[SfN] Gallup Poll

[Arun Bhalla]

steven paul varel writes:
> Anyway, I guess the answer to this question is not that relavent to our
> activities.  What we need to know is whether it is true in Illinois that
> that people can safely vote for Nader without helping Bush win the
> election.  I have heard that this is true.  Many people that I have
> talked to recently, though, have expressed the concern that the
> information I have heard about this might be biased because I have heard
> it from people who want others to vote for Nader.  So because of this, I
> need to know of a source that I can convince people to believe which shows
> it is unlikely that Illinois electoral votes will be influenced by a few
> more people voting for Nader over Gore (this obviously only applies if it 
> is true that there is a significant margin of victory in Illinois for one 
> of the candidates, as I do not wish to present false information, but I
> assume this is true because that is what I have been hearing).  Does
> anyone know of such a source? (it would be helpful if it came from some
> credible source updated with new polling information frecuently online so
> it would be easily accessible
> for me to check it regularly and keep updated on the situation as the
> election day draws nearer, if such a thing exists).  This is very
> important because I know some
> people (who hold strongly to the fact the Gore is the lesser of two
> evils and that they are worried about what Bush will do to the
> country) that will definitely vote for Nader if they know that the race
> is not close enough for their vote to make the difference between Bush and
> Gore.

Chicago Tribune's website's latest figures had Gore above Bush by 8
points (47-39), but that figure is more than a week old.  Chicago had
85% supporting Gore.  But polls are meaningless.  They sample 1000 people
to reflect 100 million, and they're only sampling "likely voters."  I don't
know anyone that's ever been polled, and I'm not sure I know anyone that
knows anyone that's been polled.  Only statewide polls matter in national
elections due to the electoral system, anyhow, but those polls tend to be
less accurate and less frequently conducted.

I'm not sure if polling is good or bad for the Nader campaign.  In a blind
vote, perhaps all but the courageous would vote for Gore to keep Bush
out of office.  On the other hand, polls are necessary for those to vote
for Nader if Gore leads by a "safe" margin.

Polls are evil.  Paul is exactly right that polls perpetuate the two-party
system as much as any of the other devices -- corporations, corporate media,
genetic memory, etc.  Polls have people voting their fears, not voting their
conscience.  Media coverage of debates are just as silly; the major concern
is always "who was the winner?" because that can sway some people's votes
more than discussing issues.  Of course, there's little to actually talk
about in terms of difference of issues.  I see this covered everywhere
in the media.  "Once again, the debates were a snooze as the candidates
refused to acknowledge a substantial difference of opinion."  It almost
sounds like every reporter is voting Nader or not voting at all.  It doesn't
matter which of the two candidates get elected -- we're going to get roughly
the same end result.  The only difference is which corporations get served
best in the end, and many corporations have hedged their bets on both sides.

I don't trust Bush or Gore, I really don't know where they truly
stand.  Bush and Gore are both trying to sound like populist
centrists, yet I know their records both show otherwise (really, they
both fall on the same side), so who knows what to expect from either
of them?  Have you seen their campaign ads?  They both say the same
things.  I really don't see what everyone fears about Bush.  What's so
worse about Bush than Gore?  I want people to get past the partisan
nonsense.  A vote for Bush or Gore is a vote for the status quo, with
minor tweaks either way. A vote for Nader is a real vote for change.
A vote for Nader is a vote for the future.  Four years of Bush (or
four more years of Gore, for that matter) can only leave so much
damage.  But we need someone to think of the future.  "How dare Nader
run during such a close election!"  When won't it be close?  When will
people give third parties the chance that they deserve?  When else
will the seeds for deep democracy be sown?  When will the cycle be
broken?  "There's always next time" some Cubs fans might say.  But
there's no better time than now.  In fact, it is the best time because
there's so little to lose.  Gore and Bush are so similar, it really
doesn't matter how Nader's campaign affects the election.  The choice
between Gore and Nader is not as fuzzy as the choice between Gore and
Bush.  And a vote for Nader now buys us all four years closer to
progress.

A vote for Nader brings us closer to the badly needed 5% to make the
Green Party a second party.  A vote for Bush or Gore changes so
little.  What happens if Gore loses by a margin less than Nader's
votes?  Perhaps the Democratic Party then realizes to adjust their
platform, and it's a win for us.  Activism becomes stronger and more
critical of Congress and the White House.  What if Gore wins but Nader
does not get 5% of the popular vote?  We still end up with a
conservative in the White House, some progressive organizations will
become lax in their efforts, and the Green Party (or some other third
party) will have to fight just as hard during the next four years.

I'm glad that Nader & LaDuke are running for president.  If not for
them (and perhaps another third party), I would not be voting for any
presidential candidate this year, and I'd have so little positive
passion towards the race at all.  Candidates need to earn their votes,
and Gore sure doesn't deserve my vote.

In solidarity,
Arun