Not all those declaring the ‘yes’ vote are sincere
I was not surprised the slightest when I read a story covered by İhlas News Agency, which held the pulses of votes from eight provinces in the East and Southeast Anatolian regions about the referendum.
Among those who were held a microphone to, the “no” voters were not so eager to speak out. The ones who were to vote “yes,” on the other hand, bragged about the benefits of being ruled by the presidential system.
I wonder how the fear that silences the “no” voters affects the “yes” voters? Could it be possible that those who say “yes” with their tongues - maybe because of fear or because of certain interests - have their hearts at the “no” vote?
There is nothing to be surprised about; it is not so common to say “no” than to say “yes” publicly. You need some courage to publicly say “no,” you must be at a position where you would not have much to lose. They do not have the power of the government behind them or the assurance of the strong President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
There is no benefit in saying “no” either. On the contrary, there are several risks, many possible consequential costs.
For this reason, I can understand why those who would vote “no” would hide themselves. It is normal they do not feel as safe as the “yes” voters.
Naturally, such a conclusion can be drawn: The true number of “no” voters are more than those who declare their choice. Also, saying “yes” publicly may generate some benefits but no risks. The instinct of protection and the pressure of interests may force one to act hypocritically. What I mean is that there could be “no” voters among the publicly declared “yes” voters.
Certain smart ones would want to secure the advantages of the “yes” and hide their sincere opinion. There could be those who will openly say “yes” in suitable surroundings but will rush to the ballot box to say “no.”
I’m not trying to accuse anybody, but hypocrisy is a social fact that we cannot deny. We can’t say we have a clear record; we do have repeated incidents in misleading surveys. Isn’t this the reason why our opinion polls prove inaccurate every time?
There is an additional pressure in the air that makes it difficult for official views to coincide with sincere opinions. Since we are in passing through pre-referendum counting; let us try to be factual.
It looks as if it would be more correct to consider the “no” votes more than they have been declared, and the “yes” votes less than they have been declared.
If you want to make a good projection and have minimal deviation, then you have to deduct the share of hypocrisy from the “yes” votes.
There does not seem to be any reason to doubt the sincerity of those who openly say “no.” Let alone any personal expectation they may have, at least they carry the risk of being marked.
If they are not genuine “no” voters, why would they ever present themselves any different than they are? In other words, those who declare “no” is truly a “no” voter.
But the same does not apply to the “yes” voters. We can list several reasons for approaching the “yes” votes with caution. Investing in a “yes” vote may come back as an advantage. There might just be insincerity and hypocrisy involved. There may be reasons for them not to look as they are.
In this slippery and dangerous ground, even being silent is interpreted as a “no.” To look like a “yes” voter will at least repel the trouble of being marked.
In short, it would be wise not to believe in all of the “yes” declarations; there could be hidden accounts. It should be checked whether there are expectations of advantages involved.
Don’t misunderstand, I am not judging people, I am looking into the pulse of the referendum.
If the time is not suitable for sincerity, if the environment is not safe, what would an ordinary citizen who does not feel safe, do?
To avoid surprises, I want to draw your attention that while counting the “yes” votes, do not neglect the sincerity problem; otherwise you may fail in your referendum forecasts.