Say "No" to Pollsters!: a HuffPost Call to Action

In 1996, Harry Shearer and I founded the Partnership for a Poll-Free America, a campaign urging people to hang up on the pollsters who are polluting our political environment by dominating media coverage, influencing election outcomes, and turning our political leaders into slavish followers.

We were able to get a few thousand people to take our Say No to Pollsters pledge but, at the time, the Huffington Post wasn't even a glimmer in my eye, and "going viral" was still something that required a visit to the doctor.

In the dozen years since then, the problems caused by polling have only gotten worse.

Today's political landscape is littered with media mavens who insist on treating polling results as if Moses just brought them down from the mountaintop. And reporters have become addicted to the ease of reporting the latest horse-race results as if they were actual news.

Look at the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, when the political conversation (including here on HuffPost) was dominated by polls that turned out to be wildly inaccurate. USA Today had Obama up by 13 points just two days before he lost by three. A sixteen-point swing -- in 48 hours -- is, I trust, beyond the "margin or error." And please don't tell me it was the result of Hillary getting misty.

But even if they had been right, do we want our political debate dominated not by issues but by who is up and who is down, who is hot and who is not?

No wonder politicians have become pathological people pleasers, addicted to the short-term buzz of a bump in the polls, who can't even get dressed in the morning without consulting the latest numbers.

But we can't expect these polling junkies -- both in the media and those running for office -- to kick the habit on their own. We have to stage an intervention. And it's as easy as hanging up your phone. Response rates are already abysmally low -- often dropping below 25%. So if enough of us refuse to answer, the polling data will become so unrepresentative and unreliable even the media would have to admit it was useless.

So I'm asking you to sign our Say No to Pollsters petition.

It's fast, it's easy, and it can be very effective. In fact, if everyone who signs the petition also gets everyone they know in states with upcoming primaries to sign the petition too, it can have an immediate impact on the way the 2008 race is reported on and run.

By just saying "No" to pollsters any time they call, we can force our leaders -- and the reporters who cover them -- to start thinking for themselves again. Starting here. Starting now.

So sign the petition and Say "No" to Pollsters! And send it to everyone you know in Nevada, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida. Remember: Friends Don't Let Friends Talk to Pollsters!

Sign up now!

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[bacaangel]

Exit polls were right in 2000-Gore; 2004-Kerry, 2008-Obama. It is the voting machines that are being tampered with. And until we go back to hand counting ballots elections will continue to be orchestrated by those in power and not by the people.

[bacaangel]

It should be NO to DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES and YES to going back to hand counting paper ballots put in boxes!

[kristin]

Saying no to polsters is blaming the messenger. The message that polls indicated is that we must have paper ballots and hand counting. We know that optical scanners that count paper ballots can easily be hacked. If just suspicion of that occurs, people will lose faith that this is a democracy. Let's listen to the messenger, not blame her.

[kristin]

Say YES to paper ballots, hand counted. Saying no to reporting the results of polls is blaming the messenger. As an election worker, I have seen evidence of how easy it is to hack the optical scanners (the vote counting machines of paper ballots).

[johnnycanuck]

Now....now­...my Dear Women.....­..

[CanuckColumnist]

I think this Say No To Pollsters campaign is a very smart idea. Polls only serve to polarize and distort the situation. The only poll that matters is the one taken by all voters on election day.

Apart from this, almost every polling company has an ax to grind and is biased. So, depending on pollsters, you'll get "results" that are slanted one way or the other.

[angel66]

This is hilarious. Stop the pollsters? How about STOP THE MEDIA that keeps reporting these numbers endlessly.

They're not scientific. And the media needs to get out of the way.

[lvogt]

Computer ballots are not believable.

HuffPo should beat the drum to eliminate computer voting.

[lowdowndog]

The polls gave Hillary NH. After Iowa, she turned her campaign around in 5 days and worked non-stop to win. Give credit where it is due. It makes me mad that instead of congratulating her for winning, I've seen silly theories that try to explain away her victory. "Bradley Effect" (says that people are bigots and lie to pollsters) "Spiral of Silence" (says that women are afraid of their husbands and lie to pollsters). What a load of do-do. Media pundits should be eating crow and instead they are blaming women for their stupid predictions. http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/12/media-pundits-insulting-voters-now-because-being-wrong-wasnt-enough/ Good old fashioned door to door campaigning, tirelessly taking questions, passionately caring about peoples lives and giving them confidence in her ability to fight for them, this is what worked for her. She also had a canvassing army from Bill’s NH primary of get out the vote people knocking on doors and changing people’s hearts and minds. The facts are that the women and the working class, the democratic base, chose her over Obama and gave her a win. Zogby, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/polling-the-new-hampshire_b_80657.html lists several reasons why the polls were off, but the most intriguing was that some of the independents who would have voted for Obama voted for McCain to stop Romney because the polls said Obama would win. Pollsters don’t want to admit that they influenced the vote, but they did. Plus, there were 18% undecided voters that were difficult to factor in. One more point: idiots like Chris Matthews were dancing on Hillary's grave all day and mocking her "tears." He pissed off the women and they voted for Hillary because he is a sexist a-hole.

[bobzil]

This is the first time I've agreed with Arianna (Say no to pollsters). I use the answering machine. Pollsters will hang up on an anwering machine. I get three or four a day especially during dinner hours.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Exit polls should be conducted by respected locals with a vested interest in having their towns' votes properly counted. Best as I can tell this is the case for the most part, which is why large discrepancies are prima facie evidence of vote tampering.

If you've not heard the testimony by the man hired to develop a prototype for fixing elections via Diebold machines you need to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecdkCVD7mM

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

How about we just say no to bogus polls? Such as the ones that referred to Giuliani as a "front runner" for months when NOBODY LIKES HIM. The buzz in the gossip circuit is that he never REALLY polled any higher than ten percent.

Hmmm . . . come to think of it, those same polls showed Hillary as a "frontrunner" when half the country can't STAND the woman. How much does it cost to bribe a polling outfit, anyway? Maybe we should Just Say No to that.

[Lasthorseman]

Sibel Edmonds revelations, a NH election recount and now Japan may pull out of the global war of terror. May the light of God shineth!
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3710

[godlessclif]

Not having polls opens the door to ballot box stuffing with no consequences.

Go Obama! stuff those votes.

[BillCarson]

For those talking about a recount, there's an interesting article over at blackboxvoting:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

From the Article:

Kucinich stepping into trap with recount?

New Hampshire Election Integrity Advocate Nancy Tobi: "We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."

"The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit."

-----

If fraud was involved it's unlikely to be discovered with a simple hand recount.