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

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

It would encourage the /b/ folks at 4Chan to hack the voting system if the election didn't seem to be going towards the candidate they wanted.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Didn't the first W Bush election have an effect when Fox news started calling Eastern seaboard states for Dubya while the polls were still open? And it discouraged Democrat voters from going to the polls because they felt they had lost anyway, so why bother.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Judging solely by what happens with LJ/DW polls, if people can see the results before voting they don't bother.

[dpolicar]

You get a similar, though milder, effect when voting takes place over several timezones.

The conventional wisdom is that the result depends on which candidate people perceive to be winning (which is not necessarily the candidate who has the most votes, nor even the candidate who has the most electoral votes, because people's judgments of "winning" are very subjective).

That is, people who aren't firmly in a camp are more likely to vote for the perceived winner, and people who are firmly in a camp are more likely to vote if they perceive the vote is close and more likely to stay home otherwise.

I have no idea if this is born out by data.

[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.