Post
Conversation
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
All the options except the grey imply an understanding of tradeoffs. The poll is forcing people to choose between tradeoffs, which cannot detect an understanding of tradeoffs.
i know all the options convey some kind of tradeoff. i think more polls should be designed this way to a) give policymakers a more nuanced idea of what voters really want and b) to keep tradeoffs front of mind as people think about public policy
American’s just want pareto optimal solutions (and no bad consequences for anything that sounds good ever)
where's the option: I prefer free buses, even if it means the wealthy pay more taxes
Second choice in reality:
"I would prefer free buses, and I would be okay with other people paying more in taxes ..."
Nice 
Quote
Nimayi Dixit
@nimayi3
Replying to @SpencerHakimian
The campaign strategy to 1) win an election and 2) restore *some* sanity in political discourse is to literally just go three questions deep into the specific details of any policy proposal you think is impractical. And then clip those segments into short form content.
“Rents
Show more
If they had a trade off that clarified taxes would increase only on the top 1% that would have made the poll a lot more interesting
There should be a 4 alternatives with tradeoffs question for all political issues.
Pro tip: Trade off 5 minutes of navel-gazing, review the NYC Dem mayoral candidate's FAST & FREE BUSES proposal, and see that its core non-zero-sum attribute is a 12% boost to bus speeds as all-door boarding (b/c no fare) slashes curb "dwell times." Thx.
I really wish more polling did this. Issue polling without tradeoffs is basically useless, essentially every result is 80% of people say yes to free stuff.
Those are completely biased trade off suggestions though lmao that question sucks. An option of "I would prefer free buses that maintain current service via a slight tax increase on gas and income over 150k" probably does as well as the blue one.
i would prefer free busses,
even if it meant spending less on the police
even if it made driving more expensive with increased parking, tolls, and registration fees
even if it required dedicating more space for busses and less for cars
Except it embeds ceteris paribus as a policy constraint, excludes plausible equilibria where free buses generate indirect fiscal or welfare gains, then treats the narrowed choice set as exhaustive. I count about 8 logical/statistical fallacies on one graphic.
"When presented with tradeoffs, voters would prefer libraries be free"
What's the difference?
I have never heard anyone waiting at the bus stop say, "I wish there were free fares."
I wish they had an option for privatizing city buses and allowing bus services to compete against one another for ridership.
Extremely false, 90 percent of respondents forgot about the concept of tradeoffs within ten minutes after the got off the phone with the respondents
Are people who don’t pay property taxes allowed to vote an option that says they rather pay additional taxes?
an underrated aspect of fares is gatekeeping, a homeless guy that wants to murder and rpe you probably wont have money for a fare. and also fares have to be enforced which they sadly arent either.
Yes, context free poll choices which whittle benefits & costs down to their most basic detail/nuance-free elements in order to generate a specific outcome are really a step in the right direction!
At this point all pollsters seem like propagandists to me.
Why not a hybrid approach and issue a prepaid card for low income individuals?
Could just be a dumb card with some anti counterfeiting features such as a hologram to eliminate fears of being tracked.
So basically 47% of the citizens are deadbeats who want others to pick up the tab. What will happen is it will be a disaster and then instead of charging again NZC will try to get the state and fed taxpayers to pick up the cost.