Florida and Michigan: use surveys

[ciphergoth]

Florida are talking about spending $10-$13 million on rather flawed June primaries to replace the discounted early primaries that the DNC have disqualified for being against the rules.

Why don't they just hold a survey? Choose 1000 registered Democrats in each state in some way that can be seen to be random in a fair way, ask them, and choose delegates that way? There's no reason not to expect the same result as a proper primary, except that they can do a much better job of it for far less money.

They won't of course, but that's because of an emotional attachment to everyone getting their ballot than because it will actually make a difference.

Comments

[olethros.livejournal.com]

A sample's only useful though when it is in some way backed up by the reality check of a census. Since full polls do show up the flaws in sampled polls from time to time, it seems unwise to rely on a sample for an actual election?

Or is it that the error margin in a vote-by-mail is probably worse than that in a sampled poll of a thousand?

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure, based on doubts about previous elections, that fetishising the principles of democracy is necessarily a bad thing for America.

[zotz]

The same logic, of course, applies to elections in general, as has been pointed out many times.

[lovingboth]

Because if the end result is tight - I'm thinking mostly of the final national delegate count - the loser would run to the courts over this.

[(Anonymous)]

Because it's much easier to bribe 501 people than all the Democrats in Florida?