Taijitu
General Category => General Board => Taijitu Polls => Topic started by: AwesomeSaucer on October 31, 2015, 07:45:10 PM
-
Just curious. Let's see what happens! :)
-
Definitely would run for something like governor or mayor.
-
wtf, knowing you'd win? Fishy.
-
wtf, knowing you'd win? Fishy.
Just a thought experiment. Controlling variables here.
-
wtf, knowing you'd win? Fishy.
That isn't how it works? :P
-
You forgot the option: Other (please comment)
I vote: Other
Comment: The only way to run in an election and know that you will win, is if it is rigged. I would not run in a rigged election.
-
You forgot the option: Other (please comment)
I vote: Other
Comment: The only way to run in an election and know that you will win, is if it is rigged. I would not run in a rigged election.
You have the No option, which I voted mainly because of the reason you gave.
-
You have the No option, which I voted mainly because of the reason you gave.
Yes, you are right Delfos, I just wanted to make a point about the "Other" option. I have now voted: No.
-
I'd run for office because I have ran for office, I never knew how the results would be and they've been frankly poor tbh, I don't run for any major party that would more likely get me elected, maybe the polls should have been worded more like that if that's what you'd want to hear.
Would you run for office in a party with most chances to elect you or not?
PS: Or maybe I never wanted to be elected, the end-game for me isn't being elected. (oh snap, I can't explain them how it's done)
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
-
No. Too frustrating a job and you're judged on too many things outside of your control.
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
no
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
no
???
-
After considering this I'm leaning more Mayor so as to do meaningful work for my community.
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
no
lol
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
no
lol
It's clear what I said was about the way it was worded. I see no value in the way this poll is presented, if you know you'd win which party would you run? If I know I'd win and that was an acceptable way to run for an election what does it matter which party I'd run with? If I wanted a seat just for fame and glory (money) I'd run for Republican, but if I have a choice I'd probably run by myself...damn elections, I wouldn't even run, I'd just take over, with blackjack and hookers, in fact, damn the country, I'll just do with blackjack and hookers.
What are you asking? Even if I don't like Republicans would I run if they could guarantee my election? Is that it? Would you run for a party that isn't exactly what you defend but they could guarantee you're elected? Like many Republicans and Democrats do? How would running independent would guarantee being elected? This is impossible unless there is already an established independent movement in power of something and you'd run in that platform knowing most population rather voting for that independent movement. There is near where I live a parish that is "controlled" by an independent cooperative movement for that parish only and they win the election every time, they never want alliances or coalitions with parties, that'd be the only way you'd be guaranteed to win as an independent.
This poll is surreal, not even science-fiction.
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
no
lol
It's clear what I said was about the way it was worded. I see no value in the way this poll is presented, if you know you'd win which party would you run? If I know I'd win and that was an acceptable way to run for an election what does it matter which party I'd run with? If I wanted a seat just for fame and glory (money) I'd run for Republican, but if I have a choice I'd probably run by myself...damn elections, I wouldn't even run, I'd just take over, with blackjack and hookers, in fact, damn the country, I'll just do with blackjack and hookers.
What are you asking? Even if I don't like Republicans would I run if they could guarantee my election? Is that it? Would you run for a party that isn't exactly what you defend but they could guarantee you're elected? Like many Republicans and Democrats do? How would running independent would guarantee being elected? This is impossible unless there is already an established independent movement in power of something and you'd run in that platform knowing most population rather voting for that independent movement. There is near where I live a parish that is "controlled" by an independent cooperative movement for that parish only and they win the election every time, they never want alliances or coalitions with parties, that'd be the only way you'd be guaranteed to win as an independent.
This poll is surreal, not even science-fiction.
As a creator of polls, I must defend Awesomesaucer here. Polls - usually - are meant to gain insight about a particular question or issue. In this case, the question/issue is about someone's willingness to hold a political office. Removing a substantial requirement of holding political office - RUNNING for political office - immediately removes what I would think is one of the biggest barriers for most people.
IOW, let's say 80/100 people would not be willing to hold public office. Of those 80, I would venture a guess that 60-70 of those would cite the grueling, demeaning and insincere campaigning to be the main reason they would not. Take that away - arguably the worst part of holding public office - and you can get some insight into 1) why else do people not want to hold public office and/or 2) how many people would be willing to take on the responsibility of public office if the cost was half? Or other insights, that the typical "would you run for office" poll would garner an 80% "no." Not especially informative.
It may be unrealistic (to know that you would win), but realism is not the point in a poll like this. The point is seeing what drives you beyond the obvious/majority actions. That's the way I see it, anyway.
-
It's clear what I said was about the way it was worded. I see no value in the way this poll is presented, if you know you'd win which party would you run? If I know I'd win and that was an acceptable way to run for an election what does it matter which party I'd run with? If I wanted a seat just for fame and glory (money) I'd run for Republican, but if I have a choice I'd probably run by myself...damn elections, I wouldn't even run, I'd just take over, with blackjack and hookers, in fact, damn the country, I'll just do with blackjack and hookers.
What are you asking? Even if I don't like Republicans would I run if they could guarantee my election? Is that it? Would you run for a party that isn't exactly what you defend but they could guarantee you're elected? Like many Republicans and Democrats do? How would running independent would guarantee being elected? This is impossible unless there is already an established independent movement in power of something and you'd run in that platform knowing most population rather voting for that independent movement. There is near where I live a parish that is "controlled" by an independent cooperative movement for that parish only and they win the election every time, they never want alliances or coalitions with parties, that'd be the only way you'd be guaranteed to win as an independent.
This poll is surreal, not even science-fiction.
As a creator of polls, I must defend Awesomesaucer here. Polls - usually - are meant to gain insight about a particular question or issue. In this case, the question/issue is about someone's willingness to hold a political office. Removing a substantial requirement of holding political office - RUNNING for political office - immediately removes what I would think is one of the biggest barriers for most people.
IOW, let's say 80/100 people would not be willing to hold public office. Of those 80, I would venture a guess that 60-70 of those would cite the grueling, demeaning and insincere campaigning to be the main reason they would not. Take that away - arguably the worst part of holding public office - and you can get some insight into 1) why else do people not want to hold public office and/or 2) how many people would be willing to take on the responsibility of public office if the cost was half? Or other insights, that the typical "would you run for office" poll would garner an 80% "no." Not especially informative.
It may be unrealistic (to know that you would win), but realism is not the point in a poll like this. The point is seeing what drives you beyond the obvious/majority actions. That's the way I see it, anyway.
Those are all very completely different questions from the one presented. The fact you'd be willing to do it is much more important than the allegiance to a party. Which is exactly what I was arguing, if you remove all the "erm does it matter?" questions all you're left is a choice between 3 "parties" and "no". I think what you say in your point is much more interesting if it was worded the way you put it.
For me, and I guess for most people, the problem of running isn't the possibility of losing, so "knowing you'd win" doesn't have any value. It's if you're elected to do what you want - what you publicly said you would do, against what alternative? Not running because you don't want to expose yourself publicly or you don't want to do what others want you to do. I don't think anyone would ever even admit or able to acknowledge they are a Party Boy or that they'd run for selfish reasons. In a way I keep denouncing that AwesomeSaucer, like many people, has a prejudice against parties and thinks that if people run under some platform denominized as "Party" then they will automatically have to defend whatever the Party defends and they are slaves of it, and worse yet, that some parties would enslave their seat runners more than others. Otherwise, again, see no value in adding parties to the options of this poll.
Another interesting alternative was said by Khem, would you run for office in local elections, for Mayor? For Senator? For President? I doubt we have people here that think they are any good for national politics to "would run for Senator" or "would run for President" sounding like pleasing options, but who knows, again, much more interesting than the way this poll is worded.
-
I'll assume Delfos is talking about the fact that Portugal doesn't have a "Democratic" and "Republican" party. I apologize for the wording.
Please substitute those options for whatever major party falls within that place in your country's politics.
no
lol
It's clear what I said was about the way it was worded. I see no value in the way this poll is presented, if you know you'd win which party would you run? If I know I'd win and that was an acceptable way to run for an election what does it matter which party I'd run with? If I wanted a seat just for fame and glory (money) I'd run for Republican, but if I have a choice I'd probably run by myself...damn elections, I wouldn't even run, I'd just take over, with blackjack and hookers, in fact, damn the country, I'll just do with blackjack and hookers.
What are you asking? Even if I don't like Republicans would I run if they could guarantee my election? Is that it? Would you run for a party that isn't exactly what you defend but they could guarantee you're elected? Like many Republicans and Democrats do? How would running independent would guarantee being elected? This is impossible unless there is already an established independent movement in power of something and you'd run in that platform knowing most population rather voting for that independent movement. There is near where I live a parish that is "controlled" by an independent cooperative movement for that parish only and they win the election every time, they never want alliances or coalitions with parties, that'd be the only way you'd be guaranteed to win as an independent.
This poll is surreal, not even science-fiction.
As a creator of polls, I must defend Awesomesaucer here. Polls - usually - are meant to gain insight about a particular question or issue. In this case, the question/issue is about someone's willingness to hold a political office. Removing a substantial requirement of holding political office - RUNNING for political office - immediately removes what I would think is one of the biggest barriers for most people.
IOW, let's say 80/100 people would not be willing to hold public office. Of those 80, I would venture a guess that 60-70 of those would cite the grueling, demeaning and insincere campaigning to be the main reason they would not. Take that away - arguably the worst part of holding public office - and you can get some insight into 1) why else do people not want to hold public office and/or 2) how many people would be willing to take on the responsibility of public office if the cost was half? Or other insights, that the typical "would you run for office" poll would garner an 80% "no." Not especially informative.
It may be unrealistic (to know that you would win), but realism is not the point in a poll like this. The point is seeing what drives you beyond the obvious/majority actions. That's the way I see it, anyway.
I am highly experienced in poll-making, and in fact my main social network site before Taijitu was a polling site named Polar. And BBB just explained my entire thought process. You can always look at my polls on Voice Polls if you'd like. :)
-
Yeah, My degree includes "opinion" research under project techniques, like focus groups, roleplay and research brainstorming using selected "specimens", also encourages to work with statistics and interpretation of the 5 or 95 percentile, doesn't qualify me as an expert in polls, nor your "qualification" disqualifies my thoughts on how this could have been more interesting or more clear.
Hopefully I've fomented that there's so many more variables, which would undoubtedly improve future polls if you're not too busy with your expertise.
-
Yeah, My degree includes "opinion" research under project techniques, like focus groups, roleplay and research brainstorming using selected "specimens", also encourages to work with statistics and interpretation of the 5 or 95 percentile, doesn't qualify me as an expert in polls, nor your "qualification" disqualifies my thoughts on how this could have been more interesting or more clear.
Hopefully I've fomented that there's so many more variables, which would undoubtedly improve future polls if you're not too busy with your expertise.
Jesus, did I actually write that?! Dude, I'm sorry, I was tired and anxious for an assignment. :P Very sorry about that.
-
Jesus, did I actually write that?! Dude, I'm sorry, I was tired and anxious for an assignment. :P Very sorry about that.
Good luck with that. Don't worry about this specific poll, for me it doesn't provide proper results but I clearly have other goals with polls on this subject. Reading the comments is not futile, replying to them might be.