the results before voting, after voting, not until the poll ends, or none of the above. In line with the percentage of respondents who stated 'oppose' on the previous question, 56% would prefer not being able to see the results until the polls close, while 36% support not being able to see the results until you have voted, bringing runoff elections into alignment with their general counterparts. A further 8% support being able to view the polls whether or not you have voted yet.

Comparable to the first question's comments, two of three are in support of public voting. Two commenters argued that it would, once again, 'kill' the fun, and that it "isn't our job to prevent what someone might perceive as a 'troll vote'." One commenter stated, however, that public results would "allow too much room for vote manipulation," perhaps hinting that the 'troll vote' argument holds more weight for some citizens than others.

support2.png

comments2.png

While the multiple choice answers from the first poll were discarded as they could not be relied upon, its comments were preserved. They show a more varied set of opinions than in the second poll, with more people expressing their thoughts for and against the amendment.

In which instances do you support making the election results public to every citizen regardless whether they have already voted in the election?
  • Strongly against making election results public regardless whether someone has voted, it puts an undue influence on the voter to potentially support those lagging in the vote and the potential for herd mentality
  • Hiding the results in Senate elections defeats the purpose of the Senate seat selection mechanism, and in general hiding the results kills our elections and all the intrigue surrounding those. That's bad; we've done fully-private election results before (as trial runs), and those were very boring elections. We're a political region, and politics are what drives the narrative for most of our activities (most importantly, our elections).
  • It’s a no-brainier. It’s quite shocking that any elections would be private. We’ve seen time and time again that private polls result in close to zero discussion, while public polls are much more lively.
  • Votes should not be influenced based on other votes. I understand that people might still tell each other the results but the government should not encourage influence by making the results public.
Two comments supported the amendment, repeating the point that public elections are "more lively," and as a "political region, ... politics are what drives the narrative for most of our activities ... ." The two comments holding a differing opinion once again highlighted the possibility for influencing the decision of a voter yet to cast their ballot, supposing that the influence is 'undue'. Moreover, one comment bases their argument on the principle that "votes should not be influenced based on other votes."

Do you support not being able to view the election results until you have already voted?
  • While I support the policy as it stands, it should be taken a step further and no one should be able to view the election results until voting closes, taking away any chances for leaking vote numbers during the vote and affecting a potential voter's vote
  • For me personally, this doesn't matter for Presidential elections where I've made up my mind, but it does matter for elections where I'm voting for or torn between multiple candidates. For example, if I am torn between who is receiving my last vote in a 6-person Senate, and the two people contending for that 6th seat are two promising young players, knowing their current vote counts is going to impact my choice.
  • I know that you kind of already know the results before you vote as you hear it from others - but you don't see the whole picture, which means your vote is more or less unbiased. That should stay, and if that's changed, unfair elections is the only result
  • This question should be 'until the poll is closed'.
  • Votes should not be influenced by other votes but watching election results is super fun and should not be taken away!
This more nuanced question brought up the point that presidential elections are different from Senate elections, and perhaps there should be different guidelines for each: "[T]his doesn't matter for [p]residential elections ... but it does matter for elections where I'm voting for ... multiple candidates," (as in a Senate election). The argument that "votes should not be influenced by other votes" was once more brought up, with one commenter stating that the current law does not do enough to combat this, going on to say that fully private polls would "[take] away any chances for ... affecting a potential voter's vote."

 
So, I have a mild suspicion that, due to the low turnout of the poll overall and the active opposition to the new amendment, those in opposition to public polls may be slightly overrepresented in this sample. That being said, I support private polls, so my comment undercuts my own side a tiny bit, but I feel it's probably the truth.
 
I did not take this poll and I support public polls -- but still my fault for not taking the poll!
 
Supporter of public polls, feel like they generate a little more interest and a live look at whether or not GOTV is being done.
 
The interesting aspect of this will be to see if this passes a referendum since it’s quite plausible Calvin would veto it if it passes the Senate (which it likely will).
 
Back
Top