Elections are not polls. Elections are more complex, driven by which party has a greater chance of making an impact. Smaller parties tend to get fewer votes not because their positions are unpopular, but because their capacity to make change is smaller. Furthermore, Marxists are, in general, against electoralism. This is fundamental to Marxism.

The sample size in the Czech poll was large enough for a coherent view of general opinions. Most professional polls are between 400 and 1000 samples:

sample size of 400 will give you a confidence interval of +/-5% 19 times out of 20 (95%)

A sample size of 1000 will give you a confidence interval of +/-3% 19 times out of 20 (95%)

This is basic statistics. If you aren't familiar enough with polling to understand degrees of confidence, then you aren't in a position to argue against the validity of polling based on sample size.

Finally, if you check the up/downvote ratios, it seems pretty much nobody is agreeing with you and everyone is agreeing with me. Your comments are having the opposite effect, they are legitimizing me. People on the fence seem to be siding with me.

[+] Nico_198X@europe.pub -13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

lol they're not on the fence, mate. XD you know that. it's your tankie buddies. you live in an echo chamber. me popping by is me popping into that bubble.

listen man, again, you're just gonna keep carrying on. the point was made, for anyone new to your sell.

you support authoritarians and draw specious conclusions from old, small, cherry-picked data while ignoring the real world happening around you.

that's it. you're happy with with all this.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If everyone here is a communist, then again, which bystanders are you trying to convert? The rest of your comment is more dodging, and calling polls "cherry picked" even after proving that the data is actually towards the median sample size for high-confidence data. This is silly.

[+] Nico_198X@europe.pub -11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i'm not trying to convert anyone. you are. which you do constantly.

but for any reader who pops by, and the OP where this began before i interrupted your usual spiel, to know right away what you are.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All of the readers who have popped by seem to be siding with me, that's why I question your strategy here. Your arguments have fallen so flat they've legitimized me, if that's not a strategic failure I'm not sure what is.

[+] Nico_198X@europe.pub -11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

again, you're being upped by the choir, mate. i wouldn't puff my chest out about that.

but dude, the point is, get it all out clear in the open. that's all.

you love the gulags and the authoritarians. just lead with that. i'd find it much more honest than what you do now.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've already got my stances all clear and out in the open, from my stances on the Soviet prison system to what "authoritarian" even means in practice. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, again my opinons are fairly standard for Marxist-Leninists. Again, who are you doing this for?

[+] Nico_198X@europe.pub -8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

this is coming up better in the other thread, so lets continue to focus there.

as for who i do this for, it's always for the pursuit of and elucidation of truth, for myself and for any who may find it useful in their own lives.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If it's for yourself, then you would do well to engage more with the arguments, rather than dismiss them outright. The point of the dialectical method is to come to a higher understanding by engaging with opposition, not avoiding it.

Either way, I answered the other thread.

[+] Nico_198X@europe.pub -7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i would but i already don't trust you from our last attempt at this. that needs to be addressed first.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I fail to understand how trying to come to a better understanding through opposed argument works if you reject making arguments, but you do you.

[–] Nico_198X@europe.pub -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i'm not going to overly commit if i think you're full of shit, deluded and/or acting in bad faith.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, I've made it clear that I think those have all applied to you thus far, yet I've still played my part in the game because I know it's more useful for onlookers to see the arguments than just dismissing the opportunity. If you truly believe me to be deluded and full of shit, bad-faith, etc, and know you're on a thread where more people will agree with me than disagree, then the only way your strategy works is if you engage with the arguments and win so thoroughly that they have to be acknowledged.

In the absence of pushing back against my arguments, all you've done thus far is give me a free platform to share my views, and good sources for those who wish to see them.