Stupid idea of the day

[andrewducker]

If voting took place over a couple of days, with counting going on simultaneously, and the results available in real time, then this would encourage more people to participate as time went on, if they saw that the result was close, and thus their vote mattered.

Has this ever been tried, and if so, what appalling side-effects did it have?

Comments

[matgb]

You reading Seth Godin as well today?

Biggest flaw I see is it gives an advantage to undecided voters to voting later, especially in an FPTP election, whereas it gives an incentive to partisan voters to vote earlier.

If it's half an hour before close of poll and you haven't made your mind up, then you can see the two leaders and pick only between them, thus exacerbating even more third party squeeze and two party duopoly.

And in a preferential system, especially STV, bugger to implement in any sane way at all.

As for side effects, well, voting used to be openly declared, and counting in real time combined with tracking when people voted within a district would make working out who individuals voted for a lot easier, weakening secret ballots. We moved away from open declaration for a reason.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, wouldn't work with STV at all.

I do read Seth Godin, and this is one of those things I'd wondered about before - whether it would give people the impetus to contribute, or act against that. The comments from you and dpolicar have persuaded me that the results wouldn't be good :->

(Not that I was convinced they would be - there are always negative side-effects to things).