It’s all in the sampling and the turnout.
Is the sample truly representative of voters? All voters or likely voters or likely Republican voters?
And with South Carolina’s still-open primaries, who really knows?
And then the turnout. That’s where elections are really won or lost.
Rank voting has proven itself more democracy-promoting in the states which instituted it. South Carolina is unlikely to do so for reasons having nothing to do with rank-voting.
It’s all in the sampling and the turnout.
Is the sample truly representative of voters? All voters or likely voters or likely Republican voters?
And with South Carolina’s still-open primaries, who really knows?
And then the turnout. That’s where elections are really won or lost.
Rank voting has proven itself more democracy-promoting in the states which instituted it. South Carolina is unlikely to do so for reasons having nothing to do with rank-voting.
3 comments
Surveyed 604 voters….. well that was just lazy. Who would pay attention to these “results” based on that?
It’s all in the sampling and the turnout.
Is the sample truly representative of voters? All voters or likely voters or likely Republican voters?
And with South Carolina’s still-open primaries, who really knows?
And then the turnout. That’s where elections are really won or lost.
Rank voting has proven itself more democracy-promoting in the states which instituted it. South Carolina is unlikely to do so for reasons having nothing to do with rank-voting.
It’s all in the sampling and the turnout.
Is the sample truly representative of voters? All voters or likely voters or likely Republican voters?
And with South Carolina’s still-open primaries, who really knows?
And then the turnout. That’s where elections are really won or lost.
Rank voting has proven itself more democracy-promoting in the states which instituted it. South Carolina is unlikely to do so for reasons having nothing to do with rank-voting.