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

[JBCinSD]

Maybe the pollsters in NH were right. Consider these facts:

· Premier Election Solutions is the new name for Diebold - same company, same people, different name.

· Diebold is a radically pro-Republican company.

· The Republicans want to run against Hillary, not Obama.

· Diebold made the optical scanners that counted the votes in the cities (votes were counted by hand in rural areas).

· Hillary was stronger in the cities, Obama in rural areas.

· Obama's vote count was almost exactly as expected and as reported in exit polls.

· Hillary's vote count was about 10% higher than expected by everyone, including her campaign.

· All Diebold had to do was set the software to count every vote for Hillary 1.1 times and she won.


Bingo.

[bija]

If there is election fraud going on, having the polls being way different is one red flag. I would agree with Arianna if I felt sure every vote was being counted properly.

[Traveller]

In that case we would need to have all political pundits silenced as well. The fact of the matter is its a free country and people can do as they wish and want. It is up to each and every citizen to look beyond what either pollsters say or pundits predict. To look at past records of achievements of each and every candidate and be able to gauge their actions vs election rhetoric. The candidates need to have been in public service for a long enough time for citizens to recognize them and their talents. There is no magical "change" in the offing or a magical silver bullet to solve the mess we are in both internally and externally. We simply need someone committed enough to bring about small yet measurable changes in every single aspect of government that can be brought about to make progress in society.Extreme circumstances throw up strong leaders. Lets us all hope that the one who prevails in the end is indeed strong in the truest meaning of the word. T

[RossalGondamer]

The NH Recount! -Its on for this Wednesday.

What? Haven't you read that here yet?

[ptarantino]

Put the focus where it belongs on vote counting fraud.

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%


http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

[llozano]

Why not have a call to action to educate the candidates on the issues of importance to the voters? It would make more sense than to play this silly game of hang-up. I don't want to engage nor do I encourage anyone to participate in this silly neo-con type game. Aren't we already subjected to enough childishness by these interminably long campaigns? I do agree that these polls are given too much attention and credence by the media. If someone chooses to vote for someone based solely on the polls or who the media says is leading I would think that person needs some educating. The problem is that neither the media or voters either demand or ask the questions that will tell us what these candidates believe, stand for and what their plans are once they get elected.

[ArchAngel]

This is a really bad idea.

Polls are the only real way for the public to find out about what the public as a whole is thinking.

Polls are an important part of verifying elections around the world by election commissions and poll watchers.

[balance]

Polls attempt to understand people.

Unfortunately these days, pollsters behind the polls have sometimes been wrong in understanding people, and may not be asking the right questions in the right way.

There's a surplus of numbers, of statistics, of factoids, and of shallow sound-bytes. However, there is a dearth of wisdom, of maturity, of insight, and of human understanding.

This also goes for all these professional political advisors, for the media, and for the rest of the "politicials" and people in power.

Elections are about understanding people, and about the candidates understanding themselves.

[frodosbudy]

You got that right Arrianna! After watching a few elections in my time, I've always thought that polls had an effect on the outcomes. How many people decide not to vote at all after thier candidates opponent show bigger numbers? What about those who change thier candidate to another in the same party but one with higher numbers? Yep, the media has a greater affect than they admit. Why are the "top three" candidates the ones most covered and reported on, while the others get less coverage. Dodd and Biden recieved 0% in New Hampshire. Kucinich got slightly more. Because Dennis's belief in UFO's was reported on more than positions held by Dodd and Biden perhaps?

[Caniculus]

A skillfully crafted poll can yield any result.

Polls always support the political views of the people who commission them.

The wealthy use polls to manipulate the opinion of an ignorant and compliant public.

Polls perpetuate the "myth of the wasted vote," because few people will vote for someone with low polling numbers even though such candidates often best represent their views. (How many times have you heard someone say that Kucinich actually best represents their views, but they "can't" vote for him. Why?)

Polls don't measure candidate electability; polls make candidates electable (Clinton) or unelectable (Kucinich).

In New Hampshire, polls were intentionally used to amplify Clinton's marginal victory. By grossly exaggerating Obama's lead in pre-election polls, any small victory by Clinton in the election could cause Tim Russert to declare the results as one of the greatest election victories in U.S. history (which he did).

Pundits must discuss polls, because they do not discuss substance. Without polls, how would they fill their hour time slot? Consequently, how many voters really know the differences (beyond race and gender) of Obama and Clinton? Is there any significant difference? When will ALL the troops come home from Iraq?

No matter how inaccurate polls are proven to be, the MSM will continue to use them without apology. If you turn on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC right now, you will hear yet another discussion of the latest polls results. I guarantee that (within a margin of error of 3 to 5 per cent).

[buske]

If everybody would refuse participation in polls, the pollsters would just make up their results. The pollsters and the media would definitely prefer that -- if they got free hands -- so that they could push the candidate they have been told to push. Just like Obama was pushed by the lying media and the lying pollsters.

Arianna, why not go after the plot to make Obama win in New Hampshire and kill off Hillary's campaign?

See, I would like to know who's behind that. Is it the financial establishment that want to have Benito Bloomberg for president instead?

[AbsolutBlue]

I agree that polls have to loud a voice in politics. There was no "sixteen point swing" though. Most polls had Obama at an average of 36%, which he got. The unreported part was the 18% of voters who were undecided until they got to the polls. That's where the swing happened.

[Purple Girl]

I'm In MI- I've gotten one Huck call. Love their set up questions....
'Are You Pro Life?" No I'm Pro Death, I actively encourage woman to abort their pregnancies for no good reason. In fact I encourage them to stop using birthcontrol just so they can have the experience of killing a potential human. I stand outside the clinics throwing confetti and handing them champagne.
That's what also pisses me off with the loaded term "Pro Abortion" No such beast.
Let's be accurate- "Pro Life- means Pro birth at any cost, and after being born, you are screwed- so lets call them what the are
'Pro Second Comers'
There are NO SUCH THING AS PRO ABORTION ACTIVITS! Just Pro Choice.
By the way how do you charge some one with murder when the entity has not even seen life?
Granted I feel anyone who attacks a obviously pregnant mother should feel the full weight of the law ( they probably atttacked/killed her BECAUSE she pregnant- they were trying to eliminate the potential life also) should be sentenced to the full extent of the law But for a criminal to be charge with the loss of life they had no idea was being inncubated inside the obvious victim is ludicrious! Complication is pregnangcy and birth alone make it impossible to determine if that would have resulted in a live birth, plus they would have to have prior knowledge of the pregnancy- if it's not visually apparent.
I do support the cut of for non essential abortion to 20 weeks, but am horrified when the life of the living is over ridden by the life "that maybe". A mothers life should always take priority- she has a LIFE.
Needless to say I'm ready to screw them up any way I can- esp considering our f*cked up ballot limitations for the Dems (of course I'm voting Dennis anyway-still on it!)

[not one of the sheep]

The problem is that the "news" media has gone to the 24 hour time line and has all those slots to fill. If there isn't enough "news" to report then they will generate and produce "news". This has helped to try to validate the pollsters opinions. What a waste.

[vbond]

I really love The Huffington Post, and I have tremendous respect for you, Arianna, but this is a wrong-headed idea.

1. The only way that it can possibly work is if massive numbers of people LIE about their intentions. Simply refusing to answer would require a truly insane number, because a very high percentage of people ALREADY refuse to answer, or are otherwise unavailable.

2. Elections ARE "horseraces." They are by definition competitions between opponents seeking a prize: the right and power to govern. You may not like this, but if the ongoing competitive nature of elections were diminished in this way, many fewer people would even monitor the process, and thereby get at least SOME exposure to real issues. In any case, the horserace mataphor would be maintained by other measures, even if polls ceased to exist, or to be reported (see 5).

3. It is simply not true that the vacuum created by the absence of polling results (and the interactions they engender) would somehow lead to more discussion of the "issues." Look at the ridiculous "discussion" that has taken place regarding healthcare mandates. Try repeating that meager discourse on a national level for just a few of the most important "issues." Let's see... cancel the polling blather and replace it with thoughtful discussions of the fifty most important issues. We would need at least 100 Bill Moyers just to get started... Which brings me to the next point:

4. THE major motivation that most people have to take any interest whatsoever in "issues" beyond their immediate existence is the competition of an election. Thoughtful discussions of the issues are available everywhere, and they play to relatively "empty houses." The main stream media is a perennial culprit here, but their culpability declines with every CSPAN broadcast or Huffington Post article. Which brings me to this:

5. Will you stop reporting on the polls at The Huffington Post? The answer is: no you won't, because what people think - or even seem to think - is and will always be news... and important news at that.