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

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

I guess its that instinct people have, that they want to vote for a winner, and if they feel like they're losing, they won't bother trying.

I think this is true - my co-worker said that she wasn't going to vote, because she'd be annoyed if her party lost!

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I used to have a lot of frought arguments with friends who said much the same thing. Or at least, they felt there was no point voting for the party they wanted, because they had no chance of winning.

When I pointed out that thinking is precisely why the Lib Dems don't win more seats, they always just seem to shrug and say 'But they won't win anyway, so I'm not bothering'.