> But is it good for people to know who is more likely to win an election? Are these predictions beneficial to society or democracy? I sometimes think they may actually be harmful, decreasing voter turnout by convincing people (correctly or incorrectly) that the result is preordained.
For plurality voting (a.k.a. first-past-the-post[0]) with more than two candidates, voters have to cast their ballots strategically[1]. This is especially common in primary elections and non-partisan positions.
Unless all elections switch to a method that is not subject to the spoiler effect (like approval voting or instant runoff voting), voters need more information about which candidates are most likely to win, not less information. Sometimes candidate competitivness can be inferred from things like endorsements or fundraising numbers, but polls -- and aggregated models based on polls -- are an important tool.
For plurality voting (a.k.a. first-past-the-post[0]) with more than two candidates, voters have to cast their ballots strategically[1]. This is especially common in primary elections and non-partisan positions.
Unless all elections switch to a method that is not subject to the spoiler effect (like approval voting or instant runoff voting), voters need more information about which candidates are most likely to win, not less information. Sometimes candidate competitivness can be inferred from things like endorsements or fundraising numbers, but polls -- and aggregated models based on polls -- are an important tool.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_voting