|
| ▲ | skissane 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The thing is... on both the cited occasions (Nixon in 1968, Morrison in 2019), the politicians claiming the average voter agreed with them actually won that election So, obviously their claims were at least partially true – because if they'd completely misjudged the average voter, they wouldn't have won |
| |
| ▲ | Nevermark an hour ago | parent [-] | | People vote for people they don't agree with. When there are only two choices, and infinite issues, voters only have two choices: Vote for someone you don't agree with less, or vote for someone you quite hilariously imagine agrees with you. EDIT: Not being cynical about voters. But about the centralization of parties, in number and operationally, as a steep barrier for voter choice. |
|
|
| ▲ | palmotea an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > We really need a rule in politics which bans you (if you're an elected representative) from stating anything about the beliefs of the electorate without reference to a poll of the population of adequate size and quality. Except that assumes polls are a good and accurate way to learn the "beliefs of the electorate," which is not true. Not everyone takes polls, not every belief can be expressed in a multiple-choice form, little subtleties in phrasing and order can greatly bias the outcome of a poll, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to require speech be filtered through such an expensive and imperfect technology. |
|
| ▲ | bee_rider 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just make it broad enough that we never get a candidate promoting themselves as “electable” again. |
|
| ▲ | chrisrogers an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That get covered by the mechanisms of social credibility. |
