Public Opinion Numbers.

[billvon 3,092]

>Do you really believe the government makes it policy based on polls?

Uh, we base our entire system of government on polls. (otherwise known as voting, which occurs officially at polling places throughout the US on certain days.) In CA, policy is often decided solely on polls, presented to the people of CA as ballot issues.

So to answer your question literally, yes, our government makes much of its policy (and elects new leaders who make policy) based on official government polls. Most politicians have figured this out, and thus pay attention to the less official but more readily available media polls.

[Push 0]

I think there is nothing wrong with that. The government is supposed to do what the majority wants. By keeping track of what the majority wants, isn't the government doing what it's supposed to be doing?

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Uh, we base our entire system of government on polls. (otherwise known as voting, which occurs officially at polling places throughout the US on certain days.) In CA, policy is often decided solely on polls, presented to the people of CA as ballot issues.

So to answer your question literally, yes, our government makes much of its policy (and elects new leaders who make policy) based on official government polls. Most politicians have figured this out, and thus pay attention to the less official but more readily available media polls.

If that were true, the Vietnam conflict would've ended before Nixon was in office. US policy towards Iraq would've changed this morning and there would be a 0% tax.

Voting and polling are not the same thing.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,092]

>If that were true, the Vietnam conflict would've ended before Nixon
> was in office. US policy towards Iraq would've changed this morning
> and there would be a 0% tax

Uh, no. Our government is based on voting, but not all decisions are based on voting. In the case of Vietnam, our president determined our involvement (since it was not a war but a 'limited police action') and our only recourse was massive public demonstrations. They did work, but took a long time since there was no opportunity to effectively vote on the war.

And where do you get the 0% tax thing? There are often initiatives on CA ballots that raise taxes, like new after-school programs for kids or new highway funds. They are often voted for, thus disproving any claim that "no one ever votes for new taxes."

>Voting and polling are not the same thing.

They are the same thing in terms of how they work; they are different in their effects. Voting is an official poll that is used to determine elections and initiatives; polls are not neccessarily official. In both cases the result may not represent the will of the people but generally does; in both cases not everyone participates.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Yeah, your touchy feely way of running this is bullshit. Do you really believe the government makes it policy based on polls?

The US system is way too often based on public opinion, sadly I think Bush is no exception then those who came before him.

That wasn't why I posted it, I like somebody else here pointed out, Bush doesn't read the forums. I offered the numbers to those here who seem to be arguing quite loudly how we MUST go into war, and to those who're saying that sending our soldiers out to die is somehow the only patriotic thing to do.

Fortunately, it seems most Americans disagree with both sentiments.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

By keeping track of what the majority wants, isn't the government doing what it's supposed to be doing?

I agree completely, actually. US leaders should be leaders, not followers.
The problem here is that while bush keeps trying harder and harder to lead people one way, more and more people are turning against him.

To me, the definition of a leader is a person that people follow. It seems, Bush is turning out to be a very poor leader. Nobody's following.

History will tell if this path proves to be an honorable one. So far, my bets are against that.

On one hand I do admire Bush for following his beliefs, but like most Americans I also question his motives for doing so.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I do admire Bush for following his beliefs

That is true, one of the hardest things in life to do is to follow your beliefs and stick to what you know is right, even in the face of adversity and disapproval.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Push 0]

We have some evidence here to believe that, perhaps, the beliefs of Bush do not represent the beliefs of the majority of his countrymen. This would imply that Bush is, in fact, telling his country what it should believe in this case. That sounds wrong to me.

Not to say I think Iraq is on some higher moral ground here. I'm just interpreting the numbers.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Jib 0]

Quote

... to those who're saying that sending our soldiers out to die is somehow the only patriotic thing to do.

I doubt that you can find anyone who believes that dying is a good thing or that war is sending out soldiers to die. Well, unless you count terrorists who think they're getting a bunch of virgins...

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Shark 0]

Quote

>Do you really believe the government makes it policy based on polls?

Uh, we base our entire system of government on polls. (otherwise known as voting, which occurs officially at polling places throughout the US on certain days.) In CA, policy is often decided solely on polls, presented to the people of CA as ballot issues.

So to answer your question literally, yes, our government makes much of its policy (and elects new leaders who make policy) based on official government polls. Most politicians have figured this out, and thus pay attention to the less official but more readily available media polls.

Thanks for correcting me. I guess the govenment should put the polling questions on their home page so that we can run the country. Or is that already in place?

[Shark 0]

Quote

>Voting and polling are not the same thing.

They are the same thing in terms of how they work; they are different in their effects. Voting is an official poll that is used to determine elections and initiatives; polls are not neccessarily official. In both cases the result may not represent the will of the people but generally does; in both cases not everyone participates.

You are fantastic debating issues, but what do you propose as a resolution? (Not in the UN sense.) There is a problem, and the opponents are first to bitch about it, but rarely come up with viable solutions. Or is the problem, the problem itself?

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Uh, we base our entire system of government on polls.

Maybe, if you really stretch it. We elect people to do a job. We don't expect them to refer to a poll every time they make a decision. A robot could do that. We want them to use their morals, intelligence, and experience to make decisions. They have information that the average public doesn't have the time nor experience to completely digest or understand. We elect them to make decisions on that information. Not base every decision on polls and public opinion. Leaders that don't have the guts to do what is right and are held sway to opinion polls leads to things like Somalia.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Jib 0]

Quote

To me, the definition of a leader is a person that people follow. It seems, Bush is turning out to be a very poor leader. Nobody's following.

I think all agree that [Mr. Mackey voice] "War is Bad" However, jumping around yelling "war is bad" doesn't really help the problem that undeniably exists in Iraq. The people of the world lack the information to make intelligent evaluations of this issue. We elected Bush and he chose his advisors to take the information (classified and otherwise) that they have and make decisions. The UN is there as a forum for discussion until it becomes irrelevant by its own apathy. Leaking information and spin doctoring opinion doesn't solve the problem. It's like getting a massage for a broken leg. Demanding proof will only serve to kill the sources of the information we need. History will tell whether those decisions were prudent and that will be the standard by which W is measured, not arm chair quarterbacks.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Push 0]

Do you admire Peter Sutcliffe?

A bit of an extreme example, but nevertheless.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Voting and polling are not the same thing.

They are the same thing in terms of how they work; they are different in their effects. Voting is an official poll that is used to determine elections and initiatives; polls are not neccessarily official. In both cases the result may not represent the will of the people but generally does; in both cases not everyone participates.

They are the same in how they work, in general framework, but they are completely different in determining their content.

The US, as a republic uses delegates to determine the choices on a ballot that is voted on. Each vote carries equal weight in the end and there is a limited period of time to cast a vote at a designated place on an official ballot. Everyone of legal age is given the opportunity to vote. In the case of a presidential election, it is ultimately the electoral college that casts the final vote, usually, but not always influence by the popular vote.

An individual, or a small committee, a bunch of people that have communications degrees determine the questions that are asked in polls, and marketers and mathematicians determine how and when surveys are taken, by whom, how the results are counted, measured and ultimately collated for sale or distribution to the entity that requested the suvey. Not everyone is given the opportunity to participate.

The former changes who is in office making policy, writing legislation and prioritizing the two. It affects certain policies via referrendum or state program (as you cited).

The latter does nothing but spew numbers for the world to re-manipulate and pretend are a cross-section of society, neither of which are true, but make for great press. Politicians listen to polls purely to add fluff to their agendas, when it is their constituents they will give priority to.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,092]

>We elect people to do a job.

In some cases, yes. In other cases we vote on laws directly; no leaders involved.

>Not base every decision on polls and public opinion. Leaders that don't
> have the guts to do what is right and are held sway to opinion polls
>leads to things like Somalia.

And also to things like ending the Vietnam war, or ending segregation. A good leader knows when to listen to public opinion and when not to. Poor ones generally do not get re-elected.

Here in the US, all power derives from the people. Our most important document begins "We the people . . . " and then describes everything we will allow our government to do. This doesn't mean that a leader must follow every whim of his constituents, but if he consistently acts contrary to popular wish on most matters large and small, he will not be re-elected and thus will be removed from power - again, by the people.

Given that, leaders do not neccessarily need to act on public opinion, but they are well advised to at least consult it.

[billvon 3,092]

>The US, as a republic uses delegates to determine the choices on a ballot that is voted on.

Well, it's a hybrid. In many places people, through petitions, place issues on the ballot and vote on them directly. That's an example of a pure democracy. Electing leaders to make those decisions instead is a republic. We do both.

>The latter does nothing but spew numbers for the world to re-manipulate
> and pretend are a cross-section of society, neither of which are true, but
> make for great press.

Poor polls, yes. Well conducted polls, no. A poor poll is no more an accurate indicator of public opinion than an election in which only 20% of voters vote. An accurate poll is an accurate representation of general public opinion, as is an election with a large turnout.

>Politicians listen to polls purely to add fluff to their agendas, when it
>is their constituents they will give priority to.

And they listen to them via statistical methods; a politician would be a fool to simply act on the last letter they received while discarding the rest. Generally they act on what the majority of their constituency wants, which is a very basic form of statistics. Often this information comes from polls, whether conducted by the politican or by CNN.

[billvon 3,092]

>You are fantastic debating issues, but what do you propose as a
>resolution? (Not in the UN sense.)

A resolution to which problem? The problem of Bush's waning popularity? I don't think a resolution is neccessary; he should continue to do what he thinks is right (which may or may not mean listening to public opinion) and let the voters decide if they approve of his decisions in two years.

The problem of Iraq? Come up with one last resolution. Hussein must do X, Y and Z by such and such a date, a date in the relatively near future. Define X, Y and Z so he can't weasel out of them; destroying all missile systems that we've identified as illegal, and providing proof, would be an example. If he does not do it, then a UN force enters Iraq to disarm him. If he resists this force, then it's war.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The problem of Iraq? Come up with one last resolution. Hussein must do X, Y and Z by such and such a date, a date in the relatively near future. Define X, Y and Z so he can't weasel out of them; destroying all missile systems that we've identified as illegal, and providing proof, would be an example. If he does not do it, then a UN force enters Iraq to disarm him. If he resists this force, then it's war.

Sounds like UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,092]

>Sounds like UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

If it was we wouldn't be arguing about how long inspections should go on and what constitutes a material breach.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Sounds like UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

If it was we wouldn't be arguing about how long inspections should go on and what constitutes a material breach.

Read the resolution for yourself...you tell me. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

I particularly am interested in these two paragraphs:

Quote

... 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; ...

And we don't know the really good stuff either...such as how much compliance (reportedly little) they are getting with this one:

Quote

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates ...

Then the final nail:

Quote

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; ...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,092]

>Read the resolution for yourself..

I have. What time limit does he have to comply? What are the serious consequences? Where is that listed in the resolution?

[Shark 0]

Quote

>Read the resolution for yourself..

I have. What time limit does he have to comply? What are the serious consequences? Where is that listed in the resolution?

Yeah! Sounds like an Iraqi lawyer. (Sorry, Lawrocket)

[kallend 2,129]

There are other nations in violation of UN resolutions, some for decades. Do we attack all of them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shark 0]

Professor,

Lighten up. You've made your point. Then again, we can continue until: a) Saddam bails and retires to Libya, b) His buddies take him out, c) Our troops are recalled, d) War starts, then your point becomes moot, e) Sangiro runs out of disc space.

We can continue, but don't you have a class to teach?