On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > Of course it is to everyone's advantage to have it appear that his > own opinion, whatever it may be, reflects the opinion of the > majority.
I have voted, without much regularity, over a period of a couple of years at vote.com. Once I vote, and see how others have voted, I do get the gratification of, "Yes, people are smarter than I thought this time," or "Man! How can people be so stupid!" ;-) In no case do I ever want it to "appear" that my vote reflects the opinion of the majority. I want it to appear that my vote reflects my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. > Therefore the respondents might all feel tempted to vote > more than once. ^^^? I do not feel tempted to vote more than once. I am therefore confident that there are others who also feel no such "temptation." > Questions: Do these web pages designed for the purpose of collecting > opinions from the public usually have some kind of mechanism to > collect only one vote per IP number per each site access on the same > site? Yes. At vote.com, for instance, you can only vote with JS enabled. The same code which allows you to vote also disallows you from a revote. I just checked by killing my browser, wiping my cookies, and restarting the browser, and was able to revote a question. > Could anyone submit his own opinion multiple times for the same > question on the same web site and by using the same computer during > the same session and have each one of his votes counted as valid? Not at vote.com. I don't know about others. > If such is the case, then none of these kinds of surveys has any > integrity. Few surveys have any objective integrity anyway. Most have the questions worded in subtle fasion to steer the vote in the desired manner. Let's take one of the Bin Laden questions, for example: # Should TV Networks Not Air Videotaped Messages From # Osama bin Laden? First of all, why word any question in the negative? Many people don't intuitively grasp a negative question, or the double-negative formed with a negative answer, so when faced with such a question, many are momentarily confused. # YES! # The White House is asking networks to exercise better # judgment. Bin Laden's messages could include coded # messages to terrorists This answer, in the form of a rationalization, implies that the networks have exercised poor judgement by showing us what they've shown us. It then throws in a fear factor. # NO! # Don't we live in a free country? The media should not # suppress such newsworthy statements This option first "answers" the question with another question, then follows up with a weakly worded assertion of preferred media action. Anyone who might have been neutral to begin with will vote yes on this question, simply because of the wording of each of the options. All surveys are skewed, whether conciously or unconciously, whether subtley or forcefully, in the direction the survey writer leans. > If these kinds of surveys have no integrity, then what > is the point in conducting such surveys in this manner? Such surveys are often submitted to Congressmen, Senators, and others in power as validation for the poll-taker's agenda. - Steve
