• bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Never trust the polls. If you are in NYC and haven’t voted yet, do not trust the polls, you need to go out and vote tomorrow.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      Polls are legitimate data on the sentiments of voters. However, they are prone to various error, and when combined with the tendency of partisans to trumpet polls that favor their narrative and dismiss or ignore those that don’t, this can build a misleading view of what’s happening.

      This is just one poll, so while it is interesting and suggests a tightening race, it’s probably an outlier. So I think my prior is still that Cuomo is heavily favored, but we won’t know for sure until the results are counted.

      So trust the polls but understand that they are not prophecies, only one clue among many as to what is really going to happen.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Agreed, didn’t mean to question the legitimacy or integrity on whomever put together this poll, it’s just that the average person does not understand the polls and puts too much weight into their relevancy. For us voters, polls have very little value (other than keeping the election top of mind). For the campaigns and the candidates, the polls can sway how they get their messaging out, but when the media reports on how well a candidate is doing in the polls, it’s really just to fill time and get clicks. At best, it may encourage people whose candidate is not doing well to get the word out, but at worst, it can result in people sitting out the election because they think their candidate is a shoe in.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I figured that may not have been your intention, just wanted to voice this because I’ve seen an increasing number of politically illiterate or dishonest people arguing that polls are fabricated and should be ignored, or similar nonsense.

    • BoycottPro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Remember to fully fill out your ballot with five names too! The only reason Adams won last time was because some people didn’t fully fill out their ballots.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Remember to fully fill out your ballot with five names too!

        I don’t think this is true. In fact, people should not be ranking Cuomo at all.

        You can rank five names but you do not need to.

        • BoycottPro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          There are more than five candidates so pick five good apples and exclude Cuomo entirely. To maximize the chance of your vote counting you should fill in all five because depending on how many rounds there are your vote may not count if you didn’t rank all five. Please read the comments other people have been posting in reply to mine.

        • TauZero@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 hours ago

          You are NOT required to rank all 5 choices for the ballot to be valid! A single bubble filled in will be counted. The voter guide and voter instructions explicitly mention this in multiple places. What grandparent comment meant was that if more progressive voters who only ranked 1 candidate had also ranked Kathryn Garcia in any position 2-through-5 (and ranked Adams below or not at all), then maybe Garcia would have won. Voters who only rank 1 candidate are missing out on the full power of their ranked choice vote if their 1st-and-only candidate is eliminated early.

          • Corngood@lemmy.ml
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 hours ago

            I’ve just never personally voted using RCV on a ballot that requires you to rank that many candidates for a valid ballot. That seems unnecessary.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Whoo boy, you should have been in Portland when we did it:

              Mayor:

              City Council (3 open seats per district):

            • vividspecter@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              I’ve just never personally voted using RCV on a ballot that requires you to rank that many candidates for a valid ballot. That seems unnecessary.

              Several implementations of it in Australia are full preferential, and require ranking all candidates (and there’s a kind of hybrid optional implementation in the federal senate where there is a minimum but you can rank as many as you want). The NYC one is still optional preferential actually, which is in my view a bad system because people get tricked into “just voting 1” and their vote consequently has less power to influence the result.

            • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              21 hours ago

              You can rank up to 5 for a valid ballot, so you can pick anywhere between 0-5 candidates. What the person who you originally commented to was saying was that in the 2021 election, many people voted as if this is first pass the post, and only ranked a single candidate with no backups. When that candidate didn’t get a majority, there were no choices for 2-5, and that’s how Adams got the votes.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                21 hours ago

                Yes, but people need to be aware that they do not need to rank all candidates. Which is what your comment heavily implied.

                Ranking candidates you do not like, even if ranked last, still can count as a vote if it comes to it.

                If you do not like Andrew Cuomo, do not rank him at all

                • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  Not sure how I implied that, but it was not my intention. To reiterate, you can rank anywhere between 0-5 candidates. Considering that there are 11 candidates on the ballot, plus write in, you could rank 5 candidates easily without ranking Cuomo. There’s no need to vote for him at all.

                  • TauZero@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

                    You implied it by answering Corngood’s question “You have to rank 5 candidates?” with a link to a general RCV video. You misunderstood Corngood to not know what RCV is. However, within the context of this thread (“NYC elections”), some awareness of RCV is to be presumed. Indeed, Corngood mentions in another comment to have already used RCV before. To me it was clear Corngood was upset about the “have to rank 5”, not about “WTF is RCV”. By linking to a general video you are implying that this is how RCV works, that you HAVE to rank 5, otherwise it won’t count, which is false. That’s not what you meant, but this is how it appears to other readers who would not be aware of your original misunderstanding. Those of us who actually like RCV feel an obligation to step in and correct you, all of us at once, to pre-empt the hazard of somebody else believing in your (unintentional) implication and ending up with the wrong idea that “wow, RCV sucks! your ballot gets thrown out if you don’t fill in all 5 bubbles perfectly!”

    • skinnydugan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Totally. Chances are fair that this is disinformation to lull potential voters into staying home thinking it’s in the bag. It ain’t over! Vote!