The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
3 Minor grammar
source | link

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.

The bottom line of this is not the fact that people consistently lie. To my impression, polls also create an ambiance of possible results: if you see that "your" candidate is going to win by a big margin and you are not superfan of him/her, you may just relax and skip voting. On the contrary, if "your" candidate is losing in the polls you may consider your vote more important to emitomit and can even flirt with voting for someone despite not supporting him/her completely (let's call it a protest vote, see French presidential election in 2002, with a lot of people voting for small groups on the 1st round).

Let's put it with an example: you support one club in a given sport. This Saturday there is a game versus a weaker team. Since there is little certainty about who the winner will be (most likely, your team), you may relax and skip watching the match because nothing important can happen. On the contrary, if you are playing versus a team on your level, chances are that the match will be quite equal, so you will do your best to go and watch it.

To me, the same applies to elections and the. The examples on UK, Colombia, Sweden and Iceland (see comments) are alsoall good examples onof this, that. I would call this demobilization due to expected result.

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.

The bottom line of this is not the fact that people consistently lie. To my impression, polls also create an ambiance of possible results: if you see that "your" candidate is going to win by a big margin and you are not superfan of him/her, you may just relax and skip voting. On the contrary, if "your" candidate is losing in the polls you may consider your vote more important to emit and can even flirt with voting for someone despite not supporting him/her completely (let's call it protest vote, see French presidential election in 2002, with a lot of people voting for small groups on the 1st round).

Let's put it with an example: you support one club in a given sport. This Saturday there is a game versus a weaker team. Since there is little certainty about who the winner will be (most likely, your team), you may relax and skip watching the match because nothing important can happen. On the contrary, if you are playing versus a team on your level, chances are that the match will be quite equal, so you will do your best to go and watch it.

To me, the same applies to elections and the examples on UK, Colombia, Sweden and Iceland (see comments) are also good examples on this, that I would call demobilization due to expected result.

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.

The bottom line of this is not the fact that people consistently lie. To my impression, polls also create an ambiance of possible results: if you see that "your" candidate is going to win by a big margin and you are not superfan of him/her, you may just relax and skip voting. On the contrary, if "your" candidate is losing in the polls you may consider your vote more important to omit and can even flirt with voting for someone despite not supporting him/her completely (let's call it a protest vote, see French presidential election in 2002, with a lot of people voting for small groups on the 1st round).

Let's put it with an example: you support one club in a given sport. This Saturday there is a game versus a weaker team. Since there is little certainty about who the winner will be (most likely, your team), you may relax and skip watching the match because nothing important can happen. On the contrary, if you are playing versus a team on your level, chances are that the match will be quite equal, so you will do your best to go and watch it.

To me, the same applies to elections. The examples on UK, Colombia, Sweden and Iceland (see comments) are all good examples of this. I call this demobilization due to expected result.

2 expand
source | link

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.

The bottom line of this is not the fact that people consistently lie. To my impression, polls also create an ambiance of possible results: if you see that "your" candidate is going to win by a big margin and you are not superfan of him/her, you may just relax and skip voting. On the contrary, if "your" candidate is losing in the polls you may consider your vote more important to emit and can even flirt with voting for someone despite not supporting him/her completely (let's call it protest vote, see French presidential election in 2002, with a lot of people voting for small groups on the 1st round).

Let's put it with an example: you support one club in a given sport. This Saturday there is a game versus a weaker team. Since there is little certainty about who the winner will be (most likely, your team), you may relax and skip watching the match because nothing important can happen. On the contrary, if you are playing versus a team on your level, chances are that the match will be quite equal, so you will do your best to go and watch it.

To me, the same applies to elections and the examples on UK, Colombia, Sweden and Iceland (see comments) are also good examples on this, that I would call demobilization due to expected result.

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.

The bottom line of this is not the fact that people consistently lie. To my impression, polls also create an ambiance of possible results: if you see that "your" candidate is going to win by a big margin and you are not superfan of him/her, you may just relax and skip voting. On the contrary, if "your" candidate is losing in the polls you may consider your vote more important to emit and can even flirt with voting for someone despite not supporting him/her completely (let's call it protest vote, see French presidential election in 2002, with a lot of people voting for small groups on the 1st round).

Let's put it with an example: you support one club in a given sport. This Saturday there is a game versus a weaker team. Since there is little certainty about who the winner will be (most likely, your team), you may relax and skip watching the match because nothing important can happen. On the contrary, if you are playing versus a team on your level, chances are that the match will be quite equal, so you will do your best to go and watch it.

To me, the same applies to elections and the examples on UK, Colombia, Sweden and Iceland (see comments) are also good examples on this, that I would call demobilization due to expected result.

1
source | link

Polling relies on answers of people and people can lie or hide the truth.

Normally speaking, those who are very proud of their vote will be eager to tell who they are going to vote. On the other side, those who are aware of their vote not being "conventional" tend to hide it and do not show in polls.

This has happened recently in different referendums: Brexit in UK and Peace agreement in Colombia, where polls where pretty sure about one direction of the vote and all this hidden vote ended up making the difference.