192
44% of Icelanders in favour of joining the EU (www.visir.is)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Hmm. Neoliberals really need to stop counting undecidedโ€™s as people who will vote as they are expected. Thatโ€™s played out with some very wild consequences for the past decade globally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes. But... This poll doesn't do that. The headline calls out 44% as the top line number, which includes 0 undecided. The tone of the headline as positive news for those in favor of EU membership is based on an implicit assertion that only 30% of undecideds would be needed to clear the 50% mark, which is a pretty good margin of error on the 50/50 division that you might naively assign to a population you have no other data on, especially before you take into a count those who may opt not to vote. It's also notable as an opinion poll for politicians actions outside of a direct referendum (not every issue will swing every vote, so knowing that this issue has more potential to swing votes towards vs. against you might encourage actions and rhetoric supporting a closer relationship with the EU. Finally, it's relevant as a comparison point to prior polls on this issue (in 2017, for example, a quick Google search suggests that the average was more like -20 margin opposed to EU membership, so the transition to +8 in favor is significant). It feels like you are arguing a straw man here, but maybe I am the one missing context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Youโ€™re literally describing a hypothetical voter who would switch on this issue, according to some, and accusing me of inventing a strawman?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't think I am describing any hypothetical voter switching? I'm defending the value of the poll as data, and describing how the poll's data could be extrapolated into a projection of positive or negative vibes for a desired result by comparing outcomes against naive assumptions on how undecided voters might distribute their votes. Maybe you are talking about that? I don't consider an undecided voter deciding how they will use their vote "switching" on an issue, and I tried to make it clear that I'm not saying anybody should count on any percentage of the undecided vote, just that you'd rather be in a position where you need fewer undecided voters to reach 50% vs more. I actually left out the nuance where opinions can change over the course of a campaign, causing voters to either switch or opt against voting, that does add uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Which is my point; your language is accusing "neoliberals" of "counting on votes", and I'm just arguing that this poll doesn't need to count on any votes to communicate a positive, if uncertain, picture of the potential future. Your comment feels like it would be more relevant on an opinion piece about this poll that says that this election is in the bag (kind of like how your original comment implied that this poll meant the election was in the bag as a no, as I read it), which is why I am confused. I'll admit, I can't read Icelandic, so I haven't read the article attached to this headline, which is maybe where I am missing context, I'm just reading the headline and a translated excerpt from the comments, so maybe there is an argument being made elsewhere in the article that I'm unaware of. I'm sorry if my tone was accusatory, I'm trying to express my confusion as to why your reaction to my comment was to talk about neoliberals counting votes, which seemed tangential to the comment I made

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -1 points 1 year ago

    So massaging the data to mean what you want is โ€œextrapolation,โ€ but pointing out that the raw data does not match your argument without broad assumptions on undecided voters is a โ€œstrawman.โ€ Got it.

    How many more โ€˜upsetsโ€™ and โ€˜unexpected outcomesโ€™ will western governments need to go through before yโ€™all stop this naรฏve paternalism towards undecideds?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent