points by mahboi 5 days ago | 0 comments
The only one I can think of is, having a better idea of which way the presidential election goes might've been useful for some people, or some other large election. There's a lot of egg on the faces of all these mainstream media polls, which still continues to trigger some people.
[–] dozerly 5 days ago
[–] mahboi 5 days ago
Eh, sounds like the excuse I kept hearing as to why Trump had favorable odds in the last election. Supposedly a foreigner trying to influence our elections, totally not the Democrats kinda not having a candidate. It would be a very expensive (on average) way to probably not make a difference. Cheaper to just buy up some media companies, which do the same thing, saying their preferred candidate is going to win.
Small elections are susceptible to corruption this way, though.
[–] AngryData 5 days ago
Why not both?
[–] dozerly 5 days ago
There’s been plenty of blatant voter interference, and billions spent influencing American voters, not really seeing where your point is based. More handles to steer democracy with money is not better, period.
[–] mahboi 5 days ago
My point was that it was helpful to get an honest prediction. But separately, no I don't think the presidential election can be gamed this way.
These are not polling places, they are places for capital to influence odds.