MOJO-JOJO

I just got an e-mail on this at work that said, "URGENT: USA Today Poll, Vote NO!".

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/27/pledge-hold.htm" target="_blank">Pledge Poll</a>

So I went to it and voted "YES", and replied to the e-mailer;

"I want a pledge that says 'Under Allah'

Thank you,
Mohammed"

Mageth

Not that urgent; I think that poll's been active since June.

MOJO-JOJO

Oh thank GO--oops!...almost said it

I'm more angered that all these yukka-pucks are spamming this around, assuming that everyone receiving it will be in agreement with them.

Alonzo Fyfe

Yet, this has been going on for quite a while. And I have followed the results.

When the decision was first announced, these types of polls were indicating that 89% wanted "under God" to stay, and 11% wanted it to go.

Two weeks ago, the poll showed a 75%/25% split.

Now, the poll is showing a 70% to 30% split.

Now, as the original email said, the "urgent vote now" coalition are likely favoring the side that says that "under God" should stay in the pledge. I simply am not aware of any indication that there is a strong "vote yes" contingent.

And, yet, the "vote no" group is losing ground at a fairly large rate.

Why is this?

Autonemesis

Oh, perhaps people are beginning to get it? Perhaps people are not as uneducable on this issue as others would have us fear? Perhaps earlier polls were stuffed with multiple votes from the outraged?

GaryP

Because IMO, when people have a chance to think and consider the issue, quite a few realize that the pledge does indeed disriminate against Atheists and other non-believers.

Or it could be that non-scientific polls don't mean squat.

CaptainDave

Probably because the fudies are hurting their own cause. Nobody makes a good impression by ranting in a shrill, insane manner.

crazyfingers

Not an answer to the question but I noticed on the day of the pledge ruling that CNN and CNN Financial each had the same poll but collecting votes separately.

The CNN poll was as you say, something like 89/11 while the CNNFN poll was more like 60/40. It was a very interesting difference and just goes to show how unscientific these polls are.

daemon

Internet polls are quite unreliable. I could build a bot that would send a response every X amount of time (maybe even deviate it to make it appear more random) and spoof the IP on every packet. They'd get tons of the vote I want without any way to tell that it's a single person voting over and over.

Undercurrent

That's because polls where the surveyants are self-selected, and a very small percentage of the population partcicpate, are biased towards the people who feel most strongly about the issue.

A strong pro-"under god" showing in the early polls shows that the under-godders were more pissed off about the ruling in the early days than the anti-under-godders were excited about it. As time passes, however, the pissed-offedness of the under-godders declines more rapidly.

This is why, ie believe, Australia requires voting. If everyone voices their opinion, no matter how weakly they hold it, the "passionate minority" bias is lost.

m.