-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Oct 27, 2004 2:18 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Vote! Robert Paul: >The armchair psychologist in me says that there may be some truth in the >reporter's hypothesis (that's one reason I despise polls). But it seems to me >clearly true in small groups where the pressure to conform is more >immediate. If >the hands appear tentatively at first, then, once a certain small majority pro >or con appears, the 'undecides' begin to side quickly with the perceived >trend. A.A. People do exhibit flocking behavior, like birds or sheep (this is just a statement of fact). Regarding undecideds this late in the game though, one of CNN's political experts did say that undecideds tend to go for the challenger 60/40 against the incumbent. By definition they're not happy with the incumbent, that's why they're undecided. Paul Stone: Wouldn't it be neat to have an election that DOESN'T have 4 years of leadup to it? Maybe people would actually vote for who they want to win. The fact that polls are endlessly announced and endlessly affect the vote is pretty deplorable. Maybe THAT's where kids learn peer-pressure. A.A. I'm not sure polls do affect the outcome that much. Gore was ahead in the polls and lost the election. Regarding peer pressure, 50% of adults don't even vote, so presumably they're oblivious to polls. The election process would seem a strange place to learn peer pressure. Andy p ########## Paul Stone pas@xxxxxxxx Kingsville, ON, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html