|
|
Tags for This Article:
Media (2772) People (2121) 2008 Elections (1901) Republicans-GOP (1226) Voting (1214) Republican GOP Dirty Tricks (481) Presidential Campaign Democratic (383) Presidential Campaign Democratic (280) Elections_Campaigns (274) Paul-Ron (260) Congress Democrats (233) Party Machine Republican (217) Presidential Campaign Republican (212) 2008 Democratic Natl Conv (150) Democrats Progressive (144) Presidential Campaign Republican (142) 2008 Republican Natl Conv (82) 2008 Republican Natl Conv (75) Congress Republican GOP (70) Republican Opposed To NeoCons (62) Congress Republican GOP (50)
|
Add to My Group
After the most recent Republican Party debate on CNBC, the network ran a post-debate poll, which was promptly removed after too many Ron Paul supporters voted. In all seriousness, the explanation for removal is that Ron Paul supporters voted. In other words: CNBC didn't like the results, so then removed their own poll. This prompts the question: if poll results are to be discarded because you don't like the results, then why even run a poll? This almost causes me to wonder if the "scientific" and "legitimate" polls are also designed to achieve a pre-ordained outcome. If a polling company gets something other than a desired result, do they change the results, or throw the poll out altogether? In the CNBC editor's explanation, he writes: "Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any 'legit' poll." You see? Pursuant to this calculus, all polls must show the same results - which makes them something other than real polls. If there is a disparity between two polls, then the one showing Ron Paul in the lead must be wrong, and then discarded. If, on the other hand, say, Rudy Giuliani had won the poll by a hefty margin, would they have discarded those results as well? Which prompts the question: if Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are the true front-runners, with legions of fans everywhere, why can't they replicate the same thing Ron Paul supporters are doing? Where are the supporters for the other candidates? What exactly makes the offline polls so much more scientific? In those polls, the polling companies get to choose the respondents. In online polls, people can choose to respond. Let's not forget that elections are not conducted the same way polls are. The media and the polling companies do not get to choose who they want to vote. Ron Paul has dominated virtually every single post-debate poll, causing the media to ignore and conceal the results of their own polls. The media has ignored so many Ron Paul debate poll victories that I have lost count. After Ron Paul does well in a poll, there is always some status quo conspiracy theorist to come along and accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming" or "hacking" polls, albeit without offering any evidence. Many people who have researched this issue more than I have concluded that "spamming" polls isn't as easy as pretended. For example: polling software will prevent a single Internet Protocol address (i.e., I.P. address, which is unique for every computer) from voting more than once. Okay. So it is possible to vote a plurality of times in a single poll. Although I have never attempted to vote more than once in any poll, theoretically, I could have pulled off such a feat by voting once on my computer, and then, I suppose, drive to a friend's house to vote from their computer as well. But so could any other candidate's supporter do the same thing. If we are to assume that if Ron Paul does well in a poll, it must have been due to a certain percentage of spam votes, then it would only be fair to assume the same trend for all of the candidates. Do Ron Paul supporters have super-secret poll spamming technology that nobody else knows of? Are only Ron Paul supporters motivated enough to attempt this? Or, what about Sean Hannity explaining away the results of FOX News' own poll by saying that Ron Paul supporters were "re-dialing" in text messages? That one was done via cellular phone text messaging, and it was impossible to vote more than once from one cell phone. Well, I suppose I could own more than one cell phone. But then so could any of the other candidate's supporters. Only Ron Paul supporters "cheat" now? Is that it?
BTW, I only have one cellular phone, as I can barely afford to pay my only cellular phone bill. If Ron Paul supporters are so technologically savvy, are so willing to cheat, and possess such secretive technology that seems to escape everybody else, then I must say I feel much more re-assured about the future of U.S. elections. We should have no problem stopping Diebold from tampering with the real election results, right? It shouldn't be so hard to believe Ron Paul could do well in polls for those who pay careful attention to the news. Albeit, one has to look hard for the news coverage. Ron Paul has been doing very well at straw polls. "Spamming" a straw poll in which the person must show up and vote in the flesh would be a fairly difficult feat to pull off. When I looked at the results of the CNBC poll which was removed, the first thought that came to my mind was that CNBC may be trying to conceal more than just another Ron Paul victory.
www.NoAnthraxVaccine.net Mark served for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a candidate for a municipal office in 2002. Mark has helped raise awareness of military and veterans' issues, by establishing No Anthrax Vaccine. His commentary has been carried by such sites as AntiWar.com. He spends much of his free time reading the great minds of the Austrian school of economics, such as Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, et al.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
