Hmmm... it tells us nothing of the Incumbent. Neither does it say anything abt the Alternatives.
Lets say a new lemon 17-40L (already famed for its wide-opened sharpness & value-for-money) happened to land in the hands of a reviewer, one with extensive contacts in the photographic industry & rather influential, says that Canon actually used radioactive materials in production of the 17-40L. Something which is close to impossible to verify (except known to ppl within the industry) even if some rocket scientist forumer has a Geiger Meter and u hear everyone all abuzz about this famed EOS L that's possibly laced with radioactive material.
Would u choose to believe it? :think: And what do u think it says of Canon?
I get your analogy, but is really stretched.
Allow me to answer using the original situation of vote tracking. Yes, such a claim would get my attention.
Would I choose to believe it? I believe it if there is proof of it happening.
What do I think it says of the incumbent party? It shows that people actually believe that the party would deploy such tactics, and would vote out of fear.
I am not clutching at straws here, I am a civil servant and and a substantial number of my collegues supported the incumbent party more out of fear for their rice bowl.
Of course, I'm not saying that the incumbent is resposible for spreading these myths, if people actually believed that they are whiter than white, then why do these myths endure?
Or in your analogy, if Canon has proven itself with a track record, any false accusations will fall sooner or later.