Alan Keyes (R!) calls for Banning of political polls

[Rose Siding]

BLOOMINGTON -- Political polls are "phony" and should not just be disregarded, but banned, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes argued Monday.

"They (polls) are manipulative and degrading and damaging to our political system, and they should not be allowed when it comes to the actual time frame in which people are making up their minds," Keyes said during a meeting with The Pantagraph's editorial board.

His comments came in response to questions about a Pantagraph/St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll published Monday showing him trailing Democrat Barack Obama 68 percent to 23 percent.
.........
"I would suggest that what would be appropriate is a complete ban on all polling activity and all publication of such polling activity within a certain time frame," said Keyes.

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/092104/new_20040921012.shtml

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. while i would never legislate free speech

i think polls are idiotic too

[cheezus]

33. we already legislate free speech

that's what the FEC is for.

[Renew Deal]

2. I agree. How do I vote for this guy?

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

10. Just carpetbag over to Illinois....

Since they got a candidate from out of state, it appears the GOP there will have to import voters from out of state too in order to hit the double digit mark in the election....

[VolcanoJen]

22. Alan Keyes is Making Sense!!

}(

[AspenRose]

30. Hah ha ha ha ha, GOOD ONE!

:-)

[rhino47]

3. Im sure polls are idiotic to Keyes since hes getting his butt kicked. eom

[yellowcanine]

4. Someone needs to remind Mr. Keyes that we have a 1st amendment, not

just the 2nd amendment that he is so fond of.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. as though they ever remember the first amendment

[polmaven]

21. They remember PART it.

The part that says the government shall force everyone to live under the religious beliefs of the fundie right.

[lanparty]

32. Your standards are too high...

These creeps can't even remember the entire 2ND amendment. IT's always:

... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Goldmund]

5. I think this actually wouldn't be a bad idea.

Of course the campaigns themselves will do internal polling -- but a ban on public release of polls for the month before an election would be beneficial, I think -- simply because it would force the voters to rely on issues more, rather than on aligning with the stronger herd.

OnEdit: I don't think this is at all a matter of free speech, any more than campaign finance reform is an infingement on free speech. I think the libertarian version of free speech (that the Repubs like to borrow when it suits them) is kinda immature. Banning public polling for the month before an election would actually make for a more open political process, and more issue-based (therefore more informed) voting -- not less; and isn't that one of the things that free speech is supposed to be about?

[RoyalWickedness]

14. I agree...

This is how they do it in Greece (the birthplace of democracy), and while Alan Keyes is an asshat of the first order, he's right about this. Of course, with the Internet and all, it would be virtually impossible to enforce, but frankly, I could very easily live without the Gallup/Time/CNN polls coming out every freaking day and having to hear everyone who thinks they know something about politics over-analyze them. News agencies should be in the business of reporting the FACTS, not polling. Just put the damned NEWS out there and let people make up their own minds about it. Of course, now, there's another rant, for another day.... the news, I mean. I feel America hasn't been getting the news for a VERY long time.....

[Goldmund]

16. True dat.

In addition, a lot of countries have a period of "electoral silence" -- usually 48 hours before an election starts, all campaigning is supposed to stop, so voters can clear their heads. In addition, there is a certain radius -- 200 yards or so -- around each polling place, inside which no candidate can advertise or post campaign material.

These are not infringements on free speech. These are rules that are designed to make the campaigns "back off" from the voters' backs and let them contemplate and decide on issues.

[onenote]

17. too slippery a slope for me

Start off by banning polls by news media. Then move on to banning the reporting of poll results conducted by others. Then on to banning "commentary", "opinion" and "editorials". Then a nice big government agency to decide the line between fact and commentary and to judge whether a particular media outlet is reporting all of the facts, or the "right" facts. Then we're fucked. Nope, while I share your frustration with and dislike for the role that polling has come to play in our electoral process, I'd rather have an imperfectly "free" press (including alternative outlets, not just the "big" media) then a government run press.

onenote

[Goldmund]

25. I don't see how...

...banning polling extrapolates into banning commentary, or enforcing whether a particular media outlet is reporting the "right" facts.

I'm in no way suggesting "government press". I'm simply suggesting adding a few rules for the FCC, or the FEC, to enforce (I'll actually trade in the rule of no nudity on network TV) -- no polling for a month before the election by polling organizations. Any polling organization that releases a poll (or leaks it) gets fined. Any media outlet can still report whatever it wants, and any commentator can give whatever personal impression she or he has on how the campaigns are doing. I see how this could be a slippery slope, but I also think that it doesn't have to be; I'm just munching on an idea, that's all, not like I've thought about it enough to be able to define the specifics. But I think it's an idea worth considering.

[onenote]

26. a couple of problems

From a practical standpoint, I don't think you can or should ban campaigns from conducting polls and those are going to be conducted by professional polling organizations. If the poll "leaks" (which it inevitably will, especially by the side that is doing well), who gets fined -- the "polling organization" or the campaign? What constitutes leaking the results -- actual numbers or just a report that "internal polling suggests that x candidate would win if the election were held today". What if it was just reported that "the feeling inside the campaign is that if the election was held today x candidate would win".

That's one reason why its a slippery slope. There are no clear lines that can be drawn. The other reason is that if the rationale for banning polling is to let voters "think for themselves", then why is it such a leap to bar political commentary or even advertising. Should all the yard signs come down the last 30 days of the campaign? Don't think so.

Maybe I'm a chicken little about this, but I'd rather minimize the risk that an FCC-regulated press could mutate into a government-run press.

onenote

[Goldmund]

27. All great points.

But even now the campaigns do their internal polling, and don't use the ones for public consumption; yet they tend not to leak, even if they are discordant with public polls. As far as "who gets fined" if they leak -- it would be a violation of election laws and that would be dependent upon an investigation conducted. Again, I agree that these are all semi-naive half-assed suggestions in practice; I just think it would be worth looking into.

"The other reason is that if the rationale for banning polling is to let voters "think for themselves", then why is it such a leap to bar political commentary or even advertising."

No, I wouldn't ban advertising or commentary. The purpose of each is to express a point of view, and it's more than beneficial to have an open exchange of ideas (even if unilateral, as is the case with newspaper commentary). But the difference between polls and commentary is that commentary represents the views of the commentator; advertising represents the views of a campaign; polls represent the views of a majority. And while aligning yourself with a commentator who has earned your respect (presumably based on his past performance in expressing well-informed and well-thought out opinions) is a part of a healthy political process, aligning yourself with the majority simply because you'd rather not be in a minority is not -- because it is devoid of any substantive political thinking, but is purely a phenomenon based on herd instinct.

The reason I think it's an idea worth looking into is because the system we have now, despite all of the free-speech laws we have on the books, is obviously very succeptible to propaganda. Herd instinct is the lifeline of propaganda.

[onenote]

35. thanks

You articulate your position well. I appreciate the fact that while we may disagree (at least to a certain extetnt), we've been able to have a civil exchange about it. I think that the occasional exchanges that disintegrate into name calling that sometimes occur on DU blind folks to the fact that this is a forum where actual discussions can and do occur. Be well.

onenote

[Goldmund]

39. Hey, you too

Dig talking. I'm sure we'll talk again.

[lanparty]

34. There is a difference between money and information ...

... campaign finance reform regulates MONEY.

What Alan Keyes suggests is banning INFORMATION. Thats pure speech. It isn't a check.

[Goldmund]

43. Money IS information

Or rather, money is the ability to disseminate information. Information itself is meaningless without the money to disseminate it -- and that's exactly what the nutbags claim when they oppose McCain/Feingold based on the 1st amendment.

Also, we already have laws that restrict the flow of information for one reason or another. For example, we have privacy laws; we have laws against libel or slander; we have laws against leaking classified info. Those are all kinds of "speech" that we've agreed aren't covered by the first amendment, because we've agreed that this kind of "speech" endangers the essential spirit of freedom, instead of fostering it, which was the intent of the 1st amendment. Maybe public polling for a period before the election does the same.

We have to find a way, somehow, to lessen the impact of the corporate/GOP propaganda machine. Yes, we have all sorts of "free speech" laws on the books, you can disseminate all sorts of information... And yet, 60% or whatever believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. Also around that many think that Bush is "honest" and feel "safer" with him in power. Bizarre. Color me partisan, but I think that if people had any real access to information, Bush would be polling around 10%. Obviously, the _spirit_ of 1st amendment is not working in the public arena. I'm just thinking of practical ways to counter this.

Breaking up media conglomerates and disallowing formation of new ones is another thing that would be helpful. But try suggesting that and you'll get hit with all sorts of 1st amendment "enthusiasts" on the Right.

[JimmyJazz]

6. OMG - did hell just freeze over?

I can't believe I actually agree with something that man said. My fear with polls is that people will think the race is already won and, therefore, not vote (after all, the polls have told them not to bother).

[no name no slogan]

18. Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day (n/t)

[lanparty]

36. I can't believe that ANYONE here ...

... is agreeing to shitting on the 1st amendment.

This has NOTHING to do with the monetary/influence peddling issues of campaign finance reform. This is the fucking 1st amendment. And I'm amazed that you people are being suckered by something that doesn't even involve a color-coded chart.

[JimmyJazz]

40. Uh, easy there big guy...

I know you were exercising your first amendment right, but it's not necessary to jump on me because I disagree with publishing biased, skewed often inaccurate information that requires a statistician to decipher (what with point differentials and all). My point is that people on these boards are stressing over the polls and they don't necessarily reflect the truth. It's an opinion, 'tay?

[MrBenchley]

7. And it's not because he's 45 points down and sinking further

It's because he's a fucking idiot...

This sums up Keyes: People should be able to run around with machine guns, but prohibited from finding out what their fellow citizens think.

[lil-petunia]

24. 65, not 45 points down. 65!

[MrBenchley]

42. At this rate he'll be lucky to break a second digit in the election

Couldn't happen to a more deserving person, too...

[grace0418]

8. Congratulations Keyes

on the first thing you've ever said that wasn't completely moronic! Of course, I'm not one for banning free speech so you did veer off into your usual absurd blather there.

[onenote]

9. and after the election

He's going to call for a ban on voting.

onenote

[Cocoa]

11. is this a principled, thought out position?

or just because he's 45 points behind?

[Goldmund]

13. Of course it's the latter.

But we can discuss the principle regardless of who articulated it.

[BootinUp]

15. They CAN be embarrassing, aye Alan? n/t

[joanne]

19. I've got a better idea

Let's just ban all Repukes from running.

At least if their last names are Keyes, Cheney and *.

Well its a start.

[George W. Dunce]

20. Less polling more

Machine-guns is what I say, I'm with ya' Alan, you nut job you. Hey when you're done in Illinois can you come to Massachusetts and run for Kerry's soon to be vacated Senate seat? That would be epic two carpet bags in two years, I bet that would be some sort of record.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. I call for Alan Keyes to be banned

from being a carpetbagger in Illinois! :hi:

[arwalden]

28. He's A Clown. An Ugly Caricature Of Himself.

[Walt Starr]

29. Hmmmm, Mr. Keyes not only has a problem wiht the 17th amendment

Now he has a problem with the 1st amendment, too!

We had a name for people like Keyes when I worked in a gas station years and years ago, "A moss-backed, snake-lipped, suckerfish.

[lanparty]

37. Don't forget ...

... the 14th amendment!!!!

Most conservatives have serious problems with that one. They think it gives equal protection to remove other people's equal protections.

[lanparty]

31. Alan has never heard of ...

... the FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!

Keyes is a nutwing freakazoid. Hastert has to be kicking himself in the ass for bringing in this IDIOT.

[spanone]

38. Fuck Alan Keyes...what an asshole.

[BMJ]

41. HAHAHA He's getting creamed by OBAMA and he knows it!

I kind've agree with what he said. (I know, ew) But it's funny that he says this, because we all know WHY he's saying this. :)