Yeah, the claim that ranked choice voting is the reason that (some) pollsters are sitting out the NYC race strikes me as total bullshit, more or less. Rather, it's likely a fairly hard race to poll and they're afraid of being wrong. But that has very little to do with RCV.
https://twitter.com/RossBarkan/status/1397163756015194114
There's also been quite a bit of polling in the NYC mayor's race, just not much of it from the traditional "gold standard" firms. The same was true in the Georgia Senate runoffs and guess what happened? The polling did very, very well there.
If pollsters want to sit out high-profile races that's their prerogative. It may align with their incentives. Pollsters get a ton of crap when they're "wrong" but little credit when they're "right" and that's a deterrent to doing more polling.
Don't give me this RCV BS though.
Don't give me this RCV BS though.
If you're absolutely terrified of RCV then just do a first-past-the-post poll where you ask just about first preferences and compare it actual first preferences. That's *lame* and less useful than an RCV poll would be, but at least it removes the excuse that RCV is too hard.
p.s. Wouldn't surprise me if RCV polling is actually easier in the long run, at least in the sense of a poll predicting the right winner. It's arguably a more robust system given that a candidate needs to have broad support rather than e.g. flukishly winning with 21% of the vote.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
