Seniors make up more of the early voters than other age groups, and the early voting participation shrinks with the lower the age group. Given that the youth vote is more inclined towards Obama (I don't think there's any dispute there), and that in 2000 the election was called before polls closed on the left, I mean west, coast might've disenfranchised voters in those states (they went democrat anyway, tho)....I would like to ask those who are debating about polls:
Would you agree with me that early voting results shouldn't be reported because it could disenfranchise or energize one side's voters over another? Not that energizing voters overall is bad...it's good. But showing one side over another can either discourage them or energize them, which could be considered augmenting voter turn out for the benefit or detriment of one side.
I honestly dont know if, in this case, it energizes Romney or Obama...it might encourage Repubs that there's hoping of beating Obama, or make them more apethetic because it looks like it's in the bag. Ditto Obama...it could make more democrats vote because it's not as in-the-bag as some thought or it might discourage them from voting because it looks like a lost cause.
And it may not matter, I don't know that it does. But I really think it might. So what say you, those of us who declare that polls are dumb when our guy is losing, but when out guy is winning they're the pall bearer of things to come? Do you think early voting results should be published prior to election day?
This post has been edited by ilyushin: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:23 AM