Posted on 12/08/2004 10:51:41 AM PST by inquest
OK, got my flamesuit on here...
The last couple of polls on FR have been questions regarding issues which, I'd wager, most Freepers had little knowledge of at the time the question was asked. There was a poll as to who should be the next chairman of Senate Judiciary. Everybody of course knew about Arlen and his rather presumptive remarks directed at the President, but I don't think a lot of people were terribly familiar with the credentials of the other two senators who were named in the poll.
Likewise with the most recent poll, I doubt whether most Freepers knew at the time that Mr. Gonzales was a member of La Raza or that as a judge on the Texas supreme court, voted to "rule" that a minor doesn't have to obtain her parents' consent to obtain an abortion. I have a very strong feeling that if these facts had been known beforehand, the numbers would look starkly different from the way they currently do. Indeed, over time, the percentage in his favor has been steadily dropping.
Therefore I have this simple proposal for future polls: When a poll question is posted, I recommend to have it link to a thread discussing the question, and to not accept any votes for 24 hours, so that Freepers have the opportunity to hear the different arguments and cast an informed vote. Comments?
You're as bad as the Democrats, presuming that those who disagree with you must be ignorant of the facts.
I don't think that polls on FreeRepublic add any value whatsoever; the results for almost all of them could be predicted without conducting the poll. It is like polling delegates at the Democratic National Committee over whether they prefer the Democrat or the Republican. What's the point?
Disengenious. The people who post here are probably the most informed people on the planet, that's why they're here, not because they're ill-informed, but because they have a thirst for the issues that directly effect them.
We should have a poll on it!
Then ignore them.
I knew about both those things.
I'm thinking we should have a poll about this thread.
A conflicted 2. On the upside, there is an honest attempt to rectify a perceived problem by taking charge. On the downside, there is an honest attempt to rectify a perceived problem by taking charge.
Again, I'd wager that the current poll, if the respondents had been aware of the relevant facts, would have proven most interesting indeed.
A person doesn't have to vote right away. The polls are up for a long, long time.
Why should you assume that because a freeper disagrees with you, they must be ignorant of the facts? Most evidence I've seen on FR is the opposite - I knew both of those facts, for example - I happen to disagree with you regarding his abortion decision, I think it was a fairly narrow decision around the law in Texas at the time and does not give a good indication of his views on abortion. I knew he was a member of La Raza - but I don't know enough about what that group was like then versus what it is now, just as the NAACP used to be somewhat respectable but now is a con game.
Ouch. My brain hurts.
The polls here do not mean anything. It is more for fun.
If we wanted to know more about the subject matter there is always google.
There are still going to be realistic limits. If a news item comes at them from out of the blue, and then they're expected to comment on it, does it make sense to assume that they're going to know enough about it to give an informed answer?
Having a thirst for information isn't the same as actually being informed. I made my proposal so that Freepers could have a chance to satisfy their thirst before answering the question being asked.
I'm not assuming that on that basis.
Sure, I'd go for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.