Should I lie to political pollsters?
Idle pondering today. When the Conservative Party of Canada phones me up and asks if they can count on my vote on May 2nd, my twitch-response is "Absolutely you can count on my vote . . . to go to the person most likely to defeat your local talking-point-spewing robot."
But, would it be more advantageous to me to lie to them? To tell them that I fully intend to vote for them?
What are these poll numbers used for? Within the Conservative riding headquarters, there are people that are trying to use them for something. What are they using them for? Are they using them to decide where to focus their dollars? Their time? If that's the case, wouldn't feeding them misinformation be to my benefit, as it would throw off their predictions, and lead them to spend their time and money in less efficient ways? Maybe I should say I'm undecided, so that they focus more of their campaigning on me and people like me. People who have strongly decided _not_ to vote Conservative.
My boss actually made the comment (after a discussion about the election during a lunchtime walk) that if Peter Braid came to my door, I should invite him in, all friendly-like, offer him tea, and talk to him jovially for as long as I possibly could. Nothing he could say would swing my vote over to the Right, and by monopolizing his time, I'm reducing the number of undecideds that he could sway.
It's pretty easy to decide how to vote strategically. Should the "anyone but Harper" crowd be campaigning strategically as well? Or, well, whatever the verb is for being on the receiving end of a campaign.? Are there any downsides to these tactics? Would too much apparent support for the Conservatives lead other parties to declare this region a lost cause, and put their campaign dollars elsewhere?
But, would it be more advantageous to me to lie to them? To tell them that I fully intend to vote for them?
What are these poll numbers used for? Within the Conservative riding headquarters, there are people that are trying to use them for something. What are they using them for? Are they using them to decide where to focus their dollars? Their time? If that's the case, wouldn't feeding them misinformation be to my benefit, as it would throw off their predictions, and lead them to spend their time and money in less efficient ways? Maybe I should say I'm undecided, so that they focus more of their campaigning on me and people like me. People who have strongly decided _not_ to vote Conservative.
My boss actually made the comment (after a discussion about the election during a lunchtime walk) that if Peter Braid came to my door, I should invite him in, all friendly-like, offer him tea, and talk to him jovially for as long as I possibly could. Nothing he could say would swing my vote over to the Right, and by monopolizing his time, I'm reducing the number of undecideds that he could sway.
It's pretty easy to decide how to vote strategically. Should the "anyone but Harper" crowd be campaigning strategically as well? Or, well, whatever the verb is for being on the receiving end of a campaign.? Are there any downsides to these tactics? Would too much apparent support for the Conservatives lead other parties to declare this region a lost cause, and put their campaign dollars elsewhere?