This article describes various processes of predicting election outcomes through polling or other predictive systems. The most striking aspect of the descriptions, as is mentioned in the article, is the amount of discrepancy between the polls and the actual results. This is due to a variety of reasons, from biases within the poll participants to mistakes in keeping track of the information. This often leads to results that differ from the actual election results, by some little or greater margin.
In addition to being miscalculated much of the time, publicly shared polls can have an effect on their viewers, potentially changing the way they cast their vote in the actual election. In tandem with the potentially skewed poll results, the phenomenon can have strong effects on the actual outcome of the election as well. Since a poll’s viewership can form their own opinions on the data that is shown, one could make up their mind to make a difference in the real election or to strengthen a candidate’s chances of election. Through the psychological effect a poll can have on a viewer, the viewer’s future actions are affected.
The polling practices that are enacted in the US serve several functions. Other than the literal function of predicting and modeling a future vision, some folks look to them for a form of safety or reliability in a time of great uncertainty. Much like Tarot or other forms of predictive systems, many people seek answers when looking toward the polls. Whether they’re looking to calm the turmoil inside themselves or an international political conflict, the polls offer some sort of safety net for folks to fall back on.
I believe that polls have no relevance in the world of utilitarianism. I’d say their only function is to alleviate the anxieties of people worrying for their future or for the future of their country – anxieties that could just as well be allayed through Tarot, I Ching, or other predictive models. Despite their alleged reliability, polls have the potential to be more hurtful than helpful.
