The goal, as ever, is to present to the public an accurate reflection of what the people as a whole think about candidates and issues.
Can this not simply be harvested from the endless volumes of online posts made to the public internet? Why do they act like they need to go on the hunt for something that is normally difficult even to avoid?
The types of people that offer their political opinions online are not themselves representative of the whole voting public. This would introduce an instance of sampling bias.
Can this not simply be harvested from the endless volumes of online posts made to the public internet? Why do they act like they need to go on the hunt for something that is normally difficult even to avoid?
The types of people that offer their political opinions online are not themselves representative of the whole voting public. This would introduce an instance of sampling bias.
No. Not even before now since you could make as many accounts as you want on a given platform.
But especially not now since the cost of text content generation has dropped to basically zero.
Because based on online posts, Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Bernie sanders all won by a wide margin?
Because then louder people get counted more
What, you don’t want audience participation voting?
Fun fact, my hometown in NH still votes this way unless someone asks for a count