Half of Young Voters Say They've Lied about Which Candidates They Support | Hacker News Reader

Half of Young Voters Say They've Lied about Which Candidates They Support

msn.com

25 pointsivewonyoung42 comments

If they lied for the polls, who's to say they are telling the truth now for this? It's just another poll...

Article is clearly one-sided — it mentions a “widely-panned ad” encouraging women to vote their conscience, where pretty much all the panning has come from Republicans.

In the presented statistics, it's not so much about party as it is about age. Which tracks with my experience that young people are much more conflict averse.

Also, interesting that men are twice as likely to lie as women. Which goes against accepted logic that women would be more likely to conform socially.

This might have something to do with the fact that young women skew so heavily democratic that there isn't any need to lie; it's already the default position for your social context.

Unless they aren't in a space where telling that truth is safe, be it from familial pressure, peer pressure, pressure from their significant other.

Same for the young men, honestly.

It could also be that, for at least this election, a lot is a stake for women so they're more likely to be emboldened

> Which goes against accepted logic that women would be more likely to conform socially.

Citation needed. Where is that coming from?

Heels, yucky lipstick

Conformity > Specific predictors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity#Specific_predictors

If you search for papers on male vs female conformity, it's a pretty widely researched topic.

Or it could be that men perceive that their partners are more likely to get agitated over their political choice f it runs counter their own, compared to women who feel that their choice won't have such a big impact on their spouse.

It tracks with my experience that nobody has asked me who I'm voting for in an election since I was younger than 27.

Not odd at all really. Men who are voting Republican aren't going to get interest from people who vote Democrat, so they lie to make themselves look better than they are.

But what amount lied about lying about which candidates they support?

the other half

Why do you want that heat?

When I see attacks like the one that happened in my state about a month ago, I completely understand.

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/crime/2024/09/26/man...

Your plan is to carry a weapon best suited to long range, just in case of a close-quarters attack, at a crowded political rally? Because that sounds like a way to get more people hurt, not fewer, and not necessarily the assailant.

Given that I'm in my thirties, I'm not exactly in the audience being discussed here. But I've become skilled at lying about politics to my small-town coworkers and my older relatives. Telling someone the truth means I respect them enough to take the risk.

Why lie? What's wrong with just saying that you prefer not to talk about politics and refusing to express any opinion? That's what I do with coworkers who insist on trying to engage me in political topics (regardless of whether or not I agree with them.) I have a longstanding policy of never talking about politics or religion in the workplace. There be dragons.

I get forced into political (and yes, religious) conversations. I avoid when I can, but sometimes it's less of a drive-by political swipe and more of a head-on collision into that load of toxic sludge. My coworkers feel comfortable forcing others into those conversations since everyone they spend time with seems to agree. Those that don't get socially shunned. They don't always tolerate silence either, so I find ways to work with them.

That's why I pass every time a fierce political discussion is just about to unleash. I have no reason to believe you and I have no possibility to verify what you're saying.

Absolutely this makes sense.

You can get a lot of bad social pressure if you reject conforming to what people around you push.

And both left and right are very pushy in the us right now.

If i was on the us, I’d probably lie too.

could we link the source directly instead of MSN's aggregator? https://www.nationalreview.com/news/half-of-young-voters-say...

The National Review link provided opens by denying that it's the source:

    In a new Axios/Harris Poll survey, nearly half of Gen Z voters copped to lying about which candidates they support when they head to the polls.

The paragraphs that follow quote from and cite:

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/30/election-gen-z-voting-lies

as the source.

Thanks, I don't know anything about Axios and was unaware they have their own website. Should have said "the article".

No worries .. the National Review were decent enough to indicate their source and even went the extra yards to include a link (although subtle).

That is sadly becoming less common.

The trick with reading news these days is to train yourself to look to source references, they're often present, increasingly (and annoying!!) not, finding them can be like looking for bent grass and broken twigs when game hunting.

This headline, the article wasn’t available. Seems like it’s greasy the wheels for a stolen election justification.

Here's the source article: https://www.axios.com/2024/10/30/election-gen-z-voting-lies

>Half of Gen Z voters — and 1 in 4 U.S. voters overall — have lied to people close to them about who they're voting for, according to the latest Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll.

>Voters 18-27 who came of age during the hyper-polarized Trump era appear to be among the most sensitive to perceived pressure and judgment from friends or loved ones.

Or they just don't want to get into a pointless argument with people who can make their life miserable.

I appreciate your effort but that isn't the article in the link which is published by the National review.

We have got to stop acting like politics matters more than anything else. Yeah, it's kind of important. But so is having friends and family that you can talk to, and recognizing that they may not agree with you but...so what. People are allowed to have different thoughts, feelings, and opinions, and overall that's a good thing. Which pompous air bag gets to pretend like they're running the country for a few years isn't really a hill worth dying on, no matter how much their breathless funding messages tell you it is.

It's a hill that millions of people have died on. It's an incredible privilege to be in a position not to care.

No. At most a dozen people have died over Trump v. Harris, and possible no one has.

That's exactly the hyperbolic conflation of the present petty squabble with the grand march of civilization, as if they were the same or even closely related, that I'm objecting to.

With that attitude, the old man ruling the country would be King Charles of Windsor.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to treat it like sports teams. You can't be friends with someone who disagrees about whether you should exist. It's hard to have a member of your family who thinks having a family like yours should be a crime.

Healthcare policy for example is life or death. You don't always choose the hill you die on. Sometimes you need lifesaving medical care that is considered illegal abortion now. This is politics too and exposure to its risks is not evenly distributed. I'm glad they're not particularly distributed to you right now but some of us experience it differently.

An example was posted here a couple days ago: https://www.propublica.org/article/josseli-barnica-death-mis...

Much of what you cite, being able to have and share opinions, etc., has been illegal in much of the world for at least parts of the twentieth century, e.g., Germany from sometime in the late twenties or early thirties, and definitely from the mid thirties on, until 1945; the Soviet Union for much of its existence; Mao's China; Khmer Cambodia; etc.

Democratic politics with free association and free elections with secret ballots are what it possible for you to hold and share your opinions, especially the unpopular ones.

100% agree.

Which is why it's sad to see all that trivialized in the hyperbole surrounding the present election. Both sides would have you believe that the other side's pompous windbag is a threat to western civilization, and only their pompous windbag can save it. And very few have the guts to say that the emperor is naked, they're both mostly worthless, the president doesn't matter all that much, and the real issue is this: can we maintain a civil society where we listen to and respect each other, even when we disagree? Because that's what really matters, and that's a hill worth standing on and fighting to defend.

I may not agree with a word you say, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com