Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad
I approached this issue as a presidential election. You can't vote for "neither of the above" or "both of the above." You have to choose. The "5s" refused to choose. In an election, those folks don't vote--it's a very common assumption by pollsters making projections for election results.
Similarly, we don't apply an intensity of like or dislike to presidential candidates. It's either "A" or "B". There's some indication in 2012 that Romney supporters were more intense in their positions, but there were fewer of them. Ultimately, I believe we should really care about which side people fall on.
One other polling note: while this is a voluntary poll so it could be biased, pollsters find that usually the opinions of respondents generally reflect the views of non respondents.
I used a set of common polling assumptions to provide a clearer view of how community preferences fall out. I see others have provided other metrics that arrive at the same conclusion--that opposition is running 2 to 1 against.
|
There is such a thing as a 3rd party candidate. Ross Perot captured almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and over 8% in 1996. in 1928 Robert La Follette even won a state. (of course, you could hold the
Kang and Kodos perspective of politics)
But more importantly, in this survey you
DID NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE. You
WERE GIVEN A NEUTRAL OPTION. 12% chose that option. FIRST could have structured the survey as a simple for or against, but they didn't. As others in this thread have already stated, the people who chose neutral did so for a reason. Their response counts too.